Mr. Iowa Metropolis doesn't 'think' an urban cyclist ever travels on roads that have sparse enough traffic to ride centerish in the lane! Now that's about as funny as HH assuming that everyplace is like San Diego.

Sorry to throw water on your Klass Kutup funny bones but my cycling experiences includes cycling over 25 years in Philadelphia; as well as Chicago, Seattle, NYC; and 10 years in various German, French and Dutch cities. As well as many years of cycling in rural OR, IL and IA. And not only have I been around, I learned something while doing it - Klass Clowns may think they are being clever, but it is seldom a fact. George Carlin, you are not. Better stick to ringing bells while dressed as Santa.

Riding in the right half of a NOL works fine for me on lower speed roads. But on higher speed roads, I find that motorists will change lanes sooner when I'm in the center of a NOL compared to the right half. I'm too lazy to link to the post in another thread where I mentioned that observation.
This is how is works for me as well for cycling NOLs. In fact I think it was Brian who advised to try center vs. center/right bias for faster NOLs.

Al

Mr. Iowa Metropolis doesn't 'think' an urban cyclist ever travels on roads that have sparse enough traffic to ride centerish in the lane! Now that's about as funny as HH assuming that everyplace is like San Diego. Are you sure that you and HH are not the same person, two-sides of the same coin, perhaps a little Sybil thing going on?

The guy Bek saw was either an idiot, or a noob trying HH's DLP with a bit of YOUR distortions of the concept thrown in. Don't lay this all on HH, you and Bek are doing a fine job ensuring that anything he tries to outline is distorted enough to ENSURE it's dangerous. Good job, be proud of yourself. Did it ever cross your mind to maybe outline what you think is the 'right' way to ride in traffic, rather than to just confuse folks by distorting other's attempts to do so? I didn't think so. You're dismissed, as usual.
Kewl post dood. And it meant a lot more coming from the north pole.

Do you remember "nattering nabobs of negativism"? I think it's time to ressurect that term!

Sorry to throw water on your Klass Kutup funny bones but my cycling experiences includes cycling over 25 years in Philadelphia; as well as Chicago, Seattle, NYC; and 10 years in various German, French and Dutch cities. As well as many years of cycling in rural OR, IL and IA. And not only have I been around, I learned something while doing it - Klass Clowns may think they are being clever, but it is seldom a fact. George Carlin, you are not. Better stick to ringing bells while dressed as Santa.
But you NEVER NEVER NEVER share your alleged wisdom with us people. I guess you don't think we're worthy of your insights and experience. I've only been cycling for 3.5 years and I don't claim to be an expert (usually). Contrarian opinions have great value, IMO, and I would really value the opportunity to learn something from your experience, but alas.... If the only thing you do is criticize, you quickly lose all credibility. I mean, if you believe VC is so dangerous, provide us with some examples based on your own experiences.

Correction: I remember that ONE time, months ago, you did say some things about your riding. I remember (hope I'm not misquoting) that you talked about your commute on a busy state highway, and how you coped with the heavy traffic. I remember that you said something about riding on the shoulder, and provided some tips for doing so. So how about more of that and less of the mudslinging and personal attacks? I mean, once in a while your attacks are pretty funny, but mostly they just make me...feel like crap.

Sorry to get so off topic, everybody.

Don't make me call in the basketball playing gorilas and see if they know how to ride a bike!

Kewl post dood. And it meant a lot more coming from the north pole.

Do you remember "nattering nabobs of negativism"? I think it's time to ressurect that term!
Sure I do. Came from a guy who also thought his ideas and opinions were above reproach and were not subject to criticism. In fact he also indulged in ad hominum attacks to defend crappy policies. Liked to castigate anyone who dared to criticize his boss' secret plans for dealing with foes. Had to leave town quick when caught taking cash at the VP residence (or was it the WH) from contractors for favors received. Was Spiro your role model?

I remember that you said something about riding on the shoulder, and provided some tips for doing so.
You "remember" wrong about my riding on shoulders. You also forgot my little reminder about logical thinking.

It is the responsibility of those making claims and assertions to substantiate them if they are to be considered as anything other than opinions and or guesses. It is not the responsibility of skeptics to disprove the assertions or provide an alternative solution.

Sorry to throw water on your Klass Kutup funny bones but my cycling experiences includes cycling over 25 years in Philadelphia; as well as Chicago, Seattle, NYC; and 10 years in various German, French and Dutch cities. As well as many years of cycling in rural OR, IL and IA. And not only have I been around, I learned something while doing it - Klass Clowns may think they are being clever, but it is seldom a fact. George Carlin, you are not. Better stick to ringing bells while dressed as Santa.

Hook, line, sinker - thanks! Yeah, I'm just a dumb ole class clown who attacked your precious ego, to which you reacted, predictably, to attempt to establish your credentials. Now that you've done so, perhaps you want to admit that you dynamically postion yourself when riding based on the conditions, as most of us do and which is what your 'DLP' is, after all, despite the distortions you and your alter-ego want to attach. Perhaps you'd also like to admit that, even in 'urban' areas there are times when conditions allow one to ride centerish in the lane quite safely, despite your attempts to delude everyone that you are a gutter-hugger.

You ain't the only one who's been around the block a few times, bright boy. :p

Just in my defense, not that I feel defensive about anything, is that I started an Advocacy and Safety thread about Rainier Ave S a few weeks ago, and used it as an example of a roadway with adequate, well designed bicycle facilities. We did discuss the 'best' or 'correct' way of riding this road first.

I'm not trying to attack you Bek, and I do understand your frustration, but I also know that you know darn well that what you saw had nothing to do with DLP, if that's the word for today. We all adjust our lane position based on the conditions, WOL or no WOL. Even HH conceeded that DLP doesn't mean weaving in and out willy-nilly and is more suitable for light traffic that to steady traffic.

Kewl post dood. And it meant a lot more coming from the north pole.

Do you remember "nattering nabobs of negativism"? I think it's time to ressurect that term!

I remember when you thought I was the troll! ;)

ILTB's problem is obvious, he wants to be the guru and feels the need to attack HH for infringing on his turf - you know, alpha dawg or jilted girlfriend kind of stuff. Both he and HH say things I can both agree and disagree with, but with HH I don't have deal with the chip on the shoulder and the amateur intellectual facade.

You "remember" wrong about my riding on shoulders. You also forgot my little reminder about logical thinking.

It is the responsibility of those making claims and assertions to substantiate them if they are to be considered as anything other than opinions and or guesses. It is not the responsibility of skeptics to disprove the assertions or provide an alternative solution.

Hogwash, I don't see a sign here saying 'ILTB makes the rules'. Everybody is on an even keel here and lacking cites...hell even with cites, most of what is shared in these forums IS opinion. If you want to be skeptical of someone's opinion, great, but if you want to be considered more than just a troll, jilted girlfriend or frustrated wannabe guru, you gotta support your own counter-opinions.

I remember when you thought I was the troll! ;)

ILTB's problem is obvious, he wants to be the guru and feels the need to attack HH for infringing on his turf - you know, alpha dawg or jilted girlfriend kind of stuff. Both he and HH say things I can both agree and disagree with, but with HH I don't have deal with the chip on the shoulder and the amateur intellectual facade.
I still think you're a troll. Just you're a lot cuter.

I'm a able practitioner of dynamic positioning, and on Rainier Ave S there is certainly cause to take the lane if forward road dynamics indicate it,

but, and this is the point of this thread,

The biker that was using the dance of the sugar plum fairies or whatever traffic positioning 'theory' that led him to use the center of the lane was a farce.

Farce "exagerated comedy, absurd pretence."

Unsafe, unvehicular, and patently incorrect, using an absurd pretence for his positioning. This biker, in using a center traffic lane bias and ignoring the usable and safe real estate to his right, yet still 'yielding to traffic approaching from the rear', caused disruptions to the traffic flow.


I posted about his riding and the resulting effects on traffic, to refute, to debunk the bad advice I've seen in the A&S forum about DLP in the center of high speed roadways even with usable, buffered bike lanes, 5 foot paved, swept shoulders, WOLs etc.

I chose to post about a bicyclist using some whack logic while needlessly endangering both himself and the other users of the roadway.

I still think you're a troll. Just you're a lot cuter.

Shoulda seen how cute I was when I was just a wittle troll:
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~hsieh/photos/iceland/is-troll.jpg

I don't have deal with the chip on the shoulder and the amateur intellectual facade.
Heck no. And don't have to deal with no stinkin' logic either. Just say/believe anything at all and it's true unless proven otherwise. No rules of logic needed here for Klass Klowns or self appointed alpha dog scientists/ lawyers.

