Originally Posted by
Koyote
Except you, in post
#26 .
Not really.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
I'm not sure what else using the scientific method in testing/comparing bicycle tires could be doing.
The idea here was to nudge you to describe what you thought the "scientific method" was supposed to do (rather than saying what it didn't do that no one was claiming anyway).
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
The point is to understand the properties so that it can inform a choice.
This is what I said the purpose if the investigation was.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
Originally Posted by
Koyote
The scientific method is for testing hypotheses, which might include questions about the effect of tire size (or width) on rolling resistance, smoothness/comfort, speed, etc. But since those are sometimes competing goals, it cannot tell us what is "best." In other words, "best" is a subjective judgment which reflects preferences or priorities.
???
The point is to understand the properties so that it can inform a choice.
No one is saying the purpose is to determine a singular "best" tire for all uses.
Originally Posted by
Koyote
1) Agreed.
2) Scientific testing might prove that a wider tire gives a smoother ride, but only you (your preferences) can determine whether that is "better," since a wider tire brings other tradeoffs. This gets to your first point: that the tests can only inform your choice, not determine what is "best" in any universal sense.
3) Agreed.
You got my point and even agreed with it.
Originally Posted by
Koyote
This gets to your first point: that the tests can only inform your choice, not determine what is "best" in any universal sense.
Then, you
veered back into the weeds by arguing against a
point no one really claimed. You are weirdly stuck on the "best" stuff.