I'm in before the move too! Woohoo!
The truth is you don't learn much of anything by breaking one knife in an unrepeatable fashion. ... Think repeatability - that is critical to real testing. If you really are interested in the scientific method, even go as far to think what is the hypothesis of the test? This is the first step in doing a test - what question are you trying to answer? When your question is not a very good or specific, your "test" might not tell you anything even if it is repeatable with good method. A test should be to answer a question in a way that can be compared to real use.
Point 1: "repeatability" is NOT critical to "real testing", it is critical to production and duplication of a product, i.e. manufacture. Two identically manufactured products in a lot (or batch) should perform identically when subjected to the same stresses - if not, there is an issue with manufacture.
In testing, "repeatability" only applies to duplicating results when testing the SAME subject, which is NOT the case in the Noss 'tests'. When performing the same test on the same subject, the same result should be generated - if not, the testing method must be reviewed and improved. However, Noss never destroys the same knife twice - he selects or is given a single sample for destruction. That sample may be a unique subject or may be part of a larger batch of supposedly identical subjects. If it IS one of many, selected at random, then observed results regarding that particular sample are hypothetically representative of every product from that lot or batch - i.e. every other knife from that lot of knives would produce the same results as were obtained when subjecting that single knife to the stresses involved in the destruction, each would excel or fail in the ways that the tested sample excelled/failed.
Point 2, the
hypotheses of these demonstrations is generated by
popular expectation, i.e. prediction of how well/poorly a knife will perform under specific conditions of stress. A hypothesis is
fundamental to
scientific experimentation but NOT to
testing itself. All that is necessary for "testing" is the drive to complete the process itself, whether it be fueled by curiosity ("I wonder what would happen if..."), entertainment ("Wouldn't it be fun to..."), etc. What is great about these demonstrations is how they encourage discussion as viewers theorize regarding performance of the various subjects, draw subjective and objective comparisons, and develop hypotheses for future experiments (even though few people have the means or drive to follow through on them).
Point 3, it is funny to see how often the phrase "real use" is brought up in opposition to destruction testing. First of all, the phrase is entirely subjective to the "user", and could probably be replaced with "popular use" or "expected use". Some people 'use' their knives by preserving them carefully from any stress or harm in a locked safe, others only cut arm/leg hair or envelopes or toilet paper, or soft vegetables, etc., while others use their knives cut / pry / hammer / drill / carve / chop / etc. on materials of varying properties. All of these are very "real" uses of a knife; it just so happens that certain knives are objectively better suited to the user's tasks than other knives (be it that one knife is 'prettier' or tougher or holds a better edge, etc.).
Second, the "limit testing" method employed in the most popular destruction tests (i.e. Noss) CAN be extrapolated to "real use", indeed quite easily thanks to his diligence in posting so many LONG videos of how he destroys the knives he is given.
The problems that I see people encountering include a misunderstanding of these demonstrations, particularly regarding the specific properties of the knife which are being tested. These are not sharpness tests, corrosion tests, or beauty pageants - the primary properties examined are strength and toughness (as well as ergonomics, to a degree). The subjective relevance of these tests will depend on the importance of those specific properties in regard to your personal use of the knife, the levels of stress and frequency that you encounter.
A second problem that people seem to have is penchant for
hyperbole - exaggerating the 'possible' (i.e.
untested) performance, strength, toughness, or indestructibility of a knife... only to watch it chip or snap
unexpectedly. The core question is, what informed their expectations in the first place?
IF you are making an informed choice regarding a product/knife/tool/etc. with strength/toughness is a primary attribute, it is
reckless (i.e. silly and potentially dangerous) to make your selection without knowing the stress-limits to which the item can be subjected. Ever tried to design a house without regard for load-stress limits in the pillars, beams, and joists? Don't be ridiculous. What about going rock-climbing with ropes and carabiners of unknown/untested strength? Now for most people most of the time, not knowing the stress limits of your knife will not prove immediately harmful if that knife should fail unexpectedly, since most people do not use their knives anywhere near the stress limits ...
For those that DO use their knife in stressful ways, knowledge of its limits is key, for they depend on the knife to perform and not fail when they need it. And you can only know a knife's limits by testing it to destruction. For those that sell or even
recommend knives to others under the supposition that it is a "tank" able to endure "extreme use" etc., they must be prepared to justify their statement with empirical evidence. If they have not seen or themselves performed a limit test, what is the basis for their statement? Is it mere hyperbole?
My recommendation: If you are looking for a knife with specific uses in mind, search for empirical evidence regarding the performance of knives under those specific conditions. If you intend to carve wood with the knife, search for photos/videos of people using it or something similar to carve wood. If you are interested in information regarding the stress limits of a given knife, search for empirical evidence of that. Take NO ONE'S word unless you know them and find them trustworthy or are not concerned about the results should their recommendation fail you.
