Thoughts on Ankerson's cut testing results

[jabba359]

Cliff, probably my biggest issue with you is constantly referring to this as a "shill forum". You keep asking that everything be completely scientific and that we exhibit no bias, but you should realize that the whole reason we are here is because we enjoy Spyderco knives, or else we wouldn't be here. There is no way to completely remove our positive bias toward Spyderco knives without completely eliminating the majority of the users here. Our positive bias is why we are here in the first place. This isn't a cold, calculating scientific dissertation. This is a place we come to experience an emotion (enjoyment), and anywhere that emotion is allowed to come into play there is going to be bias. Obviously, I don't think that means we need to only post reviews that are all rainbows and unicorns and I doubt anyone else would want that either.

Now, I'm not saying that we should discard science. I quite like science and, despite having no formal higher education in the matter, I read a lot of scientific material (written for the layman) and have a good knack for science (I was the kid in junior high that had over a 100% in science class because I did all the extra credit assignments for fun). But you expecting people to exhibit no bias here is just as ridiculous as going to a basketball game and expecting the crowd to be impartial to their home team. The fans congregate in that location because they have a positive bias towards the team. If you don't want to hear that bias, you don't go to their games. Demanding that everyone there cheer equally for points scored by each team is a futile effort.

When posters come here with negative experiences, the vast majority of forum members don't condemn them. We usually offer suggestions and try to help figure out the root of the problem, whether it is the user's fault or Spyderco's. Sure, some particular people over-react and are rude (I'm not always exempt from this category), but the reactions of the few don't turn this into a "shill forum". It may be a forum that has a couple shills, but the forum itself isn't inherently a "shill forum." Being humans, we do tend to react more aggressively to posts that are purposely inflammatory ("Spyderco knife is junk" vs "Problem with my Spyderco"). Newton's Third Law, though formulated as a description of physical science, seems to describe this social science phenomenon as well.

Moving on, if I might quote:

A shill is undisclosed, they pretend to be unbiased but are not.

To shill is to be intentionally biased in a promotional sense but pretend otherwise.

Have any of us ever said we are not biased? I think we are all quite forward in our expression of our positive bias towards Spyderco products. Do you get the feeling that we are hiding the fact that we have a very positive perception of Spyderco and their products and that we want to share those opinions? If we didn't have this positive perception, we wouldn't spend years on the forums and have 2000, 5000, or even 10,000 posts. So yes, we do tend to have a bias here and anyone believing otherwise, well, I've got some beachfront property to sell them on the moon. In fact, even you contribute to bias on the forum on purpose:

I recommended that he post here and I also warned him about the consequences as it is fairly easy to predict what will happen...

You introduced a negative bias towards the forum before the OP of that thread even posted. He came into it expecting negativity and was therefore predisposed to read into the answers that way. Why is it okay for you to introduce bias but not us? You constantly talk down to people, using your superior knowledge of steel chemistry, physics and scientific testing (note: I'm not being sarcastic here, as you really are much more educated in these matters than most of us) to beat down anyone who dares disagree with you. Why is it that if you question someone's negative experience with a knife, it's scientific, but when we do it, we're somehow shills? Sometimes we have perfectly legitimate questions or observations that the OPs of the negative threads may not like. Should we not ask the questions in fear that it could potentially dissuade other's from posting their issues? Why do you feel that you are the authority on when we can and can't question the negative experiences?

Before writing this post, I did a search for all the times you used "shill" and read those posts, as well as what led up to you saying that (for context) just to make sure that all this wasn't just in my head or that perhaps I was the only one that had this issue with you. Turns out that not only am I remembering correctly, but my post here isn't the first calling you out on it, not by a long shot. But somehow you continue to be completely dismissive and, at times, even acting contrary to what you demand from the rest of us. Will this be yet another post that you just ignore as you continue in your ways, making your own set of rules that you demand we follow, but you don't?

