Hi,
I refer you to an old thread that I just happened to stumble upon:
I read through this thread from top to bottom with some degree of
amusement. I encountered the usual characteristics of cyber-skirmishes
including clashes of ego and arguments rife with logical fallacies
particularly ... Non Sequitur - stating, as a conclusion, something
that does not strictly follow from the premise and Red Herring -
introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question
at hand.
Understand that I like speed. I ride a tricked out titanium road bike.
At age 50, I clocked a 4 hour 43 minute century averaging 21mph, so
one might expect me to be on the speed side of this argument. To the
contrary, I am not. I feel that equating the cycling experience solely
with speed in the purchase and/or enjoyment of the bicycle is a myopic
point of view.
Mr. Bacon's premise is that the bicycle is chosen because it allows a
human being to travel faster. This is a logical fallacy known as Dicto
simpliciter (spoken simply) - making a sweeping statement and expecting
it to be true of every specific case. I disagree with Mr. Bacon's
premise that the motivating factor in the selection of a bicycle is
speed in each and every purchase. Whereas speed may be the motivating
factor in the selection of a bicycle for Mr. Bacon, it does not
logically follow that speed is the motivating factor for everyone in
the selection of a bicycle. It is reasonable to assume that there are
more motivating factors than speed that enter into a purchasing
decision. Anyone who has ever purchased a bicycle, for which the
motivating factor was not speed, prove Mr. Bacon's premise to be
invalid. If speed were the sole motivating factor in the selection of
a bicycle, one would think that through a process of section, those
bikes that are not all that fast would no longer be available for
purchased, but they are ... cruisers, unicycles, tricycles, etc.,
whereas fewer bicycle shops carry racing bikes ... road or track. Why?
This is just a matter of supply and demand economics. Fewer cyclists
are buying them simply because not all cyclists are preoccupied with
speed.
Toward the end of his argument Mr. Bacon decides that a survey will
prove his point by availing himself of another logical fallacy know as
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers) - an attempt to
prove something by showing how many people think that something is true
or right. No matter how many people believe something, that doesn't
necessarily make it true or right and consequently the survey results
cannot be construed as supportive of Mr. Bacon's premise. An opinion
does not a fact make, nor does repetition of an opinion prove a
premise. This logical fallacy is known as Argumentum ad nauseam
(argument to the point of disgust by way of repetition). Repetition
does not make what is repeated any more or less true than it was
initially. Repetition is no substitute for argumentation.
Mr. Bacon, please understand that I meant no disrespect. You have an
opinion that some here do not hold ... an opinion, which cannot be
substantiated. It can be said that speed may enter into the purchasing
decision and the enjoyment of a bicycle, but it cannot be said that
speed is the ONLY motivating factor in the purchase of the bicycle or
in the enjoyment of the cycling experience. Rather than belabor your
argument, perhaps it would be more prudent to recognize the validity of
the opposing view. For a slightly different take on all this, I invite
you to continue reading.
I have a somewhat different philosophy than most when it comes to
cycling. I feel that we should be united by what we do and not divided
by why we do it or what we do it on. I call that unity through
diversity. We should understand that we are different from another
and purchase and ride a bicycle for different reasons. We even ride
different types of bicycles (road, mountain, recumbent, etc.), but none
of this changes one important fact. We are all cyclists. What I would
like to address here is something that has not been touched upon ...
the notion that if each of you were to return to this thread say 20
years from now, some might find themselves disagreeing with the opinion
that they posted. Sound preposterous? Understand that how we view the
bicycle itself and the reason that we ride changes over time. I once
read an article in Bicycling Magazine that pretty much summed up my
feelings. It focused on a concept called "health-centerdness". The
basic premise went something like this...
Why do you ride a bike? Perhaps you ride to lose weight, or to stay
healthy, or to become physically fit, or to manage stress, or even to
enjoy nature and the outdoors. Many who ride are in search of
something that could be best described as "health-centerdness" ... a
harmonious mind/body connection of emotional and physical fulfillment.
Certainly cycling is physically rewarding. It is an activity that
burns calories and strengthens the heart and lungs. It tones the
muscles and makes one less susceptible to certain diseases. On the
flip side, cycling can also be emotionally (psychologically) rewarding.
It can relieve stress, increase awareness, stimulate the creative
thought process, and heighten self-esteem.
It takes an evolutionary process to recognize the many facets and
benefits of the cycling experience. New riders are smitten by the
mechanical wonder of the bicycle. As skills develop, the cyclist
becomes a victim of the intoxicating aspects of the body/machine
interface ... balance, speed, and maneuverability. As endurance and
muscle strength develop, the challenge of going farther and/or faster
become paramount. Somewhere along the line though, often a transition
gradually takes place, and the primary motivation for cycling becomes
more psychological than a physical. The cyclist learns to value the
meditative calm of a solitary ride. Over time, the simple motion of
just tuning the pedals over somehow gives perspective to the cyclist's
life. Cycling imparts a certain peace of body and mind. The cyclist
who has reached this stage, may still ride hard and experience the
exhilaration of physical effort, but he or she will also ride just for
the pure enjoyment of the activity itself, unencumbered by self-imposed
goals of speed and/or mileage. The former can bring the cyclist
fitness, whereas the latter can bring the cyclist fulfillment. It is
this intriguing dualistic nature that makes cycling so appealing to me.
Why one rides is not a question that's easily answered. The cyclist
who has been around the block a few times should realize that what
motivates one to ride changes over time as the cyclist learns to
appreciate the many facets of cycling that can be embraced and enjoyed.
Why ride? Why not ... there is a bike, there is a road, there is the
time, and there is no reason to deny oneself the fulfillment that
extends from the starting point to the horizon that beckons.
I apologize my long-windedness. I hope someone found this read
worthwhile.
Jim McNamara