Heck no. And don't have to deal with no stinkin' logic either. Just say/believe anything at all and it's true unless proven otherwise. No rules of logic needed here for Klass Klowns or self appointed alpha dog scientists/ lawyers.
Why do you take everything so personally? This is an internet forum, not a job. Take a deep breath and count to 10. (In binary, so your computer will understand.)

And why do you keep flaming HH? He isn't even online to defend himself. Oh....

you forgot a few.. what if the driver dropped their McDonalds french fry, or lit cigarette... what if they were applying cosmetics, brushing hair or teeth, picking their nose... on and on ad nauseam



And, if all of the above and the other earlier listed factors come into play at exactly the point in the time-space continuum where I am riding and not positioned safely, unable to see behind myself and unwilling or unable to take appropriate evasive action or can't get the attention of the motorist; I guess I'm the subject of a local "Cyclist Killed" news article. :(

However, I believe I will continue to take the risk of riding in traffic while doing everything I can, including if necessary, scampering away like a scared puppy, to avoid situations which might cause me pain, suffering or death :) I'll likely be the only "guru" I will consult and I will act based on the circumstances at hand.

Yesterday in my town a driver bent over to pick up something while driving and ran into a fire truck. You'd think he might notice a fire truck in his path and consider not bending over to pick something up, but no.

I think we're all screwed unless those drivers start driving and stop doing whatever the heck else they're doing.

I'm a able practitioner of dynamic positioning, and on Rainier Ave S there is certainly cause to take the lane if forward road dynamics indicate it,

but, and this is the point of this thread,

The biker that was using the dance of the sugar plum fairies or whatever traffic positioning 'theory' that led him to use the center of the lane was a farce.

Farce "exagerated comedy, absurd pretence."

Unsafe, unvehicular, and patently incorrect, using an absurd pretence for his positioning. This biker, in using a center traffic lane bias and ignoring the usable and safe real estate to his right, yet still 'yielding to traffic approaching from the rear', caused disruptions to the traffic flow.
I agree.


I posted about his riding and the resulting effects on traffic, to refute, to debunk the bad advice I've seen in the A&S forum about DLP in the center of high speed roadways even with usable, buffered bike lanes, 5 foot paved, swept shoulders, WOLs etc.
You forgot the all-important AND in the absence of faster traffic.


I chose to post about a bicyclist using some whack logic while needlessly endangering both himself and the other users of the roadway.
Because he was doing it wrong, based on your description.

I mean, if drivers were slowing down a bit, that's one thing (I would say a good thing). But slowing down drastically and swerving to avoid him? That's probably not good.

On the other hand, what if someone was driving a bulldozer at 15 mph as far right as practicable on this road, perhaps straddling the bike lane? How would the slowing down and "swerving" be any different from what you observed? Would it seem as dangerous to you? Or did it only seem dangerous because it was caused by a bicyclist, and wouldn't seem dangerous if the same behavior in the drivers would have been caused by a bulldozer?

Yesterday in my town a driver bent over to pick up something while driving and ran into a fire truck. You'd think he might notice a fire truck in his path and consider not bending over to pick something up, but no.

I think we're all screwed unless those drivers start driving and stop doing whatever the heck else they're doing.
Since we're not living in Utopia, we can't eliminate danger.
All we can do is improve our odds.

Are we just as vulnerable to inadvertent drift from the guy who doesn't even notice a fire truck in his path before he looks down? Of course.

But does that mean we should give up trying to be less vulnerable to those who will not notice us if we're off to the side, but will notice us if we're up ahead in their intended path, and will decide not to address a distraction if they do notice us?

Just asking...

The guy Bek saw was either an idiot, or a noob trying HH's DLP with a bit of YOUR distortions of the concept thrown in. Don't lay this all on HH, you and Bek are doing a fine job ensuring that anything he tries to outline is distorted enough to ENSURE it's dangerous. Good job, be proud of yourself. Did it ever cross your mind to maybe outline what you think is the 'right' way to ride in traffic, rather than to just confuse folks by distorting other's attempts to do so? I didn't think so. You're dismissed, as usual.
Wow. Thank you.

I think we're all screwed unless those drivers start driving and stop doing whatever the heck else they're doing.

Or stop driving and start doing whatever the heck else they're doing? :)

Heck no. And don't have to deal with no stinkin' logic either. Just say/believe anything at all and it's true unless proven otherwise. No rules of logic needed here for Klass Klowns or self appointed alpha dog scientists/ lawyers.

But your jilted lover rhetoric is logical I suppose?

But your jilted lover rhetoric is logical I suppose?
Always the Klown. With a "clever" response appropriate from a Klown

Always the Klown. With a "clever" response appropriate from a Klown

Better a Klown than than a 'Sour Stanley' :p

Always the Klown. With a "clever" response appropriate from a Klown

Better a Klown than than a 'Sour Stanley' :p

I'm so glad my kids don't carry on like you two :rolleyes:

Yesterday in my town a driver bent over to pick up something while driving and ran into a fire truck. You'd think he might notice a fire truck in his path and consider not bending over to pick something up, but no.


the most obnoxious one I've seen so far is this woman driving at 5 pm at peak traffic and eating yogurt (from one of those plastic cups) with a spoon! well, who's gonna take care of the wheel, lady?! and what about them eyes on the road for a change, eh?!

I'm so glad my kids don't carry on like you two :rolleyes:
Well I agree it is foolish to carry on this way. It would be nice to be able to have an intelligent debate about cycling advocacy/safety with people who when they lack a relevant response don't substitute with wisecracks and ad hominem arguments. It would also be nice to discuss issues with posters who recognize that the relevancy of a response is not directly related to how much it agrees with the poster's views.

But some posters seem to have some other sort of goal and different concepts of relevancy and methods of discussion/debate.

Well I agree it is foolish to carry on this way. It would be nice to be able to have an intelligent debate about cycling advocacy/safety with people who when they lack a relevant response don't substitute with wisecracks and ad hominem arguments. It would also be nice to discuss issues with posters who recognize that the relevancy of a response is not directly related to how much it agrees with the poster's views.

But some posters seem to have some other sort of goal and different concepts of relevancy and methods of discussion/debate.
You seem to be the main target of your own diatribe, sir.

You seem to be the main target of your own diatribe, sir.
Not at all, Sir. Occasionaly when provoked I react. I usually try to ignore the jokers who post ad hominem arguments, but occasionally respond to them . For the most part the moderators seem to me to be overly tolerant of those few zealots who dominate this list and promote their assertions, opinions, theories and dogma with personal attacks (real insults, not just disagreements) on anyone who has the temerity to not take their precious beliefs as Gospel or as seriously as they do. Then again there are a couple posters whose main goal appears to be shuckin' and jivin'. Ignoring such jesters posts is a good recommendation.

And I'm sure the BSers will continue to repeat, over and over, the same unsubstantiated assertions, opinions, theories and dogma and continue to defend the BS with ad hominem and other illogical arguments in the absence of any facts or data.

Logical arguments do not require facts or data.

Logical arguments are comprised of premises, reason, and conclusions.
If the premises are accepted, and the reasoning sound, then the conclusions are valid.

To reject a conclusion of a logical argument one must show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, or, if it does, explain why it is unreasonable to accept the premises.

Logical arguments do not require facts or data.

Logical arguments are comprised of premises, reason, and conclusions.
If the premises are accepted, and the reasoning sound, then the conclusions are valid.

To reject a conclusion of a logical argument one must show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, or, if it does, explain why it is unreasonable to accept the premises.
Maybe in the circles you travel in "Logical arguments do not require facts or data."
And also in that circle, accepting any and all premises (no matter how proposterous) is a requirement for all others, until real facts or data can be produced (by someone) proving the falsity of the premise.

If you actually believe that it is no wonder you think you are constantly misunderstood.

Not at all, Sir. Occasionaly when provoked I react. I usually try to ignore the jokers who post ad hominem arguments, but occasionally respond to them . For the most part the moderators seem to me to be overly tolerant of those few zealots who dominate this list and promote their assertions, opinions, theories and dogma with personal attacks (real insults, not just disagreements) on anyone who has the temerity to not take their precious beliefs as Gospel or as seriously as they do. Then again there are a couple posters whose main goal appears to be shuckin' and jivin'. Ignoring such jesters posts is a good recommendation.

And I'm sure the BSers will continue to repeat, over and over, the same unsubstantiated assertions, opinions, theories and dogma and continue to defend the BS with ad hominem and other illogical arguments in the absence of any facts or data.

Examples of "unsubstantiated assertions, opinions, theories and dogma" and "defense of BS with ad hominem and other illogical arguments in the absence of any facts or data" made by I-Like-To-Bike in this thread alone:


Post #8 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1885387&postcount=8).

How 'bout if some other poster critiques and criticizes every cyclist on the forum and elsewhere in the world who doesn't agree with his convoluted ideas and opinions of proper form? Is it OK if you (alone)share those ideas and opinions?

Post #13 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1887022&postcount=13)


You have got to be joking.
Nope. I mean you and your mentor.

Post #21 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1887733&postcount=21)

I would think that a cyclist using the dynamic lane positioning technique, CORRECTLY, as has been described by its progenitor, WOULD look like a drunken fool to anyone not versed in the Book of Gracious Cycling.

Post #27 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1888130&postcount=27)

Depends on the vehicle speed and if there is also traffic running along side and/or behind the approaching vehicle. 4 sec isn't all that much time. Unless the road is virtually empty with a motor vehicle only appearing every now and then as found on some rural roads, I don't think an urban cyclist would ever be able to practice this theory without placing himself at greater risk. All for no known reason except to avoid the San Diego drift.

Post #41 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1889136&postcount=41)

Yeah, but that was last week. After being auditioned on BF and other Internet discussion lists on the road, the names may be different this week. Expect a few more name changes before the "correct names" hit the big time and are published in the upcoming opus "The Gracious Cyclist with Attitude".

Post #51 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1889747&postcount=51)

Sorry to throw water on your Klass Kutup funny bones but my cycling experiences includes cycling over 25 years in Philadelphia; as well as Chicago, Seattle, NYC; and 10 years in various German, French and Dutch cities. As well as many years of cycling in rural OR, IL and IA. And not only have I been around, I learned something while doing it - Klass Clowns may think they are being clever, but it is seldom a fact. George Carlin, you are not. Better stick to ringing bells while dressed as Santa.

Post #65 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1890725&postcount=65)

And don't have to deal with no stinkin' logic either. Just say/believe anything at all and it's true unless proven otherwise. No rules of logic needed here for Klass Klowns or self appointed alpha dog scientists/ lawyers.

Post #75 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1892813&postcount=75)

Always the Klown. With a "clever" response appropriate from a Klown

Post #79 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1893641&postcount=79)

It would also be nice to discuss issues with posters who recognize that the relevancy of a response is not directly related to how much it agrees with the poster's views.

But some posters seem to have some other sort of goal and different concepts of relevancy and methods of discussion/debate.



Examples of "unsubstantiated assertions, opinions, theories and dogma" and "defense of BS with ad hominem and other illogical arguments in the absence of any facts or data" made by someone besides I-Like-To-Bike:
(none)

Maybe in the circles you travel in "Logical arguments do not require facts or data."
And also in that circle, accepting any and all premises (no matter how proposterous) is a requirement for all others, until real facts or data can be produced (by someone) proving the falsity of the premise.

If you actually believe that it is no wonder you think you are constantly misunderstood.
Whether a given assertion is actually a "fact" is often a subjective issue. That is, anyone can deny any assertion if that's their opinion.

In order for a logical argument to be persuasive, the underlying premises need to be accepted.

Is 1 + 1 = 2 a fact?

There is no point for anyone to build a logical argument based on 1 + 1 = 2 to persuade you of something until you accept that 1 + 1 = 2 is true. An argumentative type (as Brian R. suggested) may object, for example, on the basis of ambiguous base number system. But even if the base 10 number is specified, you can still deny your acceptance of it. And as long as you insist on doing so, just to be obstinate, no constructive discussion can occur.

If you do accept it, then we can move on to eventually show that, for example, if you have a front wheel and a rear wheel on a bike, then you have two wheels total on the bike. But this conclusion is likely not to be persuasive to someone like you who will not even accept that 1 + 1 = 2.

There is no convincing someone who demands that every premise be proved, for it is impossible to do so. No assertion can be made without relying on some premises. This is the whole point of finding common ground. I have tried to do this with you for years, but your unwillingness to remove the chip on your shoulder makes this impossible.

what the sam hill are you boys talking about?

Beck, I'm not sure what ILTB is talking about.
What I'm talking about is the fact that in order to have productive discourse, you have to start at common ground. And in order to find common ground, you have to have cooperation. Something that is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve with ILTB.

Logical arguments do not require facts or data.

Logical arguments are comprised of premises, reason, and conclusions.
If the premises are accepted, and the reasoning sound, then the conclusions are valid.

