- Joined
- Apr 10, 2000
- Messages
- 3,794
That is my point. There is useful info for those who want to read. If you just look at the pictures of broken and badly deformed knives in there, there is no point even going there.They do however contain useful information.
As far as I can tell a lot of his detractors not read or just skim through the reviews missing parts of it and then come accusations of hidden agendas or hidden/obfuscated test data, etc. Yes, his articles are hard to read or even understand sometimes, but same goes for any scientific article, unless you have some knowledge of the subject it'll be difficult to grasp. Hardly a reason to blame the author for the lack of knowledge the reader has.
There's another point to consider, that there is no official cutlery science per se as of today. There's hardly even a specialized steel for knives too.
Material Physics isn't same as testing materials to destruction. By definition - Material physics is the use of physics to describe materials. You need PhD for that because it's a science. College dropouts don't do well in manufacturer's car crash tests for example, at least I haven't seen any car maker proudly advertising that their car crash tests are done by college dropouts because you don't need Phd to destroy something.Cliff was getting his PhD in Material Physics or similar - testing materials to destruction. I don't why you need a PhD for that. I know a couple high-school dropout laborers who will do demolitions
Last edited: