any one can find a scientific way to test knife quality?

[Hair]

There is actual scientific work on exactly these types of subjects. Work has been done for example to determine what pattern is common to songs which become very popular and are "hits". There is a large amount of work on what makes physical beauty, starting of course with Da Vinci's proportions and symmetry. In such cases what is being studied of course is the mass appeal and what are the basic patterns common. This however is very different than evaluating if one knife works better than another at a given task.

And what exactly do these "scientific" studies prove? Not much. Do they tell us which music is better? Or which paintings are better? No. It is a matter of taste. Many people like music that does not become hits. Many styles of art strive to be asymmetrical. I think you missed my point. Of course there are areas of music and art that can be objectively measured. But the importance of each criteria is subjective. Popularity is not quality.

A knife is a tool designed to perform specific functions, these can be performed and the efficiency measured. It isn't even a very complex tool. Now there is the influence of user variation, specifically skill and experience, but this can be taken into account as well, in the most broad sense it would just be used as a statistical sample. This is how much work studying ergonomics for example is done, actual "real world" evaluations by people "in the field".

A statistical sample of what? How good the knife feels? To who? How good it cuts? What kind of cutting?

There is also the case that different people may want different things. For some people it may be critically important that the knife have very little blade play, so much so they will reject a knife if it fails that criteria irregardless of how it does in all other aspects. This is why it would be useful to people when they are saying why a knife is better or superior to say what they are using for their evaluation, what are the criteria and how are they judging them. Of course any relevant proportions, dimensions and issues of mass distribution would be informative.

Exactly my point.

None of this means of course that Bladeforums should not welcome someone who just wants to talk subjectively about knives. If someone really just wants to talk about how great a knife is and how much they love it in a completely subjective way then that is cool. If you don't find that useful then just don't read it. Most people however are open to being a little more quantitive if you just ask. However if you critize and demand then they don't, but that is just being ridiculus anyway.

Of course opinions are welcome here. I was giving a pet pev about reviews. If someone wants to tell me how much they love their knife, that is cool. I never said they couldn't do it. I said calling it a "review" is misleading and doesn't help anyone.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

And what exactly do these "scientific" studies prove?

Science in general is about trying to understand something. Often the goal can be just to allow more interesting questions to be asked. hawking was once asked why gravity is attractive for example - which is an interesting question. Why does a certain set of frequencies resonate with people. Why do people prefer symmetry? Why is there a common ratio between the distance between the eyes and the distance between the nose and mouth in "beautiful" people?

There are also of course obvious commercial applications, because it takes a lot of guesswork out of something if you are trying to sell on aesthetic appeal. Computers can of course make such comparisons much faster than people and quite frankly you can expect a lot of such development as it becomes more accepted that you can actually quantify such aspects.

This is of course no different than a maker realizing that a steel or blade style is popular from user feedback and thus then starting to offer this "better" design.

Do they tell us which music is better? Or which paintings are better?

Yes, that was the point, specifically with better meaning popular.

A statistical sample of what?

The population. Take a random sample of the population, 100 people, and have them do a common task with three knives and then rank them in order of comfort/security. This can then be used to infer the preferences of the population. Much scientific work is of course done in such a manner. What you do in the lab is then try to figure out why those patterns are prefered.

If someone wants to tell me how much they love their knife, that is cool. I never said they couldn't do it. I said calling it a "review" is misleading and doesn't help anyone.

To review just means to evaluate, it implies a certain level of discrimation but doesn't actually define a specific amount. Reviews can be more of less informative, at the minimum they would consist of an anon yes/no, which would only be useful in a gross statistical sense because you don't know anything about the user to judge his comments and he has given you no details to infer anything on the criteria.

At the other extreme end you have reviews by users like Talmadge who has a wealth of experience with knives and will be specific about which benchmarks he is comparing it to and has even developed commonly accepted means of evaluation which are semi-standard benchmarks. Most people doing reviews are willing to do more work and commentary if asked in a sensible manner, aside from the shills of course.

-Cliff

 

[Hair]

Science in general is about trying to understand something. Often the goal can be just to allow more interesting questions to be asked. hawking was once asked why gravity is attractive for example - which is an interesting question. Why does a certain set of frequencies resonate with people. Why do people prefer symmetry? Why is there a common ratio between the distance between the eyes and the distance between the nose and mouth in "beautiful" people?

