"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

So something from a journalist who is simply filing a
report, ideally one that will be sufficiently sensational to attract interest,
is suddenly more valuable in determining what is occurring overall than that
from an unbiased researcher actually trying to do objective research and
discover the real position ? I despair of your logic.

Edward Dolan wrote:

Your data is irrelevant because, like all social data, it
includes too many unknown variables. My reports are to the point and are
numerous enough and widespread enough to indicate a general condition
prevailing. Social data is hardly ever scientific. Counting when you do not know
what you are counting is for morons.

Ed, the report from the Lake District Mountain Rescue is hardly 'social data'. Nor is the report from the British Medical Journal on incidents per exposure. This is hard data showing the real situation.

Hard data belongs to the realm of the physical sciences. All other data concerning people is social data and not very rigorous to say the least.

Your scouring the internet for news articles about incidents is not even comparable and has no scientific basis whatsoever.

We need details on the nature of the accidents to know what we are talking about. I present those details in my reports. All we get from you are numbers which tell us next to nothing. An examination of the details clearly show how dangerous biking on trails is.
[...]

We all make assumptions about everything all the time. It is
what we humans do best.

And, if you're smart, you recognise the limitations of making such assumptions and seek objective confirmation or refutation. If not, well you do what you do and simply assume you're right ... when you're not.

It is a function of one’s general intelligence to know whether you are right or not. For instance, I would not want you to make assumptions about anything under the sun.

Personal experience is highly limited and is only of
value if we can make assumptions about it.

But, for any such assumptions to be valid you have to prove that others have similar experiences in sufficient numbers to be statistically valid. This is what you've never even attempted to do. You simply assert it to be the case ... which is circular logic.

Nonsense, all the reports from the media on the number and nature of the mountain biker accidents is enough for anyone who has some common sense – something which you totally lack. Your resort to “data” is very funny and marks you as someone who who can‘t think for himself.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great