I think many of us would be a lot more sympathetic to your cause of eliminating misinformation if you didn't have such an attitude of arrogant superiority. I do appreciate all the time you put into testing, analyzing, testing again (repeat many more times), and sharing your findings with us. I don't think I've seen anyone here that goes to the extensive work you do to eliminate variables in the particular tests you run and then you freely share your findings to try to help us make informed choices regarding steels, edge angles, etc. But if all you want is pure, unrelenting science with minimal bias where all posts, positive and negative, are always assessed with equal rigor, logic, and lack of emotion, then you better kick all the biological entities off this site and only allow robots to read and post. We're human, dang it, and we have feelings.

[paladin]

Well said Kyle...

I still would like to read an explanation of how any researcher ( especially who has an astronomically extensive knowledge base of the physical properties of steel ) can physically LOOK AT, TOUCH, & perhaps even SMELL the different specimens before & during testing-- and claim to not be bringing BIAS ( or at least the possibility of BIAS, consciously or subconsciously ) into their trials.

[Cliff Stamp]

[...]

How can a trial be truly BLIND if you have a preconceived experiential notion of what a steel is (or may be) either consciously or on a subconscious level?

This is a critical issue, and it isn't just the steel, it is everything you know or think you know. People want to believe they are right, this is so strong it will even influence how they view data and so you can have two people look at the same data and draw completely opposite conclusions because of experimenter/conclusion bias. This is one of the main reasons that you have to have some sort of blinding.

The steel isn't blinded if you know it. However even when you know the nature of the steel it is still possible to blind the comparison through methods I have outlined before. Essentially what you have to do is incorporate people into the work who don't and then blind yourself from what they do or somehow blind yourself to the amount of work done. For example lets say you are doing the following :

-cutting cardboard on a slice until the knife fails to shave arm hair (high sharpness) vs fails to slice newsprint (low sharpness)

Now the big problem with this is that there is a lot of judgment in when you consider the knife to "fail" at either checkpoint as they are very sensitive to technique. At this point you could lay out some criteria (shaving has to be done with no slice, above the skin, blade parallel to the arm, etc.) or you could do inherently more of a quantitative measurement, but not everyone knows how to write those specifications or even if they did would care to.

However this isn't the point where you throw up your arms in the air as you just don't care as it is all about variables and opinions. A few simple solutions are :

a) cut the cardboard but don't determine the amount of cuts until after you have concluded you have reached the stopping point

This is better than nothing, but really weak as you would be amazed at your ability to keep track of this even if you don't do it consciously and even when done well at most it allows you to blind small difference. Even if you didn't count you would know you did closer to 1000 vs 100 cuts.

b) have someone else do a random amount of cutting inbetween your cutting and don't have this revealed until after you have determined the stopping point

This, when done right, puts a serious blind into the amount of work done. Now as you get more serious about wanting to make solid conclusions then you do things like make sure what they do isn't known to you at all and that the number of cut they do is generated from a RNG. You should also not be able to view the cutting they did and they should always give the knife back to you at a set time so you can't even judge from that.

In these cases when you can repeat the trial a few times and you are generating what looks like some kind of normal spread data then you have a decent argument you have an unbiased and representative conclusion. Now again these are not ideal methods but you have to keep in mind no one does the ideal methodology as you are always restricted on time/cost. As with all methodology it is about walking a line towards an ideal data set

The most important thing to keep in mind is the following :

a) What question are you trying to answer?

This sounds simple but it really isn't, it is at the heart of experiment and the more time you think about that the better your experiments and conclusions.

Now before you start thinking this is all too complex and it requires too much math/charts, it doesn't require anything more than the following :

-an honest perspective on wanting the truth
-a willingness to engage and discuss the same

If you have these then you can generate knowledge, the method just refines to what extent.

People can and do this on a regular basis. For example if you ask anyone who does day labor about the use of a round top vs square top shovel they can explain to you the differences and why you should use one and the benefits of one over the other. The problem only comes when people have vested interests, when they get attached to conclusions and they lose one of both of the above. But no one really cares about round top vs square top shovels and thus you will tend to get solid and unbiased answers when you ask.