Science is about understanding, yes. But a "scientific" approach is objective, and not subjective. "This handle feels better" is not a scientific conclusion. Yes science can ask user and table the results to determine which handle is prefered by more people, but it cannot tell you which is better.

There are also of course obvious commercial applications, because it takes a lot of guesswork out of something if you are trying to sell on aesthetic appeal. Computers can of course make such comparisons much faster than people and quite frankly you can expect a lot of such development as it becomes more accepted that you can actually quantify such aspects.

Determining what sells better does not determine what *IS* better. Is beef better than lamb just because more people like it? No. Which is better is a matter of personal taste.

This is of course no different than a maker realizing that a steel or blade style is popular from user feedback and thus then starting to offer this "better" design.

See below.

Yes, that was the point, specifically with better meaning popular.

But Cliff, "popular" does not mean "better".

The population. Take a random sample of the population, 100 people, and have them do a common task with three knives and then rank them in order of comfort/security. This can then be used to infer the preferences of the population. Much scientific work is of course done in such a manner. What you do in the lab is then try to figure out why those patterns are prefered.

Preferences of the population do not mean higher quality, or better. You can figure out what type of handle features feel better to most people, but that doesn't mean they feel better in some sort of objective way. It means they feel better to some people. Worse to others.

To review just means to evaluate, it implies a certain level of discrimation but doesn't actually define a specific amount. Reviews can be more of less informative, at the minimum they would consist of an anon yes/no, which would only be useful in a gross statistical sense because you don't know anything about the user to judge his comments and he has given you no details to infer anything on the criteria.

Has anyone said otherwise, Cliff? I do not recall trying to force anyone to write the kind of reviews that i find useful.

At the other extreme end you have reviews by users like Talmadge who has a wealth of experience with knives and will be specific about which benchmarks he is comparing it to and has even developed commonly accepted means of evaluation which are semi-standard benchmarks. Most people doing reviews are willing to do more work and commentary if asked in a sensible manner, aside from the shills of course.

I agree. There is simply one type of review I prefer to read. That is all.

 

[RealDeal]

Sounds pretty rigid to me.
How ever would you make a good decision in a searious situation.
I want all the info i can get, real world, feet on the street being top pick, but thats me.

 

[Hair]

Information is good. But opinions are not facts. Someone saying "this knife feels good" does not tell you that it will feel good to you. Even if most people agree a knife feels good, it doesn't mean you will be one of them. What is more useful is information on the dimensions of the handle, and comparisons to other knives or styles of knives. "The G-10 feels rough" is less useful than "The G-10 feels similar to that used by Spyderco, Emerson, and Al Mar. It is not as rough as that used by Strider on their SNG and SMF." is more useful. Still subjective, but it will give the reader a better idea.

I believe the best reviews are to serve as replacements for getting to handle and use the knife myself. When I handle and use a knife, I care how it feels and performs for me, not whether Tim Bob likes it.

Information is good. Some is more useful than others.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Yes science can ask user and table the results to determine which handle is prefered by more people, but it cannot tell you which is better.

That does tell you exactly which one is more ergonomic to the population at large. If that is your goal then the above is a perfectly valid scientific approach and it is in fact how such issues are studied. You can of course do more refined studies and break up your population groups accordingly to be more representative. There is work done for example to study ergonomic issues for people with severe hand disabilities as they don't follow the same patterns as the general population obviously.

Assuming you are represented by the same you can then make inferences given the probabilies. If 95% of the population finds a handle to be ergonomic then there is a 95% probability than any given person will find it ergonomic. This is straightforward. If you have some sort of unique criteria which sets you apart then general population studies don't hold to you obviously so it is more difficult for you to find representative information.

As a user it isn't realistic to expect people to go out and do random sample polls so they can say "95% of the people who used the Rollo found it to be ergonomic". But you can be specific. If I read for example someone say "The new grip on the Rollo indexes well in a hammer grip but the prominent index finger cutout hot spots in an ice pick grip, similiar to the Green Beret." and I have used similar handles then I can both under stand it, and likely make personal inferences.

Now if instead all that is said is "I find the handle on the Rollo uncomfortable." then it is hard to infer anything direct from that one comment considered by itself. So you file that away and look for other comments. If you then see the majority of comments being similar, even if they are just as vague you can then reach the likely conclusion that you will find it uncomfortable as well, assuming as noted you are not an abberation.

In general you can reach conclusions through a small sample of high quality data or a lot of low quality data. Now yes you are speaking always of a probability but this is always true in general of any scientific work. The most you can ever say is something like "There is less than 5% chance that the above findings are incorrect." Usually to publish that specific probability is the desired goal. You are in general always working with samples and infering about the population because it is very difficult to actually do any scientific work on the population directly.

