Other web Sites
Harmonica Blues  Harmonica Amps
Harmonica Links Harmonica Pages
• Archives Home
• Years
 · 1992
 · 1993
 · 1994
 · 1995
 · 1996
 · 1997 		 · 1998
 · 1999
 · 2000
 · 2001
 · 2002
 · 2003
 
Web HarpL
Ebay Searches:
Amps:
Microphones:
Effects:
Harmonicas and Gear:
Harmonica Music and Instruction:

 

 

Harp-L Archives

[Previous Message] [Next Message]
[Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]
[Start of Thread] [End of Thread]

From: Mike Curtis
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 02:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Dr Science

On Sun, 6 Oct 1996, Siegfried Naruhn wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Oct 1996 Mike Curtis wrote:
>
> >>I'm a pragmatist. I regard the practical consequences and useful results
> >>of ideas as the test of their truthfulness.
>
> Nothing to say against, but when you start a comment about the obvious Dr.
> Science-Vern with such a programmatic statement, followed by examples of
> pseudo-scientific behaviour, it sounds as if you feel a lawyer of harp
> practicals which must be defended against the assertion, different sounding
> harps are nothing else than accoustic illusions. Are that the same practicals
> which try to find out the best practice how to imitate a train?

I don't follow your argument here. Please explain in different terms what
you mean.

As far as imitating trains, I haven't been reading these, as I don't
imitate trains in my style of playing. I don't see what that has to do
with this thread, though.

> I find that you have described the old antagonism between theory and practice
> not from a neutral view point. Though you 'define' lateron what is to be
> considered 'true' science, your meaning about the so-called 'science' sounds
> somewhat vague. You say:
>
> >> There is no shortage of examples where so-called "science" predicts something
> >>and reality demonstrates something completely different, and yet all too often
> >>"science" ignores reality and opts for its pet theories. Much of what
> >>many consider to be "science" is founded upon supposition and guesswork,..<<
>
> The essence of this well-known facts according to your diction is in my view
> this: Every time when 'theoretical' predictions don't fit to the 'practical'
> reality, then we have the case of the so-called 'science'. With other words:
> such a 'thinking' is in fact no science, but supposition, guesswork or
> 'science-fiction'. Would you agree? Then, we have the following consequences.

Not at all. What I'm saying (which I explain at the very end. i.e. one or
the other may be flawed) is that it is not proper to FORCE the facts to
fit our pet theory. If our theory varies from our findings, we need to
find where the flaw lies. Could it be our theories? Or an error in the
pragmatic testing? Or both?

EVERY fact can be defined in theory - but ONLY when we have all the facts
and theories pertaining to the matter. For example, without Einsteins
Theory of Relativity, how can we accurately describe atomic fission and
fusion and the energy that is (otherwise) "mysteriously" created out of
"nothing"? In truth, we cannot. But with the formula, Energy (is a
function of) mass, it all fits ever so neatly and logically!

> Einstein said at the end of his life that the 'cosmologic constant' he had
> introduced to maintain the model of a static universe had been his biggest
> mistake, because his constant didn't fit to certain practical findings of modern
> physics.

True. As I recall, there was a mistaken division by zero in his equation.

> Can we say now that a highly acknowledged scientist is alternatively a
> true scientist and a so-called 'scientist' according to his practically proved
> predictions? And what about Stephen Hawkings, one of the most famous scientists?
> He is considered as one of the fathers of the 'black holes' in universe. When he
> explains his theory he adds that his theory has actually a problem: meanwhile he
> changed his meaning about 'black holes'. An interesting example for changing a
> prediction by another prediction (without practical prove).

Mistakes don't make or break the scientist. Insisting on being correct at
all costs in the face of proof to the contrary is unscientific. Einsteins
forthright admission shows where he stood on this. So does Hawkings
willingness to change when he discovered the error.

> Mike, when you exemplifies the claim that true science has to be proved
> empirically, you mention Galileo:
>
> >>Galileo was forced to renounce his empirical findings that the earth is not
> >>the center of the universe because they disagreed with the accepted science of
> >>his day.<<
>
> This is not a good example for the discrepance between science and practical
> experience. Galileo is considered as one of the first 'true' scientists and the
> prevailing system of his days doesn't even deserve to be named a so-called
> 'science' but was pure dogmatism.

This is a matter of opinion today, but in Galileos day, the Church was
considered by the community to be "true science". All findings had to be
harmonized with official church dogma. BTW, the Bible itself doesn't
teach that the earth is the center of the universe. In fact, it says the
earth is a circle (Isaiah 40:22) and is hanging upon nothing (Job 26:7) -
remarkably scientific explanations to a pastoral/agrarian people! It was
the churchs opinion at that time that the earth was the center of the
universe.