To reject a conclusion of a logical argument one must show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, or, if it does, explain why it is unreasonable to accept the premises.

To argue logically, the first task is to support the premises. If the premises are already agreed upon, this is easy. If the premises are controversial, then it is up to the argumentor to support the premises based on sound science. In the real world, this requires facts and data. In the case of your arguments, your premises fall squarely in the realm of science; therefore, you should be striving to provide all the data you can to support your argument. This burden is squarely on your shoulders.

Logical argument without sufficient observation (read: facts and data) gave us such flawed theories as:

1) the earth is flat, therefore, once one sails out far enough, he falls off.
2) a grape and a bowling ball are different sizes and weight, therefore these objects don't fall at the same speed.
3) the earth is the center of the universe, therefore all the stars and planets in the heavens rotate around the earth.

All these theories came from respected, ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, using sound logical arguments stemming from ill supported premises. They are all wrong.

I believe that your cart is before the horse. You need to prove your premises sufficiently before you go about extending hypotheses using logic. Much of your advice is good, but you overreach badly in your analysis of bike lanes and other cycling facilities.

Brian, I don't disagree with what you are saying. That is, IF one's premises are not accepted, that it is up to the "prover" to support the premises.

But, like you say, there is no need to do this if the premises are already agreed upon. In a realm like bicycling safety, where there is precious little data, that is, at least for me, the preferred approach.

In other words, I prefer to start with accepted premises. And, so, my task is not to support premises, but to find premises that are already accepted, and that are sufficent to support the conclusions I am trying to show are true.

For example, one of the premises I like to use, is: drivers generally tend to pay more attention to what is directly in front of them and in their path than something off to the side outside of their path and for which they have no reason to believe will move into their path.

I don't know of any studies to support that. Never-the-less, I firmly believe it to be true. It seems intuitively obvious to me. So, I prefer to verify that others accept it, and go on from there. If they don't, then it's for one of two reasons:

1) They're just being obstinate.
2) They honestly don't accept it, in which case they should be able to explain why (other than "you can't prove it with studies and data - which is just being obstinate - see #1).

This goes for all the "subjective" premises upon which most of my arguments are based.

Does that make sense?

To argue logically, the first task is to support the premises. If the premises are already agreed upon, this is easy. If the premises are controversial, then it is up to the argumentor to support the premises based on sound science.
Actually, the other option is to find some other premises that are accepted, and to show how one can lead to the controversial premises as conclusions based on the accepted premises and logic. With that achieved, one can then build on the previously-controversial-but-now-accepted premises.

At least, that's how I understand honest and productive logical discussion should work.

Well I agree it is foolish to carry on this way. It would be nice to be able to have an intelligent debate about cycling advocacy/safety with people who when they lack a relevant response don't substitute with wisecracks and ad hominem arguments. It would also be nice to discuss issues with posters who recognize that the relevancy of a response is not directly related to how much it agrees with the poster's views.

But some posters seem to have some other sort of goal and different concepts of relevancy and methods of discussion/debate.

You know, I agree 100%, I'd love to have an intelligent debate rather than having to listen to your constant attacks and smart-assed comments towards a certain person, or your rude elitist responses to everyone else. I have seen some progress from you in that area outside the advocacy groups, so I know you are capable. Tell you what, you tone down your obvious hatred for HH and everything he represents, and I will lay off embarrassing you with my klass klown responses to your diatribes. There ya go, now we're where the rubber meets the road, are you going to make an effort, or dimiss my attempt at compromise with yet another snide remark?

...
In other words, I prefer to start with accepted premises. And, so, my task is not to support premises, but to find premises that are generally accepted, and that are sufficent to support my conclusions.

...

I don't know of any studies to support that. Never-the-less, I firmly believe it to be true. It seems intuitively obvious to me. So, I prefer to verify that others accept it, and go on from there. If they don't, then it's for one of two reasons:

1) They're just being obstinate.
2) They honestly don't accept it, in which case they should be able to explain why (other than "you can't prove it with studies and data - which is just being obstinate - see #1).

This goes for all the "subjective" premises upon which most of my arguments are based.

Does that make sense?

Basically, you are appealing to "common sense" with your "intuitively obvious" premises. See my list of very wrong conclusions based on "intuitively obvious" premises. The golden light of intuition is suductive; after all, Galileo almost got lynched (maybe he did, my history is fuzzy) for his conclusions that went across the grain of institutionalized intuition, yet turned out to be true. Science is the foundation for avoiding the use of intuition in argument.