Is beef better than lamb just because more people like it? No.

It obvious tastes better to more people so it is better in that regard. Other aspects would be evaluated under similar methods using different methods of evaluation. Many scientific studies on nutrition for example are carried out by having certain substances consumed by a group and then determining for example does it correlate to strength gain. The study will end with a statement describing the mean gain if there was one along with a correlation probability. The same is true of course for how drugs are evaluated. It is how they find out if one is better or worse than another.

The final and definate statement always comes from the user trying it out, the studies of course just vastly focus your choices. This is all knife reviews of course are supposed to do - refine your choices. In general I don't think I ever recall being mislead or having a review be unproductive in this sense aside from the TUSK, and what I have read from Swaim and others certainly allowed me to make better choices than if I just started buying knives at random. Even the very vague reviews help in this regard as I just compile them in with all the rest of the information.

You can figure out what type of handle features feel better to most people, but that doesn't mean they feel better in some sort of objective way.

You can in fact measure it as objective if you want. There is no need to rely simply on the users judgement. You could look at for example the level of skin abrasion, or blood flow disruption from high pressure points, etc. . There is a large amount of science which deals with these issues, how to obtain meaningful information. If you told a bunch of people for example that one handle was designed to be ergonomic and the other not, a lot of people would just pick the one they were told was ergonomic simply because they were told it so you have to take steps to avoid such a bias.

-Cliff

 

[Hair]

I am getting a little tired of reading your drivel, Cliff.

That does tell you exactly which one is more ergonomic to the population at large.

More ergonomic to the population at large is not the same as "better". Ergonomics cannot be judged objectively. BY DEFINITION. They are a matter of feel, and that is as personal as it gets. Jim is taller than Dan. Objective. The Manix feels better than the Military. Subjective- no matter how many people agree. Can you not see the difference?

Assuming you are represented by the same you can then make inferences given the probabilies. If 95% of the population finds a handle to be ergonomic then there is a 95% probability than any given person will find it ergonomic. This is straightforward. If you have some sort of unique criteria which sets you apart then general population studies don't hold to you obviously so it is more difficult for you to find representative information.

This is true, but knowing that 95% of people find a knife ergonomic is still less useful than getting to try it yourself. And reading "this knife feels good" is a much worse replacement for getting to try the knife yourself than having the ergonomics, dimensions, and texture of the knife described in detail. This is all I am saying.

As a user it isn't realistic to expect people to go out and do random sample polls so they can say "95% of the people who used the Rollo found it to be ergonomic". But you can be specific. If I read for example someone say "The new grip on the Rollo indexes well in a hammer grip but the prominent index finger cutout hot spots in an ice pick grip, similiar to the Green Beret." and I have used similar handles then I can both under stand it, and likely make personal inferences.

Exactly my point.

Now if instead all that is said is "I find the handle on the Rollo uncomfortable." then it is hard to infer anything direct from that one comment considered by itself. So you file that away and look for other comments. If you then see the majority of comments being similar, even if they are just as vague you can then reach the likely conclusion that you will find it uncomfortable as well, assuming as noted you are not an abberation.

Like I said above, this is true. But not as useful as a more detailed review like the example you gave above. Remember when I said this: "Information is good. Some is more useful than others."

It obvious tastes better to more people so it is better in that regard.

If by "better in that regard" you mean "it is more popular", then yes. But ONCE MORE: More popular is not the same as "better". Which is "better" is a matter of personal taste. It is subjective. Science cannot measure how good it tastes, only which is more popular.

Other aspects would be evaluated under similar methods using different methods of evaluation. Many scientific studies on nutrition for example are carried out by having certain substances consumed by a group and then determining for example does it correlate to strength gain. The study will end with a statement describing the mean gain if there was one along with a correlation probability. The same is true of course for how drugs are evaluated. It is how they find out if one is better or worse than another.

What does this have to do with taste, Cliff?

You can in fact measure it as objective if you want. There is no need to rely simply on the users judgement. You could look at for example the level of skin abrasion, or blood flow disruption from high pressure points, etc. . There is a large amount of science which deals with these issues, how to obtain meaningful information. If you told a bunch of people for example that one handle was designed to be ergonomic and the other not, a lot of people would just pick the one they were told was ergonomic simply because they were told it so you have to take steps to avoid such a bias.

