By Eye & Feel and/or By Gauge & Meter

Hey Folks,

It's been a heck of a day at high school today with a few of my colleagues out ill. I've checked in here, but haven't had anytime to pitch in. I'm not sure I can add much erudition to the conversation, but I can sure share my musings.

I am wanting to salute and develop the capacities of the human "instrument." Sure a digital synthesizer can be more spot on with accurate tone generation than the human voice or a person playing a violin, but that doesn't mean people can't make BEAUTIFUL, indeed profound music with their bodies, minds and hearts! I have no intention of refuting or minimizing digitized technological means. Nor do I want to be minimized or eclipsed by the mechanistic and digitized.

For me this isn't especially about science verses art, or vice versa. I just wish to truly value the capacities, potentials and strivings of the human being. This should be able to hold true for the artisan as well as the scientist and the craftsman as well as the machinist. I agree, primitive is not the right word. Perhaps traditional or cultural...or something else? I'm having trouble putting a finger on it, never-the-less this is profoundly important to me.

As has been brought up, one would probably not be amiss to wonder into the realms of philosophy and psychology and even mysticism and spirituality. Today I shared a paraphrasing from the tao with a new group of 17 high school freshmen taking up bone carving with me this semester. (As you might imagine several of them are having difficulty staying mindful of the difference of craftsmanship rather than buffoonery.) Here's the short version.
Artisan: A person skilled with tools in pursuit of perfection of a handcraft as a means of service and self realization.
​
Thanks everyone for all your reflections. May the light of your eyes and the skill of your hands express the warmth of your heart.

All the best, Phil
 
Last edited:
I like that definition of artisan, Phil. It's good to be alive and making knives in this time when we have more tools than ever at our disposal. Surely the reason we so often discuss the boundaries and commonalities of technology and art is because we are blessed to be devotees of this discipline which encompasses both.

I like some of what Tai has to say in these threads. A healthy skepticism of science can be a good thing. Depending on how you look at it, science can be another faith-based system like a religion. I mean, if I have experimented into a subject personally and draw conclusions, that's one thing. But if I trust someone else's conclusions without corroborating the experiment myself, that's faith I have in hearsay.

I realize that the former sentence is not a practical way of thought in many situations, just an abstract observation on my part.
 
Last edited:
Phil, We'll never realize our full human potential unless we give it chance and/or die trying. The first time around I gave up too easy, but after going the other route for about 10-12 years, I decided to give myself another chance. If nothing else it's been a great learning experience. However, for the newbies who choose to go the more traditional route to be shot down before even starting the journey is a sad thing in my opinion. It’s amazing how far a little encouragement will go. Yes, it does take a lot of hard work to become proficient at this stuff, but I think it really has more to do with attitude. If you don't come at it with the right attitude you won't get very far.

Don't underestimate the "human instrument".

Salem, Yes skepticism, criticism, and opposition are good things on either side of the fence. Without them we become comfortable, complacent and even stagnant. They force us to do better and try harder. Again, attitude is the key. If we take everything personally, it's much harder. It helps to have a thick skin and thick skull,... but not so thick that we don't listen to what other folks are saying. We should welcome the skeptics...

"science can be another faith-based system like a religion".
I couldn't agree with that more, or have said it any better. I'm glad you pointed that out. :)
 
Last edited:
From a beginners point of view, isn't there a certain amount of both required? Whether you're buying 1080 or S35VN the science and measuring have already started. We all know how complex S35VN is, but 1080 is still a near exact alloy. The design is always done by hand, even if done on a computer. The computer doesn't tell you that the design is off, your eye does. With the exception of CNC milling, stock removal and forging both require a great amount of visual inspection. CNC Milling probably takes just as long and just as much visual inspection, just at a screen instead of on the material itself. After that, all the grinding, filing, hand sanding, or random orbital sanding still requires a great amount of visual inspection. But all those steps are still measured(220 grit, 8micron, etc.), unless you make your own sandpaper.

Simply put, you can't have one without the other. It's just not possible. I can't remember the exact quote, but someone here has it as a signature. You can't have art without science, but there is an art to getting the science right.
 