I would say by the contention found on this forum that your "intuitively obvious" premises are not as intuitive as you thought. However, since you shun all "naysayers" as simply being obstinate, you come off literally as evangelical beyond belief.

If you want to convince a "naysayer," you have to cede to the demand for more evidence. There is no other way around it. Otherwise you are left with simply restating your claims ad infinium and constantly defending conclusions which don't stand on their own foundation. The extent of your advocacy becomes: the people who believe, believe; and the people who don't, don't. Without data, this dynamic cannot change.

I don't know of any studies to support that. Never-the-less, I firmly believe it to be true. It seems intuitively obvious to me. So, I prefer to verify that others accept it, and go on from there. If they don't, then it's for one of two reasons:

1) They're just being obstinate.
2) They honestly don't accept it, in which case they should be able to explain why (other than "you can't prove it with studies and data - which is just being obstinate - see #1).

This goes for all the "subjective" premises upon which most of my arguments are based.

Does that make sense?

This sounds like my Father's Logic.
1. I'm always right.
2. If I'm wrong refer to rule #1.

HH, I normally agree with your premises, but you aren't always very open when someone makes a legitimate attack on some of your more controversial premises. I don't have time to dig through your many posts, but the scuba analogy comes to mind. Though I think you've gotten a lot better.

-Marcus

Actually, the other option is to find some other premises that are accepted, and to show how one can lead to the controversial premises as conclusions based on the accepted premises and logic. With that achieved, one can then build on the previously-controversial-but-now-accepted premises.

At least, that's how I understand honest and productive logical discussion should work.

This works both ways. It can also show that the previously accepted premise warrants further examination. Any way you look at it, your arguments need some bedrock in the form of solid data. Without that, you are attempting to ground the argument in sand.

are you guys sure you shouldn't be posting over at the philos and logic forums instead of the bike one?

Beck - we are, well at least I am, trying to address the approaches that I believe contributes to a lot of us on this forum having much less productive discussions that we could otherwise. If we could come to a better understanding, then it could have a profound effect on this forum. Bear with us, please.

tone down your obvious hatred for HH and everything he represents, and I will lay off embarrassing you with my klass klown responses to your diatribes.
Pointing out that a spade is a spade does not reflect hatred of the spade; nor does pointing out that the opinions and alleged logical argument of a logic-challenged individual lack credibility - indicate malice. If you are unable to make the distinction, and you think that hatred is the "obvious" reason for skepticism of such silliness then that would explain labelling a call for credibility "your diatribes."

Pointing out that a spade is a spade does not reflect hatred of the spade; nor does pointing out that the opinions and alleged logical argument of a logic-challenged individual lack credibility - indicate malice. If you are unable to make the distinction, and you think that hatred is the "obvious" reason for skepticism of such silliness then that would explain labelling a call for credibility "your diatribes."

I wish I were as smart as you, but at least I understand that communication means nothing if the message you are sending is not understood. I doubt you ever considered that the reason I might misunderstand you or your motives might not be a deficiency in my reading comprehension, but rather a deficiency in your ability to communicate - or a combination of both.

Since you have danced around the actual proposition like a well-trained politician, I will rephrase it and put it to you again, in much simpler terms...I will make nice if you will. Compromise requires something from both parties.

Basically, you are appealing to "common sense" with your "intuitively obvious" premises. See my list of very wrong conclusions based on "intuitively obvious" premises. The golden light of intuition is suductive; after all, Galileo almost got lynched (maybe he did, my history is fuzzy) for his conclusions that went across the grain of institutionalized intuition, yet turned out to be true. Science is the foundation for avoiding the use of intuition in argument.
Brian, I believe your point is that just because two people both accept that the Earth is flat doesn't make any conclusions based on that premise sound. Of course.

The problem is that the scientific data that would conclusively answer the questions we wish to answer regarding cycling simply does not exist. These questions have to do with how to deal with traffic, where to ride, the role of facilities, etc. etc. In the future, maybe science will have more conclusive answers for us, maybe not. But in the mean time, we have to answer these questions, one way or the other, in order to continue cycling, advocating cycling, and doing everything else we do with regard to these questions. So what's the best way to approach and answer these questions, if the data is not available?

One approach is we break down all the questions we have to binary forms so that they can be answered yes or no, and each of toss coins to decide these for ourselves. Essentially, we could pull the answers out of thin air.