The real trick is staying unbiased when you care (for whatever reason) if the conclusion goes one way vs the other. That is the hard part, hence where you drop the banhammer of +2 blinding to stop the bias troll.

[me2]

Just for clarity, feeling, smelling, seeing, or tasting a piece of steel won't tell you anything about them except maybe stainless vs non-stainless.

[tvenuto]

Just for clarity, feeling, smelling, seeing, or tasting a piece of steel won't tell you anything about them except maybe stainless vs non-stainless.

Well that's a relief. I just spent all morning licking my various spydies and thinking there was something wrong with me because I couldn't tell the difference.

[Surfingringo]

Just for clarity, feeling, smelling, seeing, or tasting a piece of steel won't tell you anything about them except maybe stainless vs non-stainless.

Hmm...I'm not sure if that is true. I have numerous blades in H1 and they all have a very distinct fishy odor!! :cool:

[Ankerson]

Just for clarity, feeling, smelling, seeing, or tasting a piece of steel won't tell you anything about them except maybe stainless vs non-stainless.

Hmm...I'm not sure if that is true. I have numerous blades in H1 and they all have a very distinct fishy odor!! :cool:

Would have to throw those things in the sink with soapy water. :D

[Laethageal]

Just for clarity, feeling, smelling, seeing, or tasting a piece of steel won't tell you anything about them except maybe stainless vs non-stainless.

Well that's a relief. I just spent all morning licking my various spydies and thinking there was something wrong with me because I couldn't tell the difference.

You gave me a good laugh :)

That is the hard part, hence where you drop the banhammer of +2 blinding to stop the bias troll.

Too much AD&D playing for you.

[wrdwrght]

Well said Kyle...

More than well said, in my view. I think Kyle hits the nail on the head.

I'm glad Cliff is here, make no mistake. I have learned much from his findings, and I marvel at the genius of his experiments. But I also think Cliff the scientist is a poor ambassador for Science.

Cliff seems not to care that scientific truth is hardly any truth at all until we, the great unwashed, buy into it. Calling us shills, and presuming to say we, as such, do Sal no service, displays the kind of off-putting arrogance and dismissiveness that Science (in which I've trained and to which I'm dedicated, in spite of its many poor ambassadors) can ill-afford, especially now that manufactured FUD clogs all of public discourse.

Amazing to me is that the fetching persona Cliff reveals in his YouTube videos is neither the dogmatic nor the hectoring one we sometimes read on this forum.

[Cliff Stamp]

You keep asking that everything be completely scientific and that we exhibit no bias, but you should realize that the whole reason we are here is because we enjoy Spyderco knives, or else we wouldn't be here.

These things are not exclusive, simply because you enjoy something doesn't mean you are inherently biased. A biased conclusion is one which is unjust, unreasonable or in general is based on a sample which is not representative of the population. Lets say you ask a guy about Spyderco vs Benchmade as he has a big collection of them and he notes that Benchmades cut much better than Spyderco knives. You ask him about what models, where he gets them and he notes that he bought all of his Spyderco knives from retailers, but all of his Benchmade models came from a friend. You ask his friend who notes that he reground and resharpened all of his knives. This is an example of a bias, the conclusion was skewed because what was really being compared was as-boxed Spyderco vs reground/resharpened Benchmade.

As for me asking people to be completely scientific, this is false on a scale that it is hard to even address. In brief, I have been for almost 20 years sponsoring pass arounds on knives that I personally fund. I host a forum where I encourage people to share experiences, criticize work I have done, and simply discuss knives. There is no requirement for "being scientific". I only ask they are honest and are willing to participate in feedback/discussion. When people specifically ask me on how to test/measure/review something I explicitly tell them the reason I do things the way I do is because I enjoy them and if they don't enjoy what they are doing they won't do it for any length of time so make sure that is the first thing. On occasion when some one makes a conclusion which is false I may point out why it isn't justified. This does not mean that there is a demand, or even implication that other work is required, it simply means the conclusion isn't well supported.

You introduced a negative bias towards the forum before the OP of that thread even posted.