> By the way, there is a parallel to your claimed ignorance of so-called
> 'scientists' against the practical experience of harp players (we are here on
> harp-L and not on a university).
>
> Excuse me folks, but I can't help to mention for the x-time this breaking-in
> (the train imitation is x+1).
>
> Mike, if I have understood you right, you have proved for yourself that
> breaking-in prolongs the reed life. Just a question. How did you managed this
> with only one harp you have allegedly?

Simple - I have Papal infallibility ;-)

But seriously - I obviously own more than one :-) I have mentioned
numerous times that they last me a finite amount of time, ergo I must have
owned more than one over the passage of time. Also, as a professional, is
it reasonable to believe I would show up to play with nothing but a single
(usually) used harmonica that I know will fail sooner or later?

I play one MODEL - Lee Oskar major diatonic in the key of C - almost
exclusively. I currently own a few dozen of these, and have owned perhaps
thousands of various and sundry harmonicas over my lifetime. I also own
all other keys, mostly Oskar major diatonics, a couple of alternatate
tunings, as well as Golden Melodies, Marine Bands, a CX-12, Blues Harps,
Special 20s, Pro Harps, Huangs, Suzukis, etc.

> To prevent misunderstandings and superfluous comments in that case, I'm a
> practical harper, otherwise I couldn't modify harps. But this doesn't prevent my
> conviction that accoustical phenomena of harps have to be searched also
> scientifically.

And as an electrical engineer and researcher, I agree. What I disagree
with is making science into a religion, complete with dogmas that must
stand unchallenged by practical experience. Instead of saying an
observable and provable fact cannot be because someone who is a scientist
cannot explain the mechanism, why not USE science to DISCOVER the
mechanism at work? THIS is TRUE science at work. By using BOTH
theoretical and pragmatic data, we will arrive at the truth much faster
than if we stick exclusively to one or the other.

As an engineer and researcher, I've seen a great many instances where
so-called "scientists" simply refused to deal with reality because "we
already know the answer". Sorry, but I'm not a little child who will
swallow every misconception/prejudice someone with a degree puts forward
dogmatically as fact. I have a degree myself, and well know how LITTLE I
know. (Non-degreed people may be surprised to hear that, but it's
quite true). Anyone who claims to know everything is a pompous ass and
a fool, and is really annoying to those of us who DO know everything.

Even Albert Einstein knew this, and said that what we know about the
universe compared to what there is to know is comparable to a man who,
desiring to see the moon closer, climbs atop his house.

It is with reason that the humoresque version of what "PhD" stands for is
"piled higher and deeper". While a great many well educated people have a
proper attitude about it, there are those who use their degree as a weapon
of oppression and power instead of a tool for seeking truth.
Unfortunately, this isn't as rare as I'd like it to be. This has nothing
to do with science.

> In my 'Reed fatigue revisited' of 10-2-96 I had proposed a test procedure to
> examine the question about an influence of breaking-in. I'm a little astonished
> that nobody, except Vern, had the idea too that it would be very appropriate to
> harp practicals to prove this kind of 'practice-fiction'. The 45 mph
> break-in is scarcely a reasonable substitute. Must I conclude that breaking-in
> is a dogmatism too?

Feel free to do the research and report back.

In the meantime I'll continue breaking my harmonicas in, because I've
found without exception that my Lee Oskars (IMHO the most consistent
harmonica I've tried) last roughly three times as long when broken in. If
this were slight, i.e. 20%, I would certainly be amenable to arguments
that it is "just my perception", or maybe variations between individual
instruments. When it's getting toward an order of magnitude, it ceases to
be fliply dismissable as opinion. The ONLY way to refute this is to
disprove my findings that this actually happens with my harmonicas. I've
tried this on dozens of harmonicas, and without exception, the broken in
harmonicas vastly outlasted the unbroken in ones.

> You mentioned Winslow's extraordinary hearing capacity:
>
> >>If Winslow says he can recognize a CX-12 at 50 paces, that's easy enough to
> >>test.<<
>
> You cited Winslow not in a correct connection. Winslow mentioned the 'plasticky'
> sound of a CX 12 he could differentiate with closed eyes among other harps. I
> hear no 'plastic in the sound' of my CXs but only another sound than on a
> 'normal' harp. The term 'plastic' sounds depreciatorily and that is not
> 'scientifically'.

I used this, not in a literal sense, but as a metaphor, i.e. if someone
makes a claim, it is easily checked by duplication. I took hyperbolic
liberties with this (obvious exaggeration) to make this readily apparent.


-- IronMan Mike Curtis
New Cassette available - email for details