Another approach is to assemble what we do know, identify that which is most likely to be true, and build on that. There are motorcycling courses that teach based on the assumption that drivers tend to pay more attention to their intended path than to other places. Should we ignore that? Or can we apply it to what we use in answering our questions about cycling? After all, the premise there has nothing to do with motorcycles per se, it's a premise about drivers, the same drivers we have to contend with in traffic. Either it's true, or it isn't. We don't have the data to tell us for sure, but we should at least be able to discuss whether we believe it's more likely to be true than false, and explain why we believe one way or the other.


I would say by the contention found on this forum that your "intuitively obvious" premises are not as intuitive as you thought. However, since you shun all "naysayers" as simply being obstinate, you come off literally as evangelical beyond belief.
Brian, I have "shunned" only one naysayer, nobody else comes close to him. Others have their moments, to be sure, but there is no comparison to the one that you could maybe say I have "shunned". But even so, I continue to engage with him from time to time, hoping against hope that he will remove the chip from his shoulder and engage in productive discourse.

All I'm saying is that if I make an assertion that you honestly reject, you should be able to provide a reason for that rejection. Now, maybe I'm missing something (I never rule out that possibility). But if I am, then you should be able to turn the tables on me, and produce an assertion that I would not accept, nor be able to provide a reason for its rejection. On the other hand, if I can provide a reason for rejecting any assertion that I don't accept, then why can't everyone else?

By obstinate I'm talking about someone who rejects an assertion without explanation, or with just a pat answer like "not enough evidence" that indicates no honest consideration has been given. It's one thing to say there's not enough evidence with an acknowledgment regarding the evidence that exists for, and pointing out the evidence against, etc. Again, ILTB wasn't even willing to accept that 1 + 1 = 2. That's obstinate.


If you want to convince a "naysayer," you have to cede to the demand for more evidence. There is no other way around it. Otherwise you are left with simply restating your claims ad infinium and constantly defending conclusions which don't stand on their own foundation. The extent of your advocacy becomes: the people who believe, believe; and the people who don't, don't. Without data, this dynamic cannot change.
On the surface, I agree. Of course. But the element you're missing is that which distinguishes honest debate from the sophistry I am ironically somtimes accused of engaging in.

If one wants to be jerk, he can reject anything anyone says for "lack of evidence". We all have that right, certainly, but when we refuse to acknowledge the likely truth of basic assumptions made by other authoritative and commonly accepted sources, (like defensive driving and motorcycle training courses, for example), that's just being obstinate. Or so it seems to me.

But this is all hypothetical. The reality is that the manner in which I have reached the conclusions I have reached, and developed the ideas that I have, is by trying to identify premises that are much more likely to be true than not, and basing my conclusions on those. This is why I am able to explain my views in terms of the component concepts of which they are comprised. Since we have few if any concrete answers in this area, the only other options are to conclude nothing at all (and not ride), to pull answers out of thin air, or to base our conclusions on premises that are less likely to be true. Or am I missing something?

So, for me, the point of all these discussions is to compare our conclusions, and how we reached them. These are my premises, what are yours? This is my reasoning, what's yours? This is why I think this premise is more likely to be true than that; why do you think that is more likely to be true than this?

At least, that's what I'm trying to accomplish here. I can't speak for anyone else.

This sounds like my Father's Logic.
1. I'm always right.
2. If I'm wrong refer to rule #1.

HH, I normally agree with your premises, but you aren't always very open when someone makes a legitimate attack on some of your more controversial premises. I don't have time to dig through your many posts, but the scuba analogy comes to mind. Though I think you've gotten a lot better.

-Marcus
Oh, I've made my mistakes, that's for sure. But I also think there is a lot more disagreement based on misunderstanding often going on here than probably any of us realize.

I'm not at all claiming that I'm always right. Quite the contrary, though I can understand why that might not be too obvious sometimes.

All my posts are about laying out my cards. I want everyone to see my cards. I want you to know how and why I reached the conclusions that I reached. Why? So, if I went astray, you could point out where.

Rejecting an assertion without explanation is probably because there is no reason, or because the reason is weak.

The only reason I can think of for someone to hide their cards in these discussions (e.g., not explain his reasoning for rejecting an assertion, for example) is because he is not here for honest discourse, he's here to play, and he has nothing in his hand to show. There I go showing my cards again. Maybe I'm missing something... let me know.