Reasonable Knife Evaluation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sharp Phil said:
Yes, it does. Words have meanings.
Click to expand...

Here we go again.....

Yes words have meanings and the word "test" does not include "scientific method" in all of its definitions.....

The fundamental flaw in your argument is the fact that there is no meaning to the word "abuse" in a destructive testing format. Nor, for that matter, is it possible to "abuse" a knife under most circumstances marketed as an extreme use knife. The only real meaning to the word "abuse" for an extreme use knife would be use aimed at purposely breaking the knife (outside of a destructive test).

Many manufacturers have no questions asked warranties....Buck advertises their knives as being able to be hammered through a steel bolt. Wonder where people get these "unreasonable expectations"????
 
Seems to me that in order to purposely break a knife, you would know you're doing something the knife isn't meant to do...i.e. chopping thru cinder blocks?
 
SPXTrader said:
Seems to me that in order to purposely break a knife, you would know you're doing something the knife isn't meant to do...i.e. chopping thru cinder blocks?
Click to expand...

I guess if it was a CR knife, you would know that that is a real possibility.

Hard use knives are meant to withstand hard use. Noss tests showed that some knives have the potential to take a lot more hard use than others.

I don't have to know anything about what a knife is "meant" to do to break it if I wish to.
 
busselover said:
Here we go again.....

Yes words have meanings and the word "test" does not include "scientific method" in all of its definitions.....
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. It's implied; it's a connotation of the word "test."

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you are defending abuse for the sake of abuse, with no regard to context, common sense, or the manufacturer's intent.
 
Sharp Phil said:
Yes, it does. It's implied; it's a connotation of the word "test."
Click to expand...

Wrong.....

Definitions of test on the Web:

* put to the test, as for its quality, or give experimental use to; "This approach has been tried with good results"; "Test this recipe"
* screen: test or examine for the presence of disease or infection; "screen the blood for the HIV virus"
* trial: trying something to find out about it; "a sample for ten days free trial"; "a trial of progesterone failed to relieve the pain"
* quiz: examine someone's knowledge of something; "The teacher tests us every week"; "We got quizzed on French irregular verbs"
* any standardized procedure for measuring sensitivity or memory or intelligence or aptitude or personality etc; "the test was standardized on a large sample of students"
* show a certain characteristic when tested; "He tested positive for HIV"
* examination: a set of questions or exercises evaluating skill or knowledge; "when the test was stolen the professor had to make a new set of questions"
* achieve a certain score or rating on a test; "She tested high on the LSAT and was admitted to all the good law schools"
* the act of undergoing testing; "he survived the great test of battle"; "candidates must compete in a trial of skill"
* determine the presence or properties of (a substance)
* the act of testing something; "in the experimental trials the amount of carbon was measured separately"; "he called each flip of the coin a new trial"
* undergo a test; "She doesn't test well"
* a hard outer covering as of some amoebas and sea urchins

Obviously not all meanings include or infer the scientific method. Humans were testing things long before the scientific method came on the scene....


Sharp Phil said:
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you are defending abuse for the sake of abuse, with no regard to context, common sense, or the manufacturer's intent.
Click to expand...

You can not defend something that does not exist.

Strange how something so obvious seems beyond your comprehension. The trials are done to see the limits (purpose) of a sample of knives marketed as hard use (manufacturer's intent) by subjecting them to extreme usage (context)....
 
Last edited:
You cannot redefine the common usage and connotations of a word by pasting selected definitions off the Internet.
 
Why? I'm not the one with the issue.

Still don't understand I see....oh well, either you have some sort of ulterior motive or you are living proof of what can't be fixed...

Enough. Not worth the time.
 
The issue you have is that you're defending these knife-breaking stunts when they are reasonably and logically indefensible.
 
I think it's funny that the creator of The Martialist, advertised as being "for those who fight unfairly" is on a one-man mission against those he feels test knives unfairly. Hypocrisy at its finest, folks!:thumbup:

I guess, in Phils' view of "fighting unfairly," it just wouldn't be "fair" to use the spine of a knife to bash an opponent over the head, since knives weren't built for spine contacts with hard objects, and as such, would constitue gross abuse of the tool.:rolleyes:

You can't have it both ways, Dr. Phil.;)

Regards,
3G

"Fight unfairly, but for God's sake, don't expect your equipment to hold up, because it just ain't fair to test it for an unfair use!"
 
Personally, I just can't put all that much credence in what a man who seems to have an affinity for Mantis knives thinks about 'knife testing'. Maybe it's just me.

