-
Posts
-
-
As an English major with a Writing and Publication emphasis and a Philosophy minor, I am constantly thinking how to construct sound, logical arguments and how to spot fallacious, unsupported ones when I see them. You could say that I am a student of logic and argumentation.
I recently read a letter-to-the-editor against mountain bike access to a natural area that was absolutely rife with logical fallacies! You can check out the original here.
Fallacy #1: Appeal to Tradition
Much of this letter was based on the idea that "[the changes] go against the judgment of every previous DCR/MDC park administration of the last 20 years."
Yes, they do, and why is that an issue? Just because something has been done for years and years doesn’t mean that it was ever the right thing to do. The park administration could have been wrong for 20 years.
Fallacy #2: Argument from IgnoranceThey try to argue that there is no ecological evidence to support the change to allow mountain bikes in this area. It must first be noted that they argue this point poorly, and secondly that arguing this point constitutes the logical fallacy of an "argument from ignorance." Just because there is no evidence for P does not necessarily mean that P is false. P is only false if you prove that P is false! Instead of trying to say that there is no support for the inclusion of mountain bikes, they should provide evidence for the exclusion of mountain bikes.
Fallacy #3: Burden of Proof
This relates in part to number 2 above, but for some reason the writer seems to think that the burden of proof lies with the mountain bikers. In the past, sure, it did, as mountain bikers were a minority group. But it is now obvious that mountain bikers are increasing in number, and that mountain bike trails are accepted as ecologically sound and a good source of tourism revenue all over the nation. It is also obvious that they are a large, concerned user group, as the writer mentioned: "This may be why bikers have packed every RMP planning meeting during the last year, vastly outnumbering every other user group."
Painting mountain bikers packing out the meeting in a negative light is logically fallacious as well. Public spaces are there it be used by the constituency, public employees are servants of the constituency, and if there are vastly more mountain bikers who are interested in using the trails and are willing to attend meetings, then it seems only logical that they should be allowed on the trails.
In addition, it should be noted that mountain bikers are not being allowed on these trails to the exclusion of other user groups. On the contrary, these public lands are finally being opened to a healthy portion of the constituency–as they should be.
Fallacy #4: Appeal to Authority
It is important to note that appealing to an authority can be logically valid when you are asking for their informed opinion on their field of expertise. However, appealing to an authority is logically fallacious when you are asking their opinion on a topic that is outside their realm of expertise. This letter’s parting shot is a condemnation of the studies in support of mountain biking by "Dr. Richard Eilbert, a recently retired Harvard educated physicist."
While as I already mentioned, this logic falls prey to the fallacy of "argument from ignorance," who the heck cares what a retired physicist says? His field has almost nothing to do with deciding whether or not these trails would be ecologically sustainable under mountain bike traffic! If the writer had consulted a Forest Service ranger, a hydrologist, an expert in soils, an engineer with trail expertise, or even some other sort of scientist dealing with physical geography or conservation, then maybe this appeal would have held some weight. Perhaps the writer appealed to a retired physicist because all of the people that are actually authorities on the topic agree that mountain biking is environmentally sound?
Conclusion
Based on these 4 explicit logical fallacies and as well as a 5th logically fallacious argument, it should be noted that this opinion piece in no way constitutes a meaningful argument, neither valid nor sound, against the opening of the Middlesex Fells area to mountain biking.
-
Great analysis. Clearly this writer is fighting an uphill battle and is grasping at straws.
-
That one’s actually pretty well considered compared to this one recently published in the closest newspaper to Fruita:
LETTER: We shouldn’t encourage children to mountain bike
Mike Vandeman
San Ramon, Calif.
Copyright 2011 Grand Junction Free Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. October, 20 2011 8:06 pm
LETTER: We shouldn’t encourage children to mountain bike
Grand Junction Free Press
Regarding last week’s article: “Fun at the races: New high school mountain bike team improving each week”Introducing children to mountain biking is CRIMINAL. Mountain biking, besides being expensive and very environmentally destructive, is extremely dangerous.
Recently, a 12-year-old girl died during her very first mountain biking lesson! Serious accidents and even deaths are commonplace. Truth be told, mountain bikers want to introduce kids to mountain biking because (1) they want more people to help them lobby to open our precious natural areas to mountain biking, and (2) children are too naive to understand and object to this activity.
Just two paragraphs and you could spend all day pointing out the fallacies there!
-
Oh no, you just invited Vandeman to the conversation. 3… 2… 1… 😈
-
"trek7k" wrote
Great analysis. Clearly this writer is fighting an uphill battle and is grasping at straws.
Thanks.
"skibum" wroteThat one’s actually pretty well considered compared to this one recently published in the closest newspaper to Fruita:
LETTER: We shouldn’t encourage children to mountain bike
Mike Vandeman
San Ramon, Calif.
