Regarding IDIOT tester.

Status
Not open for further replies.
nozh2002 said:
I like to express my deep respect to Noss, to what he is doing and to his great effort to show how different knives behave in an extremal situation.
Click to expand...
So then, your assertion is that because the idiot tester has fans, that he is not an idiot? :jerkit:
 
Keith Montgomery said:
It's not noss's claims that I am referring to. It is the statement made in the original post of this thread. I realize that noss makes no claims that his tests follow scientific method.
Click to expand...

Where does Nozh use the word "scientific" in his original post?

Why do people get so upset at members testing knives as they see fit and then posting the results here for fellow members to interpret as they please? I've always found it interesting myself, and like seeing how others experience compares with my own.
 
Maybe because it sometimes feels like a graven image is being desecrated (be it the knife or the person or company that made it) when a knife fails at a specific task or is stressed to failure. Maybe it's a lack of faith in the intelligence of the other readers and viewers (as we're all obsessed by knives beyond rationality, it's a concern worth entertaining).

Then again, the realization that we're all being irrational should make it a moot point as to whether Noss4's videos and writing sway us one way or Lynn Thompson's hypnotic vignettes sway us another.

sodak,

Did you try either suggested method for sharpening idiots? Did they work?
 
Broos said:
You're saying these videos provide more realistic results than CATRA testing? Realistic from what perspective?
Click to expand...
Knife use of course.

Broos said:
CATRA tests will be a truer test of the steel, and so much more repeatable than what is being discussed here that it is not even worth comparing them.
Click to expand...
Agreed that CATRA and for that matter any industrial cutting machine is a good test for the steel. Not for the knife. When you use your knife how much CATRA like it is? E.g. M2 steel which was made for cutting metals is hardened to 66 or 67 HRC for the machines. Works just fine there. However how many knives you've seen made in such way? Alvin J. is the only maker I know who made a few ones at 64-65HRC for very specific use.

In the end, my point is that if I want to know steel wear resistance and other properties of steel, then machine is preferable due to human error and inconsistency.
However, given what X steel did in CATRA doesn't tell me much how it will behave in knife use. Be it i my kitchen or backyard. We can skip "survival" situation which adds more complications.
 
I find his tests interesting to watch...I would never do any of that with a knife, and wouldn't buy a knife based off of how well it held against Noss' imagination...that being said, he's not an idiot at all. There's no need to be offended by what he does. If a person buys, or does not buy based off of his tests, that's their perogative and then they could be labeled as the idiot. He scored the Mora at a 2...I love my mora...I just won't chop concrete with it. The people who send their knives to him know what they are doing and know what the results are going to be. I find it humorous to see folk's panties twisted over a perspective...my life's too short for that crap.
 
*shrug* well Noss doesn't say they're scientific, and he doesn't have any control how others interpret them.
 
It sounds like I should not use word scientific, it sounds like it is heretical to use this terms. It is funny how methodology which developed by humanity to learn World and Nature turns into some kind of sacral knowledge available only to choosen ones, only to some kind of priests from Science who know everything.

The thing Noss doing is Science, call it knife science. He is doing it in accordance to scientific methodology. How many of you know what it is? The way it was done by Edison and many other scientists.

Anyway, this is turning into religious discussion. My point was I respect what Noss is doing a lot and like to express it.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
nozh2002 said:
It sounds like I should not use word scientific, it sounds like it is heretical to use this terms. ...
Click to expand...

Not heretical, just ignorant...

nozh2002 said:
...
He is doing it in accordance to scientific methodology. How many of you know what it is? ...
Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't know what it is... Oh yeah, must be the language barrier :rolleyes:...
 
Last edited:
nozh2002 said:
Tell me then.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...


For a test to qualify as scientific it must be repeatable and controllable with what is being tested isolated from all other variables.

Noss's tests do not do this. Variables in his format that can not be controlled include but are not limited to: the strength of his arm that day, the moisture level of his palm, the degree to which he tightens a vise down on his knife, etc. For his tests to be considered scientific, Noss would have to isolate all of these disparate elements from that which he is testing.

This is not feasible. Which is all well and good; Noss's tests are entertaining and can help a buyer to make a decision. However, it would be folly to base a purchase, or to make the decision NOT to purchase, based solely upon his tests. Further, it is erroneous and a disservice to less educated knife buyers when his tests are made out to be something that they are not.
 
From www.merriam-webster.com...

1 achiefly British : cupel b (1): a critical examination, observation, or evaluation : trial; specifically : the procedure of submitting a statement to such conditions or operations as will lead to its proof or disproof or to its acceptance or rejection <a test of a statistical hypothesis> (2): a basis for evaluation : criterion c: an ordeal or oath required as proof of conformity with a set of beliefs
2 a: a means of testing: as (1): a procedure, reaction, or reagent used to identify or characterize a substance or constituent (2): something (as a series of questions or exercises) for measuring the skill, knowledge, intelligence, capacities, or aptitudes of an individual or group b: a positive result in such a test
3: a result or value determined by testing

I think that most critics of Noss reject the very premiss that what he is doing is even a test. There are no established protocols, no objective criteria (other than did it break), and the conclusion of the "test" is written before the "test" begins, ie "The knife broke." So he doesn't claim that what he is doing is scientific. Good on him, it's not. However, he takes his unscientific "data" and uses them to draw comparisons between knives. Even though the knives may have gone through the same style of "tests," ie chop through a board, break a cinder block, hammer the spine, etc- the forces experienced by each knife and the number of blows, bounces, chops, and stabs vary greatly between knives "tested." The only conclusion that can be drawn at the end is "the knife did/not break." Statements like "I felt this knife should have lasted longer" are right in the same catergory with "this was fun." Absolutely subjective and based on someone's feeling. I'm glad to see the Russian judge is giving Noss a 9.5, maybe whacking a knife with a hammer could become an olympic sport. Hey noss, can you stick the dissmount from the "lateral stress test" (bouncing on the knife) with a sprained ankle?

Noss should change the name of his site from www(dot)knifetests(dot)com to www(dot)Hey_watch_me_break_knives_with_a_hammer(dot)com

Hey, if you like watching the videos, great(personally, I still can't get past the hockey mask). Just don't tell me you made a purchasing decision based on Noss's "tests." They look at me weird when I laugh that much at work.
 
roughedges said:
For a test to qualify as scientific it must be repeatable and controllable with what is being tested isolated from all other variables.
Click to expand...

Not at all, this is for hypothyses to be considered as a scientific fact. If we will state that knife_A is better cutting pipe then knife_B ut to 50% - this need to be proven with reliable statistic (as well as it should predict certain non tested behavior).

roughedges said:
Noss's tests do not do this. Variables in his format that can not be controlled include but are not limited to: the strength of his arm that day, the moisture level of his palm, the degree to which he tightens a vise down on his knife, etc. For his tests to be considered scientific, Noss would have to isolate all of these disparate elements from that which he is testing.
Click to expand...

No this is not nessesary if you prove that this does not affect experiment results. Actually it is up to you to decide what does affect or what does not. It may be questioned by you collegues, and they may run some tests as well to prove that this is wrong but if scientists will try to isolate any imaginary influence - nothing will be done ever.

roughedges said:
This is not feasible. Which is all well and good; Noss's tests are entertaining and can help a buyer to make a decision. However, it would be folly to base a purchase, or to make the decision NOT to purchase, based solely upon his tests. Further, it is erroneous and a disservice to less educated knife buyers when his tests are made out to be something that they are not.
Click to expand...

Noss tests gives valuable results - in general they prove that certain knives may be as good as one he tested as well as - as bad as one he tested. Of course you may always decide how accurate they are - like I do not care about humidity as well as Noss sleep time before testing and his blood pressure, ut some may care. For me this is very valuable and scientific, in terms of following established procedure and disclosure of results and test conditions.

This is "Observation" stage of scientific methodology.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Last edited:
hlee said:
From www.merriam-webster.com...

1 achiefly British : cupel b (1): a critical examination, observation, or evaluation : trial; specifically : the procedure of submitting a statement to such conditions or operations as will lead to its proof or disproof or to its acceptance or rejection <a test of a statistical hypothesis> (2): a basis for evaluation : criterion c: an ordeal or oath required as proof of conformity with a set of beliefs
2 a: a means of testing: as (1): a procedure, reaction, or reagent used to identify or characterize a substance or constituent (2): something (as a series of questions or exercises) for measuring the skill, knowledge, intelligence, capacities, or aptitudes of an individual or group b: a positive result in such a test
3: a result or value determined by testing

I think that most critics of Noss reject the very premiss that what he is doing is even a test. There are no established protocols, no objective criteria (other than did it break), and the conclusion of the "test" is written before the "test" begins, ie "The knife broke." So he doesn't claim that what he is doing is scientific. Good on him, it's not. However, he takes his unscientific "data" and uses them to draw comparisons between knives. Even though the knives may have gone through the same style of "tests," ie chop through a board, break a cinder block, hammer the spine, etc- the forces experienced by each knife and the number of blows, bounces, chops, and stabs vary greatly between knives "tested." The only conclusion that can be drawn at the end is "the knife did/not break." Statements like "I felt this knife should have lasted longer" are right in the same catergory with "this was fun." Absolutely subjective and based on someone's feeling. I'm glad to see the Russian judge is giving Noss a 9.5, maybe whacking a knife with a hammer could become an olympic sport. Hey noss, can you stick the dissmount from the "lateral stress test" (bouncing on the knife) with a sprained ankle?

Noss should change the name of his site from www(dot)knifetests(dot)com to www(dot)Hey_watch_me_break_knives_with_a_hammer(dot)com

Hey, if you like watching the videos, great(personally, I still can't get past the hockey mask). Just don't tell me you made a purchasing decision based on Noss's "tests." They look at me weird when I laugh that much at work.
Click to expand...

You know you critics are just full of hot air. You sit on you ass in front of your PC, bitch about everything an everyone doing testing. You preach your knowledge. You preach you know how it is supposed to be done. And guess what you produce nothing. A Big fat 0 Why do I have fans ? because I'm doing it an you are not. The results I acquire are miles ahead of anything you are acquiring since you produce a big fat 0 So people can come to my site an pick up whatever info they want from the tests. Or they can come to you the critics an get exacly what you offer 0

I can call my site whatever I want to call it. You have no say in it. You don't own me. You don't control me. I'm sure this just pisses you off but tough for you. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top