Again this isn't what bias means. Simply because you are aware of something doesn't mean you automatically make irrational and unjust decisions. The reason I warned him is because I knew it was likely he would get personally attacked and I wanted him to be aware of it so he could make an informed decision. Not only did it happen in that thread, it was even brought up after it where what he did was misrepresented and he was again personally attacked. As a result he is very unlikely to participate here. He is an individual with a lot of experience in using knives in the professional trades, has a large collection of high end knives that he uses, sharpens (for himself and others) and that biased interaction means this form and Spyderco has lost his input and now he mainly would post on my forum, or just message me directly about issues. I simply don't see that as a positive thing hence why I would argue not to act that way.

[Cliff Stamp]

Too much AD&D playing for you.

You are losing nerd points at an alarming rate. Unless you are LARP'ing, there is no reason not to be D&D'ing. I always carry around a blessed 100 sided die, you never know when you have to make an infinity roll.

[...]

Amazing to me is that the fetching persona Cliff reveals in his YouTube videos is neither the dogmatic nor the hectoring one we sometimes read on this forum.

That is because it isn't, ask around, popular theory.

As for my interactions being less than optimal to convince people, Chum calls me on that on a regular basis. I concede that it likely isn't however the inaction has worse consequences than the action. If you look at the threads where this comes up, I wait a long time, usually pages, before I make a comment regarding bias and it is only after the majority of posts turn to bias and personal commentary. If you can do it better than I can then excellent. The next time it happens then step up, send me a PM and show me how it is done.

[Fancier]

It has taken me a while to get caught up on a couple of the more contentious posts from the past day or two.
Beyond all the emotional back and forth it occurs to me that a lot of the problems stem from imprecise definitions and non-standard test methods.
That is why I interjected the questions about accuracy of testing and the adequacy of current methodologies. It does seem that the arguments are less about the results (although granted there is quite a bit of that) and more a matter of arguing past each other because we aren't really talking about the same things.
Do It Yourself is a popular hobby and it has been enthusiastically applied to knife testing. I think that one of the reasons why clarity isn't being achieved is because the data is being collected by individuals through whatever resources they care to apply to the problem. Some people use knives (either at work or for fun) and judge by how often they feel the need to sharpen them (I'm in this camp), some people choose more systematic test processes but are cutting whatever media happens to be available, and others have a consistent technique that they've established and more or less stick to.
I think that everybody who owns a knife does testing, sometimes intentionally but often just by gaining experience with them. It is hard to buy a tool and not begin to evaluate how well it works.
If you wanted to develop a comprehensive set of data on knives this isn't how you'd go about it. If you were funded to research knives you would consider all the available test methods and choose a number of them that best evaluated the properties of knives that you were interested in studying. You would then spend quite a bit of time evaluating the accuracy of your test methods and if possible compare your results to the results obtained by other researchers to validate your work. Then you would be ready to start collecting valid data to investigate those properties of knives you set out to study in the first place. This process requires a lot of often expensive work.
It seems like we (the forum) are DIY enthusiasts gamely trying to learn about knives more or less from scratch, mostly because none of us have the resources to do a comprehensive job of investigation. I think that most of the small shop knife makers are in the same boat. The larger knife makers (like Spyderco) have the resources to do a thorough and systematic investigation but they do not have any incentive to make their research public.
Since we are working with limited resources and lack a common set of definitions and test methods it is almost inevitable that disagreement will occur. Some of the ugliest rivalries occur between learned scientists working within their own field of specialization, so we we'd have to really pull together to prevent similar rivalries. Thank you to everybody who cares enough to share their results.

[LordGarul]

Banning my account will not prevent anything. I will just create more until the forum understands exactly why I am doing this... And judging from the replies (so quick to assume that this is about disagreeing with Cliff’s research), we have a ways to go. So let me try and provide some clarity. The very fact that the forum has seemingly come together for the desire to return to being such a great place to learn and share together and move on from the recent happenings is a good start, and in a way, some good has come from this which believe it or not is what I ultimately desire for us. Why did I choose this unruly behavior? Ask yourselves this, to those that were labeled by Cliff as wrong, misinformed, shill, etc. did your civil behavior stop him? I may be wrong in my method but it’s worth a shot, no one else is doing anything.

Why am I doing this? Am I against science? Do I disagree with Cliff’s research and cannot produce an educated response to refute it? It seems, from the equally long wall of text responses to me, that’s what’s being perceived. I cannot finish reading them because they are so off base from what this is all about. Cliff has become many things on this forum. His overbearing personality has turned many threads into his playground where his take on the subject is above everyone else’s and acts like the judge and jury for the rest of us. Now, prominent members like EvilD has told me that it’s up to the individual to digest what you want; basically it’s on you to be offended (or not) which is very true but it has grown beyond that… For the lack of a better word, Cliff has become a bully here. I was to proceed and cite examples but you all know them already, it happens all the time, just look at this week’s threads like the “PM2 terrible”. Cliff is no doubt wise… He may not do it like I do, but it’s all the same: namecalling, finger-pointing, arguing, just done on a more masked level. No one should go un-checked.

So… What would I like to see happen? Get Cliff to stop contributing and helping people here? The answer to that is NO. His research (yes, including the annoying high carbide steel axe he constantly grinds) is very valuable and IMO reliable. Cliff is a visitor here just like everyone else. He has no right to call people shill and claim that any of you are biased every other day. We do not need CliffStamp.com members jumping in also when things go wrong for Cliff. One big irony is, when his backs against the wall, Cliff just claims bias and everyone cannot take negative feedback but it is he who will not listen to others’ feedback. Your personal experiences are not any less valid than his research. It’s a good reference but a growing number of members here need to revamp what they think about Cliff. He is just a human being like me and you. Also, I am very much into a variety of steels and even I cannot stand the constant high carbide attacks. “I am right! I am right! Let me prove every day that I am right about this!”. Fine… Do it in YOUR forum if you have to do it EVERYDAY.

Again, this forum IMO is the best knife community out there. Sal has said that a strong mod presence isn’t necessary because it is “self policing”… A result of the type of people that participate here I feel. That’s a special thing, but partly a reason why Cliff gets the window of opportunity to call the shots and label people as shills. WE DO NOT NEED THAT. This forum will continue to be broken until Cliff backs off and sticks with what he does best. Taking the “good with the bad” in this case is not good enough.

*LordGarul is a generated name, I’m no lord so please don’t come back with “Oh look, this coming from a guy who thinks he’s a lord”. BTW, I can generate many more

[Cliff Stamp]

Beyond all the emotional back and forth it occurs to me that a lot of the problems stem from imprecise definitions and non-standard test methods.

I don't think this is the case, though it is critical I think that causes a different problem. I think the main problems in regards to conflicts come from a basic perspective of wanting a thing to be true and ignoring justification vs trying to find out if a thing is true and seeking justification. Take a scan through this : http://www.cliffstamp.com/knives/forum/read.php?3,37143" target="_blank .

There is a lot of discussion on method, there are multiple ideas raised, sifted / sorted, more work is proposed, some is done, some is delayed. How come this discussion is of that nature and there is no "controversy" even though there are objections made (including by me to the actual methods I used). The reason being is that everyone participating wants to learn and no one is really attached to any particular idea simply because they had it. In multiple cases I throw out the ideas I proposed in favor of the ideas that others raise simply because they turn out to be more strongly justified. Now it isn't just me of course, you can find other threads were Chris, or Collin, or Chum, etc. all make points and it never makes a "controversy" even when Chris makes an argument against something fairly mainstream such as a severe criticism of waterstones vs the much more basic/inexpensive Norton oil stones. Why, because people look at his justification and not things like how popular his idea is, who else thinks it, if they hold it, etc. .

Now I do agree that lack of terms causes a lot of confusion because people are often disagreeing because they each think the other is saying something that they are not. However this is worked out immediately if you have the perspective to do so, it only becomes a conflict if one of the parties abandons rationality and then the anti-science, Illuminati rants start.