You may mind a lower level of abrasion than I do. You may be less sensitive to blood flow disruption than I am. I might even prefer a very abrasive handle. You might prefer a smoother one. What if one knife is very abrasive but doesn't disrupt blood flow, and another is less abrasive but does disrupt blood flow. What is more comfortable? Yes, you can measure objective criteria that influence ergonomics, but you cannot measure the importance of these things as how important or noticable they are is subjective. You can measure how salty food is, but not whether that is a good or a bad thing. You can do a study to find out how popular salt food is, but not how good it is. Science cannot determine what tastes good or feels good. That is a personal judgement. Information on how rough the scales are, or if there are any parts that might poke my hand is useful as it lets me decide how it might feel in my hand. I said this before. What do you not understand, Cliff?

How can someone that tries to come off as very educated not know what "subjective" means?

 

[Cliff Stamp]

More ergonomic to the population at large is not the same as "better". Ergonomics cannot be judged objectively. BY DEFINITION.

Better could obviously mean more suitable to the population, the word isn't set to a particular criteria, Everything is better than everything else at something. If you want to maximize money then the knives which are better to make are those that are popular and have a high sale rate.

It isn't a uniform term, you have to define the criteria and a means of judgement, once this is done then ranking is straight forward. Of course everyone is free to chose any criteria they want and to have their own weights for those criteria. As long as everyone is clear about how they are determining the ranks then using the information is straightfoward.

However if the statements are vague and undefined then you are left with no option except a basic population inference. This is better than nothing and in large enough samples can be informative on its own. As long of course as you account for things such as shills and the herd mentality which can skew data, but these are in general not hard to spot.

Ergonomics can be measured, there are fundamental objective considerations based on hand/wrist orientation and the basic shape of the human hand. Beyond that you can actually measure worker output and medical issues relating to ergonomics, these are why it is important to industry and people are doing such research. It isn't simply a matter of arbitrary feel and yes even comfort can be measured directly.

Science cannot measure how good it tastes ...

Actually it can by watching what happens to the various centers of the brain and various other bodily reactions similar for example as how you can tell if a person is nervous or frightened, etc. . Many things which were though to be purely subjective and impossibly to quantify are now being studied.

Yes, you can measure objective criteria that influence ergonomics, but you cannot measure the importance of these things as how important or noticable they are is subjective.

You can obviously measure the importance of the characteristics, it is actually really trivial, you just ask the person who wants the evaluation. Using javascript in a review you could even let a person define a set of ranks and then evaluate the performance using their ranks and weights to determine performance of the knife in the various attributes that you measured.

Of course reading a review isn't a substitute for using a knife directly, just like a drug trial isn't a substitute for trying it yourself. As noted these are just sources of information which you use to make more efficient choices. The more information in the review the more useful it is, the more vague it is, the more of them you need to be useful. In general people are willing to provide extra information if you just ask, except as noted, for the shills. So if you read a review and don't find it useful then thank the person for taking the time to give you his perspective and ask some questions for which the answers would be more informative.

-Cliff

 

[Hair]

Better could obviously mean more suitable to the population, the word isn't set to a particular criteria, Everything is better than everything else at something. If you want to maximize money then the knives which are better to make are those that are popular and have a high sale rate.

It isn't a uniform term, you have to define the criteria and a means of judgement, once this is done then ranking is straight forward. Of course everyone is free to chose any criteria they want and to have their own weights for those criteria. As long as everyone is clear about how they are determining the ranks then using the information is straightfoward.

The fact that "better" can mean different things to different people in different situations just proves my point, Cliff.

However if the statements are vague and undefined then you are left with no option except a basic population inference. This is better than nothing and in large enough samples can be informative on its own. As long of course as you account for things such as shills and the herd mentality which can skew data, but these are in general not hard to spot.

So if someone says "better" and gives no additional criteria, they must mean "more popular"? Bull crap. They probably mean "better", Cliff, not more popular. If they meant more popular, they would say "popular". If someone says "better" in relation to knives they probably mean it is a better overall knife (which is subjective), and not more popular. Yes there is a ton of variation as to what a "better" knife is. That is because there is a ton of variation in terms of user (HUMAN) needs and preferences. The keyword here, Cliff, is "human".

Ergonomics can be measured, there are fundamental objective considerations based on hand/wrist orientation and the basic shape of the human hand. Beyond that you can actually measure worker output and medical issues relating to ergonomics, these are why it is important to industry and people are doing such research. It isn't simply a matter of arbitrary feel and yes even comfort can be measured directly.

