THERE is NOT an answer for EVERYTHING!

Tai Goo said:
If a knife performs as it is intended to, trying to use scientific theory to prove that it can’t or must not,… is a waste of time.
Click to expand...
I agree with that statement, Tai... but I don't think it applies to the main argument. I am very happy to hear that there is labwork being done to better understand what is happening in Ed's blades. It will be interesting to see the interpretations of the data gathered. Nobody can deny the performance of these knives. A comparisson can be arranged easily enough and I doubt most other makers are up to the challenge of Ed's testing "Gauntlet". I think the arguments (at least the reasonable ones) are directed more toward the interpretation and explanation of the results. Hopefully, with the release of the lab data and reports, we can share a common language and separate opinion from fact.
 
Rick, from a cosmic perspective,...

... The "data" is always open to interpretation,... and explanation.
 
The view of a die hard romantic, always interpreting facts with one eye focused on the ethereal world.

We need people like you to give astral input to scientific matters, unless you've only one eye of course.;)

Fred
 
Fred.Rowe said:
The view of a die hard romantic, always interpreting facts with one eye focused on the ethereal world.

We need people like you to give astral input to scientific matters, unless you've only one eye of course.;)

Fred
Click to expand...

Hmm.

I'd say you need the die-hard romantics, the artists, the dreamers ... to balance out all of "us" engineers and scientists. There are a lot of "us," and maybe Western culture has leaned just a bit too far in "our" direction.

Did I just type that? Amazing. And here I've spent my entire, long life measuring and thinking and mathematicizing and theorizing.:)
 
Thanks, but I don't see anything I've said as being "romantic", although I don't see anything wrong with romanticism even if it was.

Once the data gets explained, the explanation just goes in the pile with the rest of the data, and every pebble of data raises more questions. So, the process of art, science, philosophy etc., is cyclic and ongoing. Nothing new or profound about that.

It’s a receding horizon and the more we learn the less we seem to know... If we ever think we've hit a dead end we can always try looking at the "sphere" of knowledge from a different angle, from a different distance, through a different eye or lens... even if the form itself doesn't change, reflections off the surface always will.

... and that's my answer for everything. LOL
 
Last edited:
"Human life is driven forward by dim apprehensions of notions too general for its existing language". A quote from my past, I believe his name was Whitehead.
 
When we stop questioning; if we ever settle on one profound truth to life the universe and everything, say 42, we are in deep shit.

Tai, don't take being thought of as a romantic as a negative, it shows in your work and its quite positive.

Fred
 
I think we run into problems on a lot of these scientific topics/debates as a result of “reverse scientific method”, the exact opposite of the scientific method. It starts with a theory or conclusion and works backwards towards observation and information gathering (though it seldom ever actually goes that far), while rejecting anything that doesn’t support it’s bias. Oddly enough this type of reverse science often comes from those who claim to be the most objective or scientific...

… Like eisegesis as opposed to exegesis. In exegesis the meaning of the text is drawn from the text or out of the text, while in eisegesis the meaning is read into the text. Exegesis is considered to be more objective and eisegesis more subjective.
 
Last edited:
Tai Goo said:
I think we run into problems on a lot of these scientific topics/debates as a result of “reverse scientific method”, the exact opposite of the scientific method. It starts with a theory or conclusion and works backwards towards observation and information gathering, while rejecting anything that doesn’t support it’s bias.
Click to expand...
I agree, Tai. Something very similar, is this sort of mentality...

"Here is my conclusion. The details on how I reached it aren't that important. The fact that I have my desired conclusion is self-supportive."

You can still get great results, without having the slightest clue on how you got them. At that point, you could insert any recipe that sounds reasonable with a disclaimer that it "might not work for everybody". Who could deny it when the results are the proof?

Results alone, don't validate theories/methods/processes.
 
Last edited:
Might the problem be how much theory is important for some and not to others? And mostly each side trying to convince the other one?
I can like Fords and my neighbors GMs but we've never tried to prove to one another who was right.*


*But of course, I'm right. ;)
 
Rick, That's kind of like saying the chef makes a great pudding, but doesn't know how he makes it. Not sure I follow that logic,... although the results aren't usually self explanatory... So, just because the chef can't explain every reaction down to every sub atomic particle from multiversal perspective, doesn't mean he can't make consistently great pudding.

As long as the results are observable, repeatable, predicable and consistent, how much more do we need?... especially, when making great pudding was our only goal in the first place.

So, now we’ve got the scientific method/reverse scientific method/double reverse scientific method, burden of proof /reverse burden of proof/double reverse burden of proof… and on and on…
 
Last edited:
What is the "objective" meaning of any word? Or any thought, for that matter?