[Blerv]

*LordGarul is a generated name, I’m no lord so please don’t come back with “Oh look, this coming from a guy who thinks he’s a lord”. BTW, I can generate many more

Plenty of people are posing your same concerns more eloquently and with far more clout. Maybe it's time to cheer them on from the sidelines. You know...so people listen to the message instead of trying to figure out why a crazy person is stalking Cliff Stamp.

[sal]

Hi Red,

My objection was your method of communication. As others have mentioned; can Cliff be overbearing? probably. Is he intentionally trying to cause harm? I don't think so. We each have our personalities and we are all a work in progress, at least until they bury us. Everyone here is valuable (even you) and no one is perfect. More like a very large family.

Your approach was hostile. You last post was a bit less hostile. I'm sure there is much that you can contribute to this forum. please try to improve your style. I don't always agree with Cliff, and there is much that science cannot demonstrate, but science can and does add to the body of knowledge we all get to share. I personally appreciate all of the opinions and tests done by all. I believe that the edge is a very complicated concept that has an infinite number of properties of which many are almost a constant variable.

I put Ed Schemnpp's winning cutting competition knife on our CATRA and the CATRA said it wasn't special. Reality contradicted the test. Graphs' rope, cardboard, or anything that anyone cares to test adds to the body of knowledge. We used to have a guest here (Vassili) that whittled hair. (I miss Vassili). It's all good.

In my many years, I have learned that approach is very important if there is a goal, other than assault. Everyone here can be "Improved" on. I would prefer that you are more gentle in your approach. We are all teachers and we are all students.

sal

[wrdwrght]

As for my interactions being less than optimal to convince people, Chum calls me on that on a regular basis. I concede that it likely isn't however the inaction has worse consequences than the action. If you look at the threads where this comes up, I wait a long time, usually pages, before I make a comment regarding bias and it is only after the majority of posts turn to bias and personal commentary. If you can do it better than I can then excellent. The next time it happens then step up, send me a PM and show me how it is done.

I'm not sure if this paragraph was directed at me. If so, I'll risk taking this thread further off track with a question to you. Do you think the erudite and justly esteemed scientist Richard Dawkins speaks as a scientist when he says there is no God? Mind you, I'm not looking for a religious debate, I'm looking to get clarity on your notion of bias...

[paladin]

People want to believe they are right, this is so strong it will even influence how they view data and so you can have two people look at the same data and draw completely opposite conclusions because of experimenter/conclusion bias.

Precisely...

And as for incorporating people who do not know about the basic physical properties of steel into your scientific tests, are you serious?

And do you expect me to believe you have recruits to do your testing for you on all the marathon cutting trials you have generated?

I have within myself questioned whether or not there were enough hours in the day for you to conduct all the testing you claim, plus post here, there & everywhere, plus lurk in umpteen websites...and seek gainful employment...now you claim unbiased testing can be conducted for you by "unknowing stooges"...besides all the wildcat variables you have now introduced into your trials that you may, or may not even be able to verify without further adulterating your research...this is rich!

I call shenanigans sir...shenanigans, I SAY!!!

[paladin]

Just for clarity, feeling, smelling, seeing, or tasting a piece of steel won't tell you anything about them except maybe stainless vs non-stainless.

And therein, is the heart of the matter

[Blerv]

This thread has digressed beyond digression. I'm pretty sure the quadruped has devolved back into a protozoa.

So...thoughts on Ankerson's cut testing results?

Well, he has a system and does a bunch of cutting. His system and results seem fairly well accepted by knife AFI's. His results strangely favor his preferences of high carbide steels which doesn't mean they are inherently good or bad, just that for his cutting they perform very well.

As for the polished vs coarse edge tables that was addressed within the first couple pages. At the very least a bunch of possible scenarios were presented that would lead to other questions. I guess this was also discussed on the 100+ page thread on Bladeforums.

Does anyone have anything else to add relating to blades cutting up cardboard and manilla rope or can we lock this debacle of personal attacks and posturing?