Ergonomics and comfort are judged by the user. What feels better to one may feel worse to another. Hence, they are subjective. How old are you Cliff? Please get a dictionary before you post again- you just keep making yourself look more and more silly. You can measure things that exist. You cannot measure how good something feels. Physical manifestations of holding one knife or another do not equal "feel". That is a human factor. How do you know what something feels like to me? How do you know that the physical manifestations that you consider negitive do not evoke positive feelings for me?

Actually it can by watching what happens to the various centers of the brain and various other bodily reactions similar for example as how you can tell if a person is nervous or frightened, etc. . Many things which were though to be purely subjective and impossibly to quantify are now being studied.

Wow.... Look Cliff, you cannot measure the importance of those things. You can measure how they affect Tim, and Bob, but the results will vary from person to person. There is no universal truth when it comes to subjective things. It varies depending on the person. A Ka-Bar Warthog is longer than a Kershaw Leek. Objective. The Ka-Bar Warthog feels better than the Kershaw Leek. Subjective. Can you still not see the difference? What do you think "subjective" even means? Do you not think it is a word at all and that everything is objective? Your ignorance is amazing.

You can obviously measure the importance of the characteristics, it is actually really trivial, you just ask the person who wants the evaluation. Using javascript in a review you could even let a person define a set of ranks and then evaluate the performance using their ranks and weights to determine performance of the knife in the various attributes that you measured.

And it varies from person to person. Hence, you can determine their preferences, not the importance of such characteristics in the grand sense. SUBJECTIVE. What don't you get?!?

Of course reading a review isn't a substitute for using a knife directly, just like a drug trial isn't a substitute for trying it yourself. As noted these are just sources of information which you use to make more efficient choices. The more information in the review the more useful it is, the more vague it is, the more of them you need to be useful. In general people are willing to provide extra information if you just ask, except as noted, for the shills. So if you read a review and don't find it useful then thank the person for taking the time to give you his perspective and ask some questions for which the answers would be more informative.

Why just repeat what we have both been saying all along?

Cliff, maybe before reading another book on metalurgy, or hitting the achives at rec.knives, you should look into the very basic logic that even most children understand. You may know a lot more than me about many things, but your total misunderstanding of what "objective" and "subjective" mean is frankly quite scary.

 

[bbcmat]

Hair - I made a quick overview of your posts on BF - I didn't find any reference to the product range that you have evaluated and reported on.

I read your disappointment the work freely distributed by others - are you going to contrast it with the extensive work you have done?

As far as scientific method goes - what is your solution to the quantification of human factors relating to tool ergonomics and design? Describe projects in which you successfully implemented your solution.


MAT

 

[RealDeal]

Army tests Beretta 92's , upside down , sideways, sand you name it.
Crates and crates of 92s arrive in KSA, issued to SF teams, cant make it past the first weeks training excercises, throw away 92s back to good ole Sig 220's, fuck your science, unless its realworld practical tests, even then, real world not cement mixers full of sand, and i am an Engineer by training, pragmatist in practice and by experience.
You boys play key board commando games to much, spec wars dont work on the street.:jerkit:

 

[DaveH]

key board commando games to much

Banned, how could a guy like that get banned, if that is true i will self ban myslef on his behalf

Pot, kettle,...

I guess you changed you mind and aren't banning yourself in sympathy to Mr Robetsons plight?

 

[Cliff Stamp]

So if someone says "better" and gives no additional criteria, they must mean "more popular"?

You have no idea what it means, as I noted all you can do is use the information in a gross statistical sense and make general inferences.

What feels better to one may feel worse to another. Hence, they are subjective.

If it was true that you could not objectively determine ergonomics then it would be impossible of course to have a science which studied it and make progress in developing ergonomic tools. There is one, in fact as I noted it exists for things which most people have long felt are purely subjective and impossibly to quantify. The solution is to look at larger samples because this identifies general trends and fundamentals so the behavior isn't subjective any more is is now objective and can be measured. This is true of course for all measurement in general. In some cases what people thought was purely subjective can be measured directly as we come to better understand the human body itself.

How do you know that the physical manifestations that you consider negitive do not evoke positive feelings for me?

It is quite possible in an extreme to have for example someone prefer a boxy handle that makes their hand bleed because they actually take pleasure from pain. I would actually be curious if the pleasure centers of the brain are active for them in such cases. This is of course a fairly drastic side issue and in such cases you are simply then designing an uncomfortable handle.

