Spyderco Forums

If a man speaks in the forest and there is no wife to hear him, is he still wrong?

It's been an interesting thread with some great thoughts shared.

sal

Turns out as awesome as S110V is it does have a weakness. Common nails found in wooden pallets. Fortunately it didn't do much damage and was easily fixed. Just a slight burr that was sharpened away in a few minutes. Remember kids don't use pallets as make shift cutting boards. I would have posted pics but it happened at work and i felt like fixing it more than looking at it.

If a man speaks in the forest and there is no wife to hear him, is he still wrong?

LOL .......... my wife would say yes .......LOL

VashHash wrote:Turns out as awesome as S110V is it does have a weakness. Common nails found in wooden pallets. Fortunately it didn't do much damage and was easily fixed. Just a slight burr that was sharpened away in a few minutes. Remember kids don't use pallets as make shift cutting boards. I would have posted pics but it happened at work and i felt like fixing it more than looking at it.

Yikes... for a split second there I thought you were going to say you were prying out the nail :eek:

Another quote that could be pertinent to this thread...

"I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation."

--George Bernard Shaw

...and maybe even the one in my sig

kurt6652 wrote:I thought this thread was about s110v and k390, now it is a debate on sharpening media, low carbide steels and egos.

LOL, this has happened once or twice before. :)

kurt6652 wrote:I thought this thread was about s110v and k390, now it is a debate on sharpening media, low carbide steels and egos.

"Ain't the first time, won't be the last." - Lady at the DMV

capid1 wrote: Yes, I can albeit you can't go heavy handed and have to use a bit of soapy water.

Thanks, I tried that years ago but could not prevent cutting the paper, however I sharpen fairly fast.

In regards to random quotes as if they make an argument, especially when they are about a hundred years old, that isn't a practical or even sensible way to argue especially when the words in context have changed significantly in the last 100 years.

One of Rutherfords quotes :

"Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine."

It should be obvious this isn't true today, and if you argued it was because Rutherford said it 100 years ago then that is just silly. In the same way you can make any silly argument by just quote mining someone, creationists do it all the time to argue against evolution.

This is one of the main ones :

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. "

This is from Darwin's own work and if you take it completely out of context it seems to say that evolution (as he proposed it happened) could not explain the development of the eye (and similar complicated organs). However if you read it in context it doesn't say that at all.

If you want to make an actual argument that statistical methods are not necessary in the scientific method then use references on modern scientific method, current peer reviewed literature, and modern curriculums.

If you actually can do this and prove it then at a minimum you would not only easily have a PhD in applied math (which would win any number of awards) you would revolutionize all of modern science.

Good luck.

As an aside, in this thread, the following claims have been made :

-all of Roman's work (peer review, published data with 100+ references) has been discounted as it disagrees with anecdotal data and Roman is just a shill (even though his arguments are all referenced in published data)

-the scientific method can be ignored in empirical methodology without consequence

Yet what strikes people are the most outlandish claim is my statement that is is actually possible to know properties of steels and not simply have opinions on them.

Here is the frank reality, an opinion is a position you hold which does not have supporting data to make a claim of objective truth, that is what the word means.

There is lots of information available on steels, from the ASTM references, the patents, and the well respected references from Krauss, Verhoeven, Landes, etc. .

It is not necessary to simply have opinions, you can actually know how they behave if you make the effort to learn.

Now if you don't want to do this, that is fine, but it is pretty silly to claim because you can't/won't then no one else can either and that it is impossible to know anything and it is all "just opinion".

As an aside, in this thread, the following claims have been made :

Don't forget that claim that you are a sasquatch and have stopped humping computers.

Are you claiming you are still humping computers and howling? That's called regression. BAD Cliff!

Where are the cattle prods? Who lost the "behavior modification instruments" guys? Not cool! You're s'posed to put stuff back where you found it.



Note* Evidence: Cliff in his element learning Hu-MAN tools: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4LMFBaYIns

Personally I didn't believe in them either, but .... We are not alone.

Kinda like all the greatest minds of not all that long ago that thought the world was flat and the Sun and Planets orbited the Earth and published work as such.

Applying to my line of work, kind of like publications indicating that certain vaccines lead to autism, now since discredited.

WorkingEdge wrote:Applying to my line of work, kind of like publications indicating that certain vaccines lead to autism, now since discredited.

And literally hundreds of other examples that can be brought up also, all published, taken as fact and then later discredited.

It could be argued that the findings where slanted for a certain agenda and or agendas and or to keep the grant money coming in for as long as possible so they don't have to get real jobs.

But then that's another thread......

It is very difficult to argue against something, once published, as some people hang onto that as "fact." I have lots of fun (sarcasm here) trying to convince patients that information from Google or Wiki is not always the truth.

WorkingEdge wrote:It is very difficult to argue against something, once published, as some people hang onto that as "fact." I have lots of fun (sarcasm here) trying to convince patients that information from Google or Wiki is not always the truth.

I think people have to look deeper into it.

Like what agenda do the findings really support, those people are getting the funding from someplace and have to keep the cash flow coming in for as long as possible........ (So they don't have to get real jobs)

It's not all cut and dry and the facts as they call them could be slanted and usually are to support someones agenda, the reason why a lot of them are discredited at a later date by another more above board study.

WorkingEdge wrote:Applying to my line of work, kind of like publications indicating that certain vaccines lead to autism, now since discredited.

