First, I don't know whether to commend Jan, Steven, and Chuck for keeping the tone nearly civil when clearly there is conflict amongst them, or to express my disappointment that the conflict was made so plain. Reading all these posts I couldn't help but feel like a child watching his parents argue. Not that I'm a child and they are my parents, but they are three listmembers who I hold in high regard, and I'd have a difficult time naming more than two or three others I put in the same league. I imagine they are all bristling to read this, the suggestion that they are in any common group. Too bad.
I realize that Jan might overestimate the degree of rigor that we can actually bring to bear on our avocation, but I respect his efforts. While Steven pointed out an exhasuting, if not exhaustive, litany of possible gaps in Jan's research, I'm left wondering what his real attitude is. Based on the nearly endless fault-finding, I suspect that Steven might be of the opinion that attempts at rigor are simply futile because there will always be gaps in our data. Or is he just saying that rigor is good, but what Jan practices is not truly rigorous.
As long as we're finding fault with anyone's reasoning, I have to call this one out (Steven wrote):
"I came to this conclusion when a former CR listmember from Boston, with whom I have not had a civil email exchange in a couple years, sent me an appreciated private attaboy email after my earlier posts. If opposition to another CR listmember's posts is sufficient to bridge the gap between the former member and myself, it shows that my position cannot be extreme or isolated."
My enemy's enemy is my friend, no? Are you seriously using the attitude or opinion of the "former CR listmember from Boston" as affirmation that your position is not extreme or isolated? No matter how big a rift might have existed between you and Ken, I doubt very much that it has suddenly closed, and I would not use an expression of agreement from a man widely known to be given to extremes as evidence of your own moderation. By the time he reads this, Ken would probably attaboy Jan, with whoem he apparently disagrees strongly, simply for lashing out at me. Moreover, it has been my direct experience that Ken is averse to rigor when it calls into question anything he believes. He is the opposite of a scientist, in my experience, and will attempt to trump any conflicting assertions with a hand-waving comibination of "I was there in the day, and have been at this longer than you," and "lighten up, you geek, it's just bikes." In some respects, I actually appreciate Ken's "forthright qualities" but he's no model of moderation or rationality.
Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA, USA
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.