[aspects]

...you cannot measure the importance of those things.

Yes you can, you can just ask the individual as I noted. You could even store his preferences on the website and have him login and present all the information accordingly. You can also then compile these results to infer the behavior of the population and thus evaluate the knife accordingly and again let users make statistical inferences.

Your basic hangup seems to be that since there is variation from one person to another this makes the entire process completely subjective because at most you can say something like "There is a 95% chance that you will find this handle ergonomic."

This holds for *all* determinations. Take a CATRA machine and run 5 XXX and 5 YYY blades and complile the results. In the end you present your findings. The most that a reader can infer is the same thing "There is a 95% chance that the XXX blades will have better edge retention slicing abrasive card stock than the YYY blades."

This means of course that some people who buy the knives will actually find the YYY blades to have better edge retention for that work. Just like some people who buy generally ergonomic handles will find them to be unergonomic. Yes there are variations from person to person, just like there are variations from steel to steel. All of this can be measured objectively to any level you desire.

Consider for example in the STIHL series and the saws used. There will be individual preferences, however if you look at the patterns you will see similar people pick similar saws, this isn't surprising. So what you have to do is correlate the differences such as the very top heavy saws like the Shark and Beaver (actual names) to the physical ability/method of the sawers. Thus someone can choose accordingly. This is no different than the tooth pattern, or even the grip on the saw.

Read Cook's book on axes for example to see how there is a lot of specific and objective science behind how an axe handle should be shaped. In general nothing is 100% completely objective or subjective because most aspects will have parts which are only seen by an individual and others which are seen by everyone. What you do to study such issues is identify the fundamentals which are common to everyone and then move into the individuals that deviate if subgroups among them can be found. This then eliminates another subjective criteria because you have found a larger group with the same responce and those judgements then are obviously no longer subjective.

I read your disappointment the work freely distributed by others - are you going to contrast it with the extensive work you have done?

In general it isn't necessary to basically offer a complete personal solution if you point out less than optimal methods. Much of it is in how the critism is applied and are you actually trying to help someone or actually just degrade the work. It is always obvious which is which though. Of course if you harshly critize someone for certain behavior and then you do the same thing yourself because you don't wish to make the effort or spend the money it looks kind of bad. In general though you can even often learn from such individuals if you have the ability to ignore all the personal ranting/insults.

-Cliff

 

[Hair]

Cliff- It seems that you are unable to understand. If you one day decide to learn about those crazy words "objective" and "subjective", then that is great. I am tired of explaining to you what you seem to be unable to understand.

But Cliff, to help you on your way, I will say this:

This holds for *all* determinations. Take a CATRA machine and run 5 XXX and 5 YYY blades and complile the results. In the end you present your findings. The most that a reader can infer is the same thing "There is a 95% chance that the XXX blades will have better edge retention slicing abrasive card stock than the YYY blades."

Steel varies. But steel is not people. Different steel will perform different depending on many different factors which can be objectively measured. How well an edge holds is not based on the personal taste of the steel.

People vary as well, but their judgements on what feels better or worse is a personal and subjective one. How good something feels is based on taste and personal bias. People are not steel. Holding an edge longer is an objective criteria. Whether an edge lasts longer or shorter is not subject to personal bias or taste. It is measured by time (assuming all other criteria such as the medium being cut, the pressure, and strokes are equal). Length of time is not open to taste, bias, or human subjectivity. 4 minutes is longer than 3 minutes. That is an objective fact. Feeling better is a subjective judgement. Handle A feels better than Handle B is a subjective judgement. You can determine which handle feels better to more people, but that does not mean it feels better in an objective way, such as 4 minutes being longer than 3 minutes. You can never determine what handle feels better in an objective sense- you can quanitfy it, but not qualify it. You only know how it feels to you. How good something feels cannot be objectively measured. A human feeling-good-unit is not a real unit of measurement.

If you still cannot see the difference, there may be no hope for you. But if you are not as arrogant as you seem, then maybe you will keep trying to learn and will one day attain the understanding that most children have.

Hair - I made a quick overview of your posts on BF - I didn't find any reference to the product range that you have evaluated and reported on.

I read your disappointment the work freely distributed by others - are you going to contrast it with the extensive work you have done?

I never said I was a great reviewer. Do I need to be a great car builder to dislike poorly made cars? I do not need to write reviews to dislike poorly written ones.

