What's not to follow? You belittle someones experience, I assume because it was different than yours, by saying they have limited experience. Then when asked what your experience was you evade the question, I assume because it would show you to have less than limited experience. That's my logic on the matter.
By the way research and experience are not the same thing. Things that should work in theory don't always work in reality.
There you go. You ASSumed all-right, making an a** out of you and me, so they say. I did not belittle anyone. I did not say experience has no merit. And my position actually embraces the different experiences discussed, instead of the other position that ignores it.
All I was was a person had limited experience. It isn't code for me having more experience, or hiding less, for having different experience, or whatever other Machiavellian thoughts come up. I guess there is just a love here to wildly associate negative connotations when someone characterizes evidence using a broad weight of evidence approach. I said weight of evidence before, I also mentioned the internet, theory, and other platforms as additional reasonable evidence I use to draw my conclusions. So I find it plain to see that the limited experience observation I made was in reference to and a comparator with that overall info and data set, which would be very large.
With a broad weight of evidence approach, personal experience obviously has merit, but pretty much most every individual's experience in this case will only be a few data points among thousands of people's experience that get's considered. Then adding the theory and knowledge to consider (which is substantial) on top of that results in a huge overall data set. Such a single person's experience becomes a very small part of the overall weight of evidence (or a very small part of a big picture, or a small piece of a large puzzle so to say), and thus can be described as limited. It doesn't mean anything else, let alone something nefarious.
Beyond limited experience, contradictory outcomes in the evidence need assessment in a good weight of evidence evaluation. They are worthy of more than blanket dismissal if it doesn't fit a person's experience or paradigm. I've tried to provide potential explanations why some people may have had negative outcomes with lower rear spring rates. No one has pointed out any problems with my explanations. But I haven't even seen any attempt at an explanation why my positive outcome with a lower rear spring rate (and others with similar experience) should be discounted out of hand. At the start I've even asked questions to try to get other's to explain their positions in reference to that.
Actually, it is theory versus practical application. All of that is taken into account with a reasonable weight of evidence approach.
This thread started off with some interesting info and discussion. Unfortunately things went off the rails and the discussion has gone nowhere. I see dogma rather than reasonable discussion and no answers to my questions. I'm over it. Maybe someone will come in and start a good discussion again. I'm always open to other information I'm not aware of (and I'm sure it's out there) and my opinion may even change from such.
