By Eye & Feel and/or By Gauge & Meter

[JCaswell]

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.

Aint that the truth!

 

[Destraal]

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?

Let me get this straight, you're saying that I don't know much about science? That is flat out insulting. You're also saying that I should do experiments on science? How would you suggest I do that exactly?

If we work together and keep an open mind, we can all learn a lot.

That's exactly why you have to find out for yourself...

In one post you say we should work together to learn, but in the other you tell us not to trust the works of others. You realize that without cooperation and trust in science, we'd still be hitting each other with rocks and living in caves.
I mean are you reading what you're writing at all?

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 have a hypothetical situation for you. Random knifemaker decides to take a piece of steel he finds on the side of the road and shape it like a knife. He decides to try to heat treat it. However, because he didn't get his steel from a reliable source he doesn't know that it has less than .1% carbon and the rest is pure iron. No matter what method he uses to heat treat it, he will still end up with a soft blade because he didn't trust someone's science and buy quality steel.

Nothing good can come of me continuing to respond to this thread. I won't waste my time trying to change someone's axiomatic beliefs.

I'm really hoping that you're just the most successful troll in history, it's the only logical explanation for why your comments seem to be all over the place.

 

[Tai Goo]

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.

Human error has to be taken into account in any scenario when people are involved. I guess that's my point.

 

[Tai Goo]

You're also saying that I should do experiments on science? How would you suggest I do that exactly?

I don't think you could, but you're the scientist, so maybe you can figure it out. If you can't scientifically verify it,... how does it work into your scheme of things?

 

[Salem Straub]

Ever notice how dietary experts, using data presumably based on ongoing scientific inquiry, are always changing their facts about what is or is not "good for the heart," etc.?

Or what about this recent news item about the experts on one hand telling women to no longer get mammograms routinely under the age of 50 to check for breast cancer, while the other experts responded that the previous experts were totally in the wrong and endangering the public.

What about the Thalidomide debacle? Research that. It's horrible.

What about the fact that physicians and dentists regularly used mercury in vaccines and fillings until research showed it causes all sorts of problems with the nervous system? The controversy about the vaccines started in 1997. Hardly primitive times. And yet the scientists had made a previous conclusion (apparently) that mercury would be harmless for these applications.

I guess the parents of kids whose autism may well be linked to those vaccines were guilty of only one thing: faith in modern science.

Hey, I have faith in science too, but I don't like to think it's completely blind.

P.S. Did you know that during the Manhattan project, scientists were not completely sure that the chain reaction of atoms splitting started by the bomb would end? That the result could have been the destruction of everything? As far as I'm aware, the decision to go ahead was made on the faith that this would not happen.

 

[Tai Goo]

History can tell us a lot...

I'm always a bit skeptical of "trendy science".

 

[Alden Sherrodd]

I've watched from the sides and read all of the posts. After a while I couldn't remember what the original post was about.
The OP wondered why there seems to be two opposing schools of thought to knife making.
I really think the two can coexist. If you discount those that do not rely on technology you discount all the knives and knifemaker from the first knife up until maybe seventy to ninety years ago. If you discount technology you probably aren't doing your best work.
The blademakers of the past, even while lacking in ways to empirically measure the processes knew how to achieve repeatability and did test their blades. The main difference is the lack of measuring devices which can give numbers that can be used to communicate things like exact temperature and exact hardness. You must believe that they used "science", in that they observed and tested what they were doing.
Much of metallurgy is based on theory. It is impossible for us to see what goes on in metals at the molecular level at elevated temperature and in real time. So there is much to be learned in the future.
There will always be errors in either the technical or traditional approaches. Who hasn't got a "factory made" knife that was either too soft or too brittle? And it is easy to imagine a sub par "rustic" knife.
A "good" knife is as much about aesthetics and ergonomics as metallurgy. And these things are difficult to assign a number to, although these things can be studied and analyzed.
There is no reason that good knives can't be made with with either an abundance or a lack of technology or a mix. It is difficult to totally steer clear of technology, as the materials available today are the result of technology.
In my mind the most important thing we can do as knifemakers is to test the knives, as knives. The heat treat becomes irrelevant if the blade geometry is lacking or the handle design makes it difficult to use.
We all should attempt to coexist with one another. Instead of bristling up at others ideas we should have enough confidence in ourselves to simply be amused at opposing thought. There is enough room for all of us here.

Have fun
Alden

 

[Tai Goo]

Good post Alden.

Either way you slice it, certain conditions and/or preconditions have to be met in order for either them to work. Just because a certain method looks good or sounds good on paper, doesn’t necessarily mean it will translate into success in the “real world“. There are always going to be a few “if, ands or buts“, either way. Is the probability of one method having greater odds for success higher than the other?… maybe, maybe not. Neither are exempt from human error. In some cases, by simplifying the process and making it more direct (hand/eye), it seems logical that certain variables, assumptions and conditions may be eliminated,… just the same way more complicated tooling and equipment can eliminate certain variables etc. However, to eliminate the variable of human error completely,… in essence would eliminate the “human” from the process and equation. I guess that’s my main concern over the “scientific approach” to handmade knives.