Scientific method

Bladesmithing and knifemaking are creative "arts/crafts“, in general and in the context of this forum... "BladeSmith Questions and Answers The art of knife making- advice on methods, supplies, and materials"

Those who would have us believe that they are governed or dictated by science, or that would have us all conform to a set standard or methodology... AND, try to oppress creativity, intuition, mystery, innovation, imagination, originality and individuality, or use science as platform and as a means to promote themselves and their knives in the market place… are perpetrating “pseudoscience“.

Bladesmithing is NOT a science or pseudoscience!
 
kgd said:
It sounds as though the word 'fact' is replacing 'measurement' and not 'theory'. Theory and measurement are not the same. Measurements refer to repeatable observations and theory involves the conceptual model that explains a collection of observations and allows for prediction and control.

In this vein, theory, is more complex and therefore has more degrees of freedom associated with it than a given set of measurements do. Here is where we start to see inklings of subjectivity. It is also partly what I meant before when I said no single experiment is likely to be perfect enough to completely destroy a full theory. At the very least, theory requires peer review and therefore an subjective viewpoint has to be shared across the principal investigator as well as the reviewers.

At the other end of the spectrum, measurements are more repeatable and therefore more subject to independent evaluation. However, all measurments come with some degree of error. Measurements and observations in themselves don't explain things. You need theory to interpret measurements.

Those are some interesting observations Steve. Crotchety old scientists tend to hold onto to their ways because they hold the burden of a rich history of collecting observations throughout their respective careers. They've probably seen a given theory challanged many times before and get less caught up with the inertia of what is sexy today. Science needs both the old crotchety guy as well as the overly enthusiastic young pups to make peer review function.
Click to expand...

With the old guys (I am one, or am getting there) the problem is keeping up with the changes that come at an ever accelerating rate. Each field becomes narrower and narrower as knowledge gets ever more complex. What one participated in developing as state of the science will suddenly fall back into obscurity unless a great effort to keep up is maintained. As we get older there are often more distracting things going on like family matters, professional obligations that are not in the heart of one's scientific interest. It only takes a couple of years to get hopelessly behind. Many "great" men do not go easily into obscurity, even when they are the ones that are out of touch.

Many scientists are able to cope with these things and end up staying current and valuable to the science as they age.
 
"Out of chaos comes order!" :)

"If you hit a wrong note once, it's a mistake,.. play it twice, and it's jazz!" :)
 
Tai Goo said:
Those who would have us believe that they are governed or dictated by science, or that would have us all conform to a set standard or methodology... AND, try to oppress creativity, intuition, mystery, innovation, imagination, originality and individuality, or use science as platform and as a means to promote themselves and their knives in the market place… are perpetrating “pseudoscience“.
Click to expand...


Tai, I'm not really sure why you feel that science has to do with "oppression", or why you would feel threatened by anyone that sees beauty in the patterns within the chaos, but I feel badly that you feel you must exhaust yourself in rallying against these perceived demons.

Hopefully we'll discuss it one of these days, over the flames of your forge!
 
Matthew Gregory said:
Tai, I'm not really sure why you feel that science has to do with "oppression", or why you would feel threatened by anyone that sees beauty in the patterns within the chaos, but I feel badly that you feel you must exhaust yourself in rallying against these perceived demons.

Hopefully we'll discuss it one of these days, over the flames of your forge!
Click to expand...


When people are told, "This is right and this is wrong" or “ This way is best and other ways are not scientific enough” or “Only science has the answers“,... it can have an oppressive effect on creativity and art, etc...

I never said anything about being threatened by anyone seeing beauty in patterns. I have no problem with that, and encourage it.

I do think that the art of bladesmithing has always attracted the pseudoscientific types and more than it's fair share of techno weirdo's...

I'd would hate to see it become a pseudoscience in the public's eye... and I'm sure it already appears that way to many lookers on.
 
I have absolutely no problem with good science, real science and increasing one’s understanding of the craft. I encourage it! :)

I do have a problem with junk science, pseudoscience, misapplied science, misinterpreted science, misunderstood science and the bad science that we see so much of…

There are differences, and I think one can learn to recognize them.

Science can be great if it is kept in perspective,... within the context of the art/craft.
 
Tai Goo said:
...I'd would hate to see it become a pseudoscience in the public's eye... and I'm sure it already appears that way to many lookers on.
Click to expand...

Indeed it has, and indeed it does. Our hunger for a good story and intriguing marketing already has us looking like the psychic friends network to anybody with common sense. We practice a craft that is already steeped in mythology, when that gets mixed with crackpot theory in order to gain the limelight and sell, we have a serious credibility gap. I don’t want to make Nothung, because it is a fairy tale. We should respect our customers intelligence enough to at least pitch them reality.
 