This is why in all research before ideas are accepted they have to be cross verified, and it is absolutely essential that methods be used to remove bias.

It also needs to be considered that in general medical research is much more complicated than materials because of the complexity of the system and the inability to remove tremendous amounts of possibly hidden causal attributes.

Hence in general the level of statistical analysis in medical studies is far more involved than in physical research. This is why you hit more advanced statistics in biology (multi-variate) which you can carry out your entire career in other fields and never see them.

Iwould love to compare the two steels but I got a Calyx3.5 ZDP instead of the ordered and confirmed Forum Native Opening the pack that arrived today was a shock!!! :eek:

Sent a message to Spyderco to get a solution for the mishap, they might have a suggestion to correct it.
Sad to have a fine knife I didn´t order instead of the long awaited S110V blade.

Cliff Stamp wrote:This is why in all research before ideas are accepted they have to be cross verified, and it is absolutely essential that methods be used to remove bias.

You forget to mention that community is very close nit, much tighter than most and the good old boy program is largely at play, also the reason why it's a real issue and very hard to get published when the finding are discredited as a lot of others have signed off on the initial findings. So it's usually a very long and hard process to go through and will be blocked for as long as possible because so many reputations are on the line. Also taking into count the people who funded the initial research and the what it will cost them once the findings are discredited, could be Billions over time.

So there is usually a lot more at work than just a few people in a lab doing some research study.

In general it's best to take whatever they tend to find with a grain of salt until other studies are produced, hopefully independent studies without strings, over time to see if the initial findings are really accurate or not.

Not saying that they all are in that group, but the pattern is defiantly there as history shows.

People in general assume that anything that some highly educated person says or finds is fact.

It's almost like just because they are a PHD or something they know everything and are somehow automatically injected with all of the knowledge in the world...... Nothing could be be farther from the truth in reality.

Human nature is what it is and nobody is really above that, they have opinions and agendas just like the rest of the people in the world.

Ankerson wrote:You forget to mention ...

No, I didn't forget to mention academic fraud, I simply would not state it or even imply it without evidence nor would I make casual generalizations. Does it happen, of course it does, that is why the scientific method has evolved to deal with it.

As with everything, it isn't perfect, it is simply the best way we know currently to get knowledge from empirical methods. It also advances constantly from people in the field who work on such methods in all the aspects of them.

My Masters thesis had in part an complete over haul of the methods used in our particular field of research, this continued with my PhD and I continued it later in post-doc work and I still am involved in it.

There are still large problems, such as the work of Thomas Kuhn and his work on generational paradigm shifting.

There is some argument now that the rapid nature of preprinting due to electronic communication and even the evolution of the old style verification method into a much more rapid prototyping due to e-exchange can resolve this problem, but it also allows much more rapid spread of misinformation as well. Hence the general conclusion which is being formed is that a combination of both is needed for most stable results.

.... they have opinions and agendas just like the rest of the people in the world.

Yes, that is why the scientific method was (and still is being) developed to deal with the inherent biases that people have.

The modern scientific method not only realizes this limitation on the part of the user, it actually takes them into account and goes beyond just minimizing bias but also allows calculation of bias and the likelihood of false conclusions.

Science is simply a way to move towards knowledge, when you ignore this you simply are moving away from knowledge and into the pseudo-science, the bro-sciences, magic and mysticism.

We now even know so strongly this is incorrect that any professional who does it, can and will be held liable when they do it. Even lay people who ignore modern science can be held liable for the consequences when their decisions effect others and they ignored the evidence.

Cliff Stamp wrote:No, I didn't forget to mention academic fraud, I simply would not state it or even imply it without evidence nor would I make casual generalizations. Does it happen, of course it does, that is why the scientific method has evolved to deal with it.

As with everything, it isn't perfect, it is simply the best way we know currently to get knowledge from empirical methods. It also advances constantly from people in the field who work on such methods in all the aspects of them.

There are still large problems, such as the work of Thomas Kuhn and his work on generational paradigm shifting.

There is some argument now that the rapid nature of preprinting due to electronic communication and even the evolution of the old style verification method into a much more rapid prototyping due to e-exchange can resolve this problem, but it has the direct consequence that is also allows much more rapid spread of misinformation as well.




Yes, that is why the scientific method was (and still is being) developed to deal with the inherent biases that people have.

The modern scientific method not only realizes this limitation on the part of the user, it actually takes them into account and goes beyond just minimizing bias but also allows calculation of bias and the likelihood of false conclusions.

Science is simply a way to move towards knowledge, when you ignore this you simply are moving away from knowledge.

I agree. :)

Science is extremely important to get to the real truth, that is what people should be after, the truth without bias or any other agendas that tend to be behind some of the findings.

The other part of it is best kept to anther conversation, the corruption that goes on for various reasons, money mostly as someone will generally make tons of it off the research, usually the ones who funded it in the 1st place, that's until it's discredited in the future.

But yes I do agree with you.

I like sharp things.
-GT

Iwould love to compare the two steels but I got a Calyx3.5 ZDP instead of the ordered and confirmed Forum Native Opening the pack that arrived today was a shock!!!

Sent a message to Spyderco to get a solution for the mishap, they might have a suggestion to correct it.
Sad to have a fine knife I didn´t order instead of the long awaited S110V blade.

So there might be someone who ordered a ZDP 3.5 that got a surprise.

Hopefully they will get you straightened out even if it takes giving you one of the more expensive CF models when it comes out later. Good luck Commendatore.

Joe