I would dearly LOVE to be able to measure my heat treat temps and control them to within a couple of degrees. But $omething $eem$ to be preventing thi$ from happening. I hope you $ee my point. ;-)

Seriously I would love to have a very reliable, controllable system for heat treating and other things. Progress is going to come about slowly though.

In a way we ALL are using gauges and meters of some sort. Until a pile of money falls out of the air and smacks me on the head my gauges and meters will be my hands and eyes. Calibration is really time consuming and sometimes they malfunction but it's what I can afford for now. I'm not anti-technology, I'm anti-starvation.

LonePine
AKA Paul Meske, Wisconsin
 
Zaph1, Yes. "Theoretically", in order to achieve consistent results in terms of performance and methodically work towards improvement, science must be involved in one way or another, art or otherwise. I personally consider this a fact.

Lonepine, it's all just theory until you prove it, at least first hand for yourself. As a skeptic of the "scientific approach", I'll say that all they really have are theories, good theories and lots of facts to back them up,… but still just theories. "Theoretically", having a controlled heat treating system should prove superior to hand/eye. "Theoretically", starting with steels of known composition, should produce better results faster and easier than salvaged or recycled steels. "Theoretically" higher alloy steels should out perform lower alloy steels in cutting comparisons. "Theoretically" engineered quenching fluids should out perform non engineered fluids and on and on... The problem is that in the real world there are just too many exceptions and variables for me to consider "these theories" fact. I encourage you to keep trying with the low tech approach.

Dang! Those two responses were hard to put together in one post. ;)
(I must have edited it a dozen times.) LOL
 
Last edited:
I don't think you understand the definition of a theory in the scientific community at all. A theory is proven by empirical data over a long period of time and is widely considered to be fact. A good example is the germ theory of disease, which states that microorganisms are the causes of many diseases. It's still a theory, but it's backed up by huge volumes of proof over hundreds of years.

It seems that much of your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of science in general. I would highly recommend understanding subjects before waging war against them, otherwise you end up sounding like an ignoramus.
 
Destral, perhaps you don't know as much about science "itself" as you think,... or maybe you just misinterpret what I'm trying to say.

Have you done any scientific studies or experiments on science itself? Do have any scientific proof of what you are saying?... Or are you just putting your “faith” in science?

The way I see it, the "scientific approach" to knifemaking hasn't really been defined yet. I think I just said that in my opinion any approach to knifemaking involves science. However, what I call (or am refering to as) THE "scientific approach" (to bladesmithing in particular), historically, hasn't been around hundreds of years. It's fairly new. However, the "hand/eye" approach has, and has stood the test of time.

Just for the records, I don't consider myself a scientist and don't pretend to be. I think educating yourself in the area of "art" might help you understand.

Sorry if you were offended by some of my philosophies, or took any of it personally. I think we may just getting hung up on words and semantics. This is a confusing thread in some ways, because we're not really sure which words or definitions to use. I think some folks are following O.K. though.

I encourage you to go back and read post #11, and particularly the link to "identifying pseudoscience". I think I'm safe because I don't call what I do "science".
 
Last edited:
OK Time for a definition moment here


science
The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis. See Note at hypothesis.

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


e American Engineers' Council for Professional Development (ECPD, the predecessor of ABET)[1] has defined "engineering" as:

The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property.[2][3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering


What we practice is artistry hopefully involving craftsmanship. Science in involved in developing our materials, engineering is involved in developing optimized processes for getting the most out of those materials. It is possible to get a workable knife by not using optimized processes for process sensitive operations (Heat Treating) Undoubtably the visual aspects of design and formation should be artfully done, however to insist (without methodical comparison) that uncontrolled unmeasured processes are innately superior to engineered proven solutions performed under tightly controlled conditions is either the pinnacle of ignorance or deliberate misinformation.