As far as scientific method goes - what is your solution to the quantification of human factors relating to tool ergonomics and design? Describe projects in which you successfully implemented your solution.

I do not need to be an ergonomist to know that how something feels is subjective. Science can study which elements feel better to more people, or find trends in what elements cause what discomforts to most people, but it cannot say what feels better. That is a subjective judgement.

 

[darkestthicket]

I believe Cliff has a post somewhere near the top of the knife testing and review forum that tests the dulling ability of cardboard vs 5 different knives made of a particular type of steel. this is both scientific and real world, 5 different blade geometry's, the same task, and the result.many a time you will probably have to cut cardboard with a folder. he tells you just how soon s30v (i believe, not looking at the page right now) with a specific edge grind will dull. scientific test + real world application. This pretty much answers the original question doesnt it?



edited to clarify my inebriated state. lol. edited again because i know how to spell steel. lol.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

If you one day decide to learn about those crazy words "objective" and "subjective", then that is great.

I have a PhD in molecular physics, I have published papers in peer reviewed journals and given talks at international conferences. Ironic to your assertion of my lack of understanding is the fact that one of the larger subjects of my thesis was the removal of subjective methods of judgement used by our lab group during experimentation and replacing them by objective methods. By determing exactly how the subjective judgements were being made and replacing them with defined criteria it then allowed everyone to use to the same defined tolerances.

I have also worked with people who study the objective nature of ergonomics and similar issues using methods described in the above. The subject is of some interest to me personally because I have family members who have severe physical abilities and thus I have looked into tools which are developed to be more ergonomic for such people. Note again the use of the plural which removes it from being purely a subjective matter obviously. The objective nature is based on fundamental principles of leverage and other concepts. I evaluated prototypes of knife handles which were based on these principles a few years ago. They were designed specifically to allow the thumb to engage a greater role in control and stabilization of the blade.

How well an edge holds is not based on the personal taste of the steel.

Actually is can be, this is in fact another well known and fundamental problem of data collection. It is one of the things you have to account for when obtaining user feedback. This is so well known there is even a term for it which is actually part of the common language. This is of couse the placebo effect where what a person thinks should happen can actually make something happen or at least make them think it happened.

My point with the steel reference is that it will reduce down to a percentage. All you can say about a knife made from one steel compared to another is that there is a probability that it will outperform it in a given aspect given what you know about the population of that steel. This is exactly the same as the statements you can make about ergonomics. They are the same at a fundamental level, there is variation, there is a pattern, you can identify and predict based on the pattern.

People vary as well, but their judgements on what feels better or worse is a personal and subjective one.

The science of ergonomics isn't simply about how something feels in a completely vague and undefined manner. It includes issues such as productivity, health concerns issues, immediate safety and many other criteria. These are all based on fundamental issues which is what of course allows ergonomic tools to be developed. Note as well that even the things that people think are purely subjective such as which music people will like or how beautiful someone is actually has a body of science at work reducing it to objective quantities. So you can say for example there is a XXX probability that a person will "like" a song or find someone attractive.

If you accept the fact that ergonomics is a purely subjective issue which varies without any way to predict from one person to the next then a knife maker can have NO ability to design an ergonomic handle. They are in fact left with random designs and they all would have equal chance at being ergonomic. This is of course nonsense and everyone knows this to be true. Once you accept this, that there are in fact basic guidelines then you have accepted there are obejctive criteria by defination which can be quantified and refined. Such is how science proceeds. Yes there are variations, there are always variations. You refine these by working with smaller subgroups and again identifing the common aspects. In general subjective often simply means you don't know what the objective quantity is yet.

As an example, ergonomics of a knife handle is very dependent on user hand size. My hands are x-large and thus many small grips are cramped for me and many are nonfunctional with gloves. This however isn't purely subjective because I have determined the objective aspects (hand size) which controls the "feel". This then allows you to predict how the knife will feel based on that attribute. As you become more aware of the other objective aspects you become better able to design more ergonomic handles accordingly.

Speaking of kids, most of them do understand this subject. Locally for example everyone knows that there is a strong correlation between the length of your hockey stick and your height. For those people unfamiliar with hockey, there is work in other sports. One was on selection of bats where someone determined what it was that made a bat "feel better" and thus was able to predict based on user physical abilities what worked better for them to some success. Similar work has been done on skate sharpening, something which used to be very subjective is now being very objectively determined.