According to http://www.themartialist.com/reviews.htm, Phil has reviewed 14 of their knives. That is a lot more reviews than any other brand of production knife got on his site.

Viva la militia, Phil!:D:thumbup:

3G
 
3Guardsmen said:
Yup. When all the cards are on the table, everything becomes a lot clearer.;)

Regards,
3G
Click to expand...


Yeah, most of these types of things boil down to the same basic human motivators - jealousy, envy, greed, etc......

Glad my mystery has been solved....I will not waste any more time with Sharp Phil the knife tester.....
 
internets be workin'!

SPXTrader said:
Seems to me that in order to purposely break a knife, you would know you're doing something the knife isn't meant to do...i.e. chopping thru cinder blocks?
Click to expand...
But what if it doesn't break? What if ten other knives don't break either?

I could purposely break a small car by putting 1500 pounds of crap over the rear axle. I could do the same to a 3/4 ton truck and damn well better be able to drive cross country and uphill without a problem. Of course, I can also look up load capacities for the vehicles in manufacturer specs.

When chopping a cinder block for a few minutes does nothing more than dull the edge (no damage deeper than the edge bevel) was the knife abused, or was it used within it's performance envelope?

If I got a knife made out of tool steel, 1/4" thick, treated to low-mid 50s hardness, with a 60 degree included edge (30 per side, like the highest setting on a lansky), would it be abuse to hammer it through sheet metal? I hope not, because those are the specs on a small cold chisel.
 
3Guardsmen said:
I think it's funny that the creator of The Martialist, advertised as being "for those who fight unfairly" is on a one-man mission against those he feels test knives unfairly. Hypocrisy at its finest, folks!:thumbup:

I guess, in Phils' view of "fighting unfairly," it just wouldn't be "fair" to use the spine of a knife to bash an opponent over the head, since knives weren't built for spine contacts with hard objects, and as such, would constitue gross abuse of the tool.:rolleyes:

You can't have it both ways, Dr. Phil.;)

Regards,
3G

"Fight unfairly, but for God's sake, don't expect your equipment to hold up, because it just ain't fair to test it for an unfair use!"
Click to expand...

Very well said ......... :thumbup:
 
Sharp Phil said:
The "standard" is set regardless of whether it is consciously done. It is set by the default expectations that prevail among the community of users. One relatively ignorant subset of these users is redefining those expectations at unreasonable (abusive) levels, and this does everyone a disservice.
Click to expand...

This is wrong on so many levels! You start with an assumption of what other people are doing- even unconsciously? And follow that by claiming that these relatively (in the scheme of things) recent tests have already set the prevalent "default expectation" of the whole community of users? And finally, an ignorant subset (can we at least hope this a small subset?) of users is: first, redefining everyone's expectations, and second, doing everyone a disservice?

And after making a statement like this, you have the nerve to complain that someone isn't using the scientific method?

To be more serious, the only thing that really upsets me here, is that you seem to be on a crusade to suppress knowledge- why? If it's not useful knowledge to you, then so be it, but why are you so bent on depriving others of it?

Your arguments seem to be saying that some people are thinking in ways not approved of by you, and that the first step to fixing that is to end these ridiculous destruction tests, eh, Adolf?
 
Last edited:
tsiloics said:
Here's that example again. What you're saying is true, but not valid.

A valid example would be more along the lines of testing two trucks to see how much damage was sustained from running say, 100 miles with the oil volume at 50%.

Now, what is at issue here is this:

A.) Finding one truck superior to the other because it sustained less damage running on low oil would be a perfectly legitimate performance criticism, regardless of whether the manufacturer had made any such claims. This might very well be of interest and value to some truck owners or prospective buyers.

B.) Any given prospective truck buyer or owner might not see a need for the ability to run on low oil. In that case, he should simply disregard the test.

C.) It would not be appropriate for one to use the results of this test to badmouth a truck manufacturer on the basis of his truck's inferior performance, as long as that manufacturer had not made claims to the contrary.

D.) The fact that a given truck owner does not care about his truck’s ability (or lack thereof) to run on low oil does not make it inappropriate for other truck owners to value this attribute.
Click to expand...

IMHO, the engine analogy has some validity and application here in regards to abuse testing or hard use for performance sake.

Historically, engine models that can handle abuse or neglect better (low oil levels, high temps, etc.) with less damage are far more likely to be less problematic as they ring up the miles when maintained to specs and driven under ideal conditions. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top