Without a basis for interpreting something, data is meaningless.

Science is not objective. It is built from a long strand of incremental advances of knowledge. It is, in fact, the very essence of subjective analysis.
 
I got into knifemaking because I wanted to make knives,... not because I wanted to become a theoretical physicist.

On the other hand, if you want to be a theoretical physicist,... you probably won't be happy just making knives.

... or should that have been a "reverse theoretical physicist"?... Rick ;) LOL
 
Last edited:
Must the artist explain art in order for it to be appreciated?
Is art more significant than function? or is function itself an art?
 
Tai, you don't HAVE to know the chemical reactions to make a good pudding consistently, but you do need to know the correct ingredients and preparation methodology. Sure, it is possible to add an ingredient or a step that is superfluous to the end result and still get a great pudding. If the chef has the deeper training on how the ingredients react with one another and why, that chef would KNOW that the extra step was superfluous and would have no fear in removing that step in order to free up the time to make something other than pudding (because man cannot live on pudding alone).

The same holds true for the knifemaker. You don't NEED to know the physics behind what you do, but that knowledge allows you to understand when something being done is superfluous. Inclusion of superfluous steps doesn't mean your knives will necessarily be worse, but it generally does mean you have less time to do other things (such as make a sheath, because man cannot live by knives alone).

- Greg
 
Metallurgy, unlike theoretical physics is not based on abstract modeling. Knife makers can, with confidence, embrace the science of metallurgy and so be assured of producing a great knife.

I am a true dreamer and always have been, the ideas for the knives I make come from the dreaming, but when it comes to the knives I make I depend on the science that smarter people than I have set down over the last 100 years.
 
Tai Goo said:
Rick, That's kind of like saying the chef makes a great pudding, but doesn't know how he makes it. Not sure I follow that logic,... although the results aren't usually self explanitory... So, just because the chef can't explain every reaction down to every sub atomic particle, doesn't mean he can't make consitantly great pudding.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The chef can make a consistantly great pudding, and believes he has the formula down to a science.... AND has the great tasting pudding to prove it. BUT then you read the recipe and he says to mix 1/3 of the total dry ingredients with your left hand, for 8min, in the warmest room in your house, then leave it in the coolest room of your house overnight and repeat this process with each of the remaining thirds, over the course of 3 days........ you may start to wonder if it is really necessary. Maybe one(1) extended 30min mix accomplishes the same amount of aeration as the 3 day ordeal? Maybe the real factor could come down to the thickness of the pan he uses to bake the cake in? If you just want to make great cakes, who cares? But if you intend to market and run a school on how to make great cakes or if you promote a belief that any cake made in less than 4days is inferior. You had better have solid proof that every step is necessary and vital to making a great cake.

ETA: Greg, nailed it down better and faster than I could....

Tai Goo said:
As long as the results are, observable, repeatable, predicable and consistent, how much more do we need?... especially, when making great pudding was our only goal in the first place.
Click to expand...
Fluff/hype is observable, repeatable, predicable and consistent. In this case, it is not a question of how much more we need.... it's a question of how much less we could do without?

That counts for folks who take science out of context as well. Just because you don't use salt pots, digital kilns or engineered quenchant, doesn't mean you make inferior knives. Inferior to what expectaions?

Tai Goo said:
So, now we’ve got the scientific method/reverse scientific method/double reverse scientific method, burden of proof /reverse burden of proof/double reverse burden of proof… and on and on…
Click to expand...
Okay... I got nuthin on this, buddy.... Ha!
 
Last edited:
I think we're kind of going in circles now, or just restating in different words what's already been said.

The thing I like most about Ed, is he inspires these types of discussions and deeper thinking... it would be pretty boring otherwise.

I'm really not trying to defend or promote Ed or his work, (which he doesn't really need anyway)... just using it as a surface to bounce and reflect some ideas off of.

Thanks Ed. :)

Long Live Jonathan Livingston Seagull! :)
 
Ed Fowler said:
Must the artist explain art in order for it to be appreciated?
Click to expand...
Not at all... Unless the artist claims his particular brand of art better represents the criteria from which all good art is judged.

Maybe you don't intend it Ed, but I feel you go past promoting your own brand of knifemaking into a passive-aggressive condemnation of anything other than your way. You have a significant following and the platform of a major publication to deliver your message. With that comes the responsibility of being accurate to the best of your abilities. The forthcoming lab report release will really help, I think.
 
Last edited:
Rick, I can't make a decent knife without eating, sleeping, thinking and smoking a cigarette or two, someone else probably could,... but for me they are necessary steps.... ask anyone who knows me well. I got lots of witnesses. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top