Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> On 4 Mar 2004 08:29:15 -0800,
[email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Let's break it down:
> >
> >Very few MTBers ride 50 miles in a day (on dirt/trails). I can think of ONE that MAY have done
> >that a few times. Let's call that, to be very generous, 0.1% of the MTB population. Such a small
> >percentage as to be negligible. This is assuming that the "50-mile MTBer" is not just a plain
> >fabrication.
> >
> >(Query to a.m-b.: has anyone ever ridden 50 miles in a day - on
> >trails?)
> >
> There are only a small percentage of people in general who are willing/capable of riding 50 miles
> on a road on any type of bicycle. Amongst those who call themselves "cyclists" it is much higher,
> but only a few of those who own bicycles _are_ cyclists.
Since Mr. Hickey says that there are folks who do it, I will retract the "fabrication" charge. I'd
guess they are not riding tight, up-down-up-down singletrack, but more flat trails. I'm pretty sure
I could ride 50 road miles without too much trouble, but no damn way I could do 50 trail miles
around these parts. Now, if it were smooth doubletrack or fire roads, then we could talk...
In any case, I still say that 0.1% of the total MTB population is a generous, very
conservative figure.
> >The suggestion is that the "typical" hiker hikes about 5 miles. First logical failure - comparing
> >the extraordinary MTBer with the ordinary hiker.
> >
> See my earlier post, many hikers go further than this.
Yes, and many more do not. The vast majority of hikers are hobbyists.
I don't have to hike far to get away from most all folks. I saw your
post, and most agree, but I am talking about sheer volume of people.
> >Second logic failure - comparing the 95th percentile mountain biker with the "typical hiker,"
> >that is, those MTBers that might travel 20 round-trip miles.
> >
> Shading the numbers one way for one group, and the other way for the second group, is hardly
> objective scientific analysis. But, consider the source.
Of course. When one is making a point, one must fudge as much as possible. That's why his website is
mostly opinion and self-referential, and very little actual science. "See my website" is a favorite
dodge, as if his website is authoritative on anything except his opinion. Circular reasoning at it's
most obvious.
> >The basis for science is observation. "Observing" USENET denizens for accurate, representative
> >trail useage info is not science. From direct observation of the mountain biker/hiker useage in
> >this area, the "damage" being done by hikers is very roughly ten times what is done by MTBers.
>
> One person's observations do not make science, especially when EVERYTHING is viewed through a
> partisan lens.
False. One's person's observations DO make science, BUT - it must have proper controls and be peer-
reviewed to be credible. Human biases can never be removed. While I do not have anything more than
anecdotal evidence for my hypothesis, I feel it is a fairly strong one. Certainly, if there was
enough interest, and a grant, I could do a controlled study, and publish it in a real journal
somewhere.
> GOOD science, by definition, is repeatable by a completely independent, perhaps skeptical,
> scientist in the same field.
This comment and your previous one are not mutually exclusive. Note that I am not actually
arguing with you, more like clarifying the process, from a researcher's point of view. (In an
actual, hard science.)
> Mikey is trying to cloth his opinions as science, the same process where we are to assume that a
> PhD in one discipline denotes knowledge in a completely different field without question.
I'm not sure who he's trying to fool. Land managers don't get into those positions by being idiots,
and it doesn't take much thought to understand that a person with a PhD completely outside the scope
of what a land manager controls has very little credibility.
Anyone with a real science background can complete deflate and dismiss Mike's rantings. It's just
not that difficult. And while USENET is a place where you can shift arguments, change subjects, call
names and be a general asshole, in the real world, science is a place where those sorts of antics
don't do anything but destroy credibility. That's why real scientists just laugh at Mike's
assertions.
--
R.F. Jones
