You can read one of the original research papers in which they investigated obsidian knives for eye-surgery. It was published in 1982 in the Western Journal of Medicine, and is indexed on Medline. If you have proven that the paper's results are invalid, then that result, itself, can be published as a paper.
The paper is free to download, and you can grab it here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1273673/?tool=pubmed
This paper is referenced in both the link that Bob W mentioned, and Wikipedia's entry on obsidian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian#Current_use
I would like to say that different people have different experiences.
That doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong. For example, there could be differences in skill, materials, and hundreds of other effects. For example: obsidian is mostly silica, but it has other stuff in it. But the other stuff probably matters, just like a fraction of a percent of carbon changes soft iron into hard steel. So there a many possibilities. I'd rather we weren't snippy about it. I think it's better to simply say,"Hmm... In my experience that never happens, so and I have a hard time believing it," rather than various ad hominem attacks.
Different experiences are fine by me, and I'm curious about each of them.
In my own opinion, I tend to think both the scientific paper and stichawl are both valid. And what it _could mean_, is that obsidian can get insanely sharp, but in practice, it maybe be extremely hard to do. If so, then that itself is disappointing, but very interesting.
Sincerely,
--Lagrangian
P.S. Like RazorSharp-Travis, I might try breaking some bottles, even if they aren't obsidian.