Kevin, in art school we called it the "artist's rap". Artists are often compelled or forced to defend, explain, justify and promote their work. Why so many of them choose a "pseudoscientific rap" or "quackery" still baffles me. It's as bad a reflection on science as it is on the art.
 
Tai Goo said:
Why so many of them choose a "pseudoscientific rap" or "quackery" still baffles me.
Click to expand...

Because that's how one sells something to a public looking for the story rather than the product.

...which, of course, brings us full circle and justifies the topic of this thread!
 
Matt, I totally agree with the premise of your original post. However, I don't see "the scientific method", as a "magical formula" for obtaining the truth,… the only way, or anything really that special or unusual. However, it can work and be real with a measure of "scientific ethics", and is as good a way as any...

The mark of a good scientist and/or artist or bladesmith, is in the quality of the questions, honesty, and the "method" or “methods” used, in answering those questions...

I do believe that good scientists and good artists must exercise good intuition, imagination, creativity, curiosity, common sense and wonder,… for these are the starting points of discovery, learning, understanding and growth in any field...
 
Tai Goo said:
However, I don't see "the scientific method", as a "magical formula" for obtaining the truth,
Click to expand...

That's because it isn't!

The ethics you're alluding to are part and parcel of true scientific method. Anything else is bias or prejudice, which relates back to your post on keeping this in context.

Tai Goo said:
and is as good a way as any...
Click to expand...

If the requisites are applied, it's better than most all.

Tai Goo said:
The mark of a good scientist and/or artist or bladesmith, is in the quality of the questions, honesty, and the "method" or “methods” used, in answering those questions...
Click to expand...

I concur. However, I'll add that a good scientist, artist, or bladesmith will find more questions as he generates answers. Without the reduction of variables, he's guessing. I agree that there is enormous benefit to applying "different" thinking - that's what discovery is all about.

"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost. There is where they should be. Now put foundations under them." Henry David Thoreau

I know it's said often enough to be cliche, however that's because it's true!
 
"5. Report your results to the scientific
community."

...This isn't the scientific community. :D
 
Hardheart,.....................THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D


Matt, You could learn a thing or two from that video!:D


See, now if we had some more of that, this thread would be at the top of the list every day.;);):thumbup:
Mace
 
Just for you, we'll change the name of the thread to Boobs & Science... Did Someone Say BOOBS?
 
Tai Goo said:
"5. Report your results to the scientific
community."

...This isn't the scientific community. :D
Click to expand...

Quite right! It most certainly is not! I think #5 is where the often mentioned peer review comes into play, so I believe it would be more appropriate for it to be "5. Present your results to your peers." Peers would mean people in your same area of research with the experience and knowledge to troubleshoot and assess your findings, not lackeys, loyal followers or those with no more understanding than ourselves looking for a reason to "believe".

If we all assigned ourselves to the dark ages by leaving these concepts only to the scientific community, everybody would be in a world of hurt. Many aspects of ancient blade making was left to the academics at the museums and universities who really had no more than their best guesses until bladesmiths actually attempted to do it again, then both fields of research benefited from the exchange. Scientists do not have a lock on insight; they get it wrong as often as anybody else, as we are all human. James Randi has well pointed out how scientists can be even easier to hoodwink than many on the street, and I have seen it myself with some of the nonsense academics will support when the right psychological buttons are pushed.

Let's use this analogy- just this last week I encountered a problem with reassembling my bike and I needed some input to trouble shoot the process. I didn't call the joker down the street putting together a conglomeration death trap of any motorcycle parts he could find with bailing wire and duct tape. It would have been a waste of time to call even a top scientist if he had never worked on my kind of bike. Instead logic told me that I should call a Triumph dealer and talk to a mechanic with years of experience in working on them. This was just simple logic.

Logic should guide us, not other people. The first thing logic should tell us is that when we want peer review the title or profession of the person is secondary to their specific knowledge in a given field, and how well they have demonstrated the soundness of the methods they used to obtain that knowledge.
 
Kevin, That makes sense! :)

My question is, how big of a role does or should science play in bladesmithing? My concern is that the more emphasis bladesmiths put on science or metallurgy,… the more it appears as a pseudoscience to the public… the “science of bladesmithing“.

When I was studying metalsmithing in art school, the “basic metallurgy” was always taught and explained, but there was really more emphasis on creativity, innovation, originality, concept, design, execution or craftsmanship,… and things of that nature.

Metallurgy was taught more in terms of understanding the processes, techniques, methods and the implications and reasons thereof... Lengthy detailed discussions of metallurgy were usually avoided or left to the individuals who wanted to learn more on their own, as science just wasn’t the field of study in art school.
 
there is no reason that science and creativity do not and should not coexist. the creative process of design and making a knife can be enhanced by current scientific ideas to increase form as well as function. what of the golden ratio, a mathetical ratio that has shown time after time to be very appealling when incorporated into design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top