-Page
 
sunshadow said:
What we practice is artistry hopefully involving craftsmanship. Science in involved in developing our materials, engineering is involved in developing optimized processes for getting the most out of those materials. It is possible to get a workable knife by not using optimized processes for process sensitive operations (Heat Treating) Undoubtably the visual aspects of design and formation should be artfully done, however to insist (without methodical comparison) that uncontrolled unmeasured processes are innately superior to engineered proven solutions performed under tightly controlled conditions is either the pinnacle of ignorance or deliberate misinformation.

-Page
Click to expand...

Why didn't you say so before lol...by the definition, then, using a magnet to judge the temperature of steel is science, being a natural phenomenon. It is just science that is open to a bit of subjective inaccuracy in use. As is a PID and thermocouple. The real question is not what equipment one uses, but whether one knows how to use it optimally, and has tested and scrutinized their results in order to tune their processes.
 
Last edited:
Tai Goo said:
...As a skeptic of the "scientific approach", I'll say that all they really have are theories, good theories and lots of facts to back them up,… but still just theories...
Click to expand...

Might have more than 'just' theories here if they are backed up by lots of facts.

If someone were to have a reasonable dose of skepticism, is there a way to identify psuedo-art that may have been passed along over many years. If a truckload of facts are not enough to support a scientific theory what would be needed determine good art.
 
cdent said:
Might have more than 'just' theories here if they are backed up by lots of facts.

If someone were to have a reasonable dose of skepticism, is there a way to identify psuedo-art that may have been passed along over many years. If a truckload of facts are not enough to support a scientific theory what would be needed determine good art.
Click to expand...

They still have to pass the test of time and the scrutiny of "peer review"... in this case other qualified knifemakers. I don't believe I'm the only skeptic here. It really depends on the claims they are making about their approach... It's the "absolute" correctness, authority and superiority as it pertains to handmade knives that I disagree with. There are just too many exceptions.

At one point in history all crafts (and photography) were considered pseudo-arts, as opposed to sculpture and painting which are totally "non-utilitarian or non-functional". However, this is no longer the case by popular consensus...
 
Last edited:
Excellent point about the selective application of absolutes, but it's an important tool to stimulate discussion.

I'd definitely disagree that mob rule is the ultimate definer of art, it may only really matter if one person, joe or sally customer, is convinced it's art. The eye of the beholder could be more valuable than taking a scissors to a fine painting and finding out the art was only skin deep.

Always fun, Craig
 
Craig, right!

The facts may be absolute, but the interpretation of the facts and applications of the facts may or may not… which is really where we’re at with this.

I think that the "scientific approach"... is a valid approach to knifemaking and a very good one,… but not the only one.

It all becomes more subjective than objective.

If we work together and keep an open mind, we can all learn a lot. :)
 
Short answer-A knifemaker who blindly follows formulas and accepts the results thereof, is primitive in his approach, even if he uses an Evenheat.
On the other hand, a smith who judges temp. by experience, and tests his blades extensively to refine that experience, is pursuing the scientific method. It is not the instrumentation that makes the difference, it is the methodology.
 
Last edited:
All kinds of things can go wrong with the scientific approach...

Hypothetical situation:
O.K. you think you’ve done your homework and you are ready to proceed. So, you go online and look for a piece of “xxxx” steel, and buy some from "Admiral Steel". The only thing is that, you thought you were getting “xxxx“, but what you ended up with was 1095... But you don’t know that yet! So,… you check your specs., before heat treating just to make sure and it says such and such to get a Rockwell hardness of so and so. Only thing is that, there’s typo in the specs, and you don’t know it! So, you HT your blade in your salt pot and it won't even skate a file! So,... you come on the forum and ask, "What went wrong"?

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. However, please don’t take this as being negative towards the scientific approach,… It just goes to show that it takes a lot of experience and know how to become proficient at HT either way you slice it.
 
Last edited:
The product of the methods is always another story, regardless of the approach, that much is true. Science is just as open to misapplication as any other method.
 
Tai, you lost me on that one, man... lol.

How has science failed you in that scenario? Wouldn't that be human error? How would an alternative approach at knifemaking get around someone giving you the wrong steel and specs?

Lets say you wanted O1 but were given A2...

Help me understand where you are coming from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top