It isn't unreasonable to see this science proceeding to the extent that in a short period of time you could ask a computer for example to compose a piece of music for you and achieve success with a high degree of reliability as the computer would use the objective correlation between human characteristics and "pleasing" audio frequency patterns. To some people this is a very scary thought and is why a lot of people really refuse to even consider some things in an objective manner. Most of these subjects however are in a relatively crude state which is likely because of just how complex the interations are which take place and how many variables people can actually consider when reaching such a decision. It is an extremely complex subject.

-Cliff

 

[hardheart]

/thread
...

 

[darkestthicket]

Army tests Beretta 92's , upside down , sideways, sand you name it.
Crates and crates of 92s arrive in KSA, issued to SF teams, cant make it past the first weeks training excercises, throw away 92s back to good ole Sig 220's, fuck your science, unless its realworld practical tests, even then, real world not cement mixers full of sand, and i am an Engineer by training, pragmatist in practice and by experience.
You boys play key board commando games to much, spec wars dont work on the street.:jerkit:

What world is this that the beretta 92's dont last the first weeks training excercises? I own a 92 centurion, have put 500 rounds per shooting range excercise through it with not a jam to mention. thats FMJ and hydra shok and its still a nail driver. Out of 5 guns I own, if somone breaks into the house, Id damn sure go for my Beretta first and foremost.

Edit:
I would estimate over 10,000 rounds fired on the original barrel, fyi. various firing positions, quick draws, you name it.

 

[Gteckwreck]

Cliff,

What's the major problem with establishing a set of standards for testing of knives similar to those of ASTM? ASTM standards are used extensively in my profession, architecture, to establish criteria for performance exclusive of design, ie, subjective requirements.

A standard could then be referenced in sales information by those choosing to apply their products to those standards, and if a knife doesn't meet the standards, it doesn't carry the approval seal.

Subjective issues and those related decisions such as grip preferences, materials, suitability for specific tasks, etc, would be the purchaser's option, but knowing the product passed a certain benchmark would be valuable to most educated knife buyers.

What those standards are, which organization sponsors their adoption by the testing authority would have to be determined, but I think you have made a great start in the testing you perform.
Any thoughts?

Fred

 

[Buzzbait]

any one can find a scientific way to test knife quality?

There are lots of scientific ways to test knife quality. You can test a knife's hardness. You can test a certain handle material's resistance to certain chemicals. You can test abrasion resistance. These are great tests, and are hopefully done by quality knife manufacturers, or their vendors.

Unfortunately, once you try to test the all-encompassing “overall quality of a knife”, which we so love to talk about here, things get a lot more hairy. There are so many small aspects to our wonderful knives, that it takes a huge amount of time, to get an accurate feel for overall quality.

To help define things here, I will offhandedly state “Overall Quality” to be the sum of a knife’s parts, and how they interact with their environment. You can pretty easily use science to test a knife’s parts, and to some extent, you can easily test how these parts interact with each other.

But how the sum interacts with its environment is very shaky ground, and is probably the largest perceived aspect of “Overall Quality”. This goes far beyond measurements that we can easily record in a meaningful way. I can use a particular knife every day for a month, and be very impressed with the knife. Then ask me about this knife two years later, and I may have an entirely different opinion on the subject.

What I use the knife for may have changed over two years. My personal preference in certain areas may have evolved in that time. How I need to carry the knife may have changed with the current fashion trends. Maybe my personal need to get closer to nature has changed my views as to the intrinsic qualities of certain handle materials. Heck, current political trends may influence the way I view a certain knife’s usefulness. All of these examples may likely change my feel for “Overall Quality”, as I am the unfortunate and unwitting part of the knife’s environment, and am continually in a state of change.

My personal preference is to read knife reviews, by people who have personally used their knives for extended periods of time, and are willing to share their personal experiences with their knives. I get to peek into this user’s life, to see if his preferences and environment match my own. I get to see how his/her perceptions of how the knife performed, outside of some rigid laboratory setup where variables are far too controlled to predict the overall quality of a knife. The true diamond in the rough, is the knife that withstands all of these environmental changes, and still remains as useful as the day it was purchased.

The downfall, of course, of this type of reviewing, is that the knife being reviewed may no longer be available for retail sale or may have been updated in construction or manufacturing techniques, since his knife was made. This type of reviewing also does not take into account the manufacturing tolerances of a particular knife manufacturer. Also, the reviewer could be an idiot.

In the end, science is merely the starting point for the life of a good knife. The real test of "Overall Quality" requires a knife's entire useful life to properly determine.