zappafile123 wrote:Some of you guys are confusing the internal validity of the argument with its (largely though not exclusively) erroneous application to appraising differences between equipment. The pro's ride it argument does tell you that a piece of equipment probably works quite well. However, the argument itself is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove that point - you can all tell that your equipment works quite well cause it does what its supposed to do whilst you use it (among other pieces of evidence regarding the quality of contemporary kit).
The key point I'm making is that the 'pro's ride it' argument doesnt contribute anything meaningful to arguments about phenomenal experiences with the equipment - i.e. whats its like to use a piece of equipment. At the end of the day, when we ask what the difference between a Colnago C60 and a Bianchi Oltre XR4 is, we want to get a mental representation of what its like to ride both bikes so we can choose which one suits our needs the best. The problem is that users on the forum do use the pro's ride it argument to make claims about the phenomenal qualities of equipment all the time... which is just dumb.
Again here is an example of how people inappropriately use the argument:
Bob: "I'm interested in C60 vs. V1R"
Charly: "I havent ridden a V1R, but I didnt think the C60 felt as stiff through the BB as my Giant TCR SL, it just doesnt feel as racey"
Raskolnikov: "Well the pro's ride it, the C60 must be stiff and racey"
Clearly Raskolnikov's argument leaves a lot to be desired/is really annoying. All his argument is saying is that the C60 is of a sufficient standard to be raced. The problem is pretty much any bike from the major manufacturers is of a sufficient standard to be raced.
So basically you have a two page thread going about certain kinds of posts on an internet forum that annoy you yet you still recognize that they're still pretty valid all while writing in college-undergrad format. Okay.