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 Ignorance

They 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.