Copyright 2011 Grand Junction Free Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. October, 20 2011 8:06 pm
LETTER: We shouldn’t encourage children to mountain bike
Grand Junction Free Press
Regarding last week’s article: “Fun at the races: New high school mountain bike team improving each week”Introducing children to mountain biking is CRIMINAL. Mountain biking, besides being expensive and very environmentally destructive, is extremely dangerous.
Recently, a 12-year-old girl died during her very first mountain biking lesson! Serious accidents and even deaths are commonplace. Truth be told, mountain bikers want to introduce kids to mountain biking because (1) they want more people to help them lobby to open our precious natural areas to mountain biking, and (2) children are too naive to understand and object to this activity.
Just two paragraphs and you could spend all day pointing out the fallacies there!
Some people just can’t be reasoned with…
-
😆
I am 16 and have been mountain biking for almost 2 years now. Only had 1 broken bone. I would love to personally debate these arguements with the dumb asses.
-
Careful what you wish for dozzerboy. MV (mentioned in skibum’s post) is known to get into it on mountain biking forums and blogs (including this one). He also was arrested last summer for terrorizing bikers:
-
Guess I had better not teach anymore youngsters to motocross on their mini bikes. Huh? Guess we better all eat soup with a plastic spoon in a rubber cup to prevent the need for the heimlich maneuver which could be assault. 😈 Later,
-
It’s been a very long time since I had a class on logical fallacies, but isn’t there a "slippery slope" argument too? (Not sure of the real name, but that’s how I remember it.)
"Furthermore, there is evidence that these changes will be used to justify biking elsewhere."
We can’t let them ride in Fells because they’ll use that to ride everywhere!
-
"Jared13" wrote
It’s been a very long time since I had a class on logical fallacies, but isn’t there a "slippery slope" argument too? (Not sure of the real name, but that’s how I remember it.)
"Furthermore, there is evidence that these changes will be used to justify biking elsewhere."
We can’t let them ride in Fells because they’ll use that to ride everywhere!
True that, good catch! I thought about including that, but wasn’t sure if this was a really good example of slippery slope or not. You can definitely see hints of it though, can’t you?
-
"Slippery Slope" as in hiking up one? Could be dangerous for kids… 😆
-
"mtbgreg1" wrote
[quote="Jared13":3vzsw8it]It’s been a very long time since I had a class on logical fallacies, but isn’t there a "slippery slope" argument too? (Not sure of the real name, but that’s how I remember it.)
"Furthermore, there is evidence that these changes will be used to justify biking elsewhere."
We can’t let them ride in Fells because they’ll use that to ride everywhere!
True that, good catch! I thought about including that, but wasn’t sure if this was a really good example of slippery slope or not. You can definitely see hints of it though, can’t you?[/quote:3vzsw8it]
Yeah, it’s not the best example. However, given the viewpoint of the writer, I’m betting they intended it to come across as what would fall under a slippery slope.
@dozzerboy
About as dangerous as mountain biking! 😆 -
Hey, I believe parents would rather have their children ride bikes and hike trails than have them get imprisoned for doing criminal stuff… What do you think?
-
"dozzerboy" wrote
Hey, I believe parents would rather have their children ride bikes and hike trails than have them get imprisoned for doing criminal stuff… What do you think?
Heck, I’d settle for bike and hike instead of sitting inside playing video games.
-
"Jared13" wrote
[quote="dozzerboy":222a2xwy]Hey, I believe parents would rather have their children ride bikes and hike trails than have them get imprisoned for doing criminal stuff… What do you think?
Heck, I’d settle for bike and hike instead of sitting inside playing video games.[/quote:222a2xwy]
+1 to that man
-
The article is from New England. I lived most of my life in MA/NH and have found a very big bias from hiking groups against mt. bikers, snowmobiles, hunters, etc. There always seemed, to me at least, that hikers felt it was their right to have and use trails but no one else. Shoot the town I lived in just before had trails for skiing but gosh if you had snow shoes.
I have shown people on hiking forums evidence that mt bikers were as destructive as hikers with no luck. IMBA and other bike groups were biased and if you showed them a study from a hiking group, like the Appalachian Club, it was flawed.
-
I’m from Maine and it’s the same there. Hikers and equestrians rule the trails and mountain bikers have fewer miles to ride every year. A recent study that had Maine near the top of the list of bike friendly states was a crock, unless there sample group was exclusive to the Portland area.
Now that I’ve moved out west, I’ll never go back to New England.
-
South of the Mason Dixon line is the home of year round riding. Plus the fried chicken is awesome! One of the main reasons for my handle. 😄 Later,
-
I would say New England is very "roadie" friendly (or at least where I lived) but not mt bike friendly. The southeast, at least where I am now, is very mt bike friendly.
-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.