[Giganova]

That's funny, because it seems to be at its best in preparation for war.

Not true at all. Science does best in times of peace and prosperity of a society.

 

[Pete]

It's not rare that we'll get over ten pages here discussing a topic concerning sound waves, metal vibrations, chemical analysis of raw materials, and what have you, as it relates to the more scientific aspects of sound. But my question to the group is... has any of this ever helped your playing? Have you used any of the knowledge gained from these discussions in a practical application that has improved and/or broadened your skills? I'm sure the techs love it, and I don't mean to diss their intellectual endeavors, but when that perspective invades the threads calling for more subjective experiences, what is really trying to be proven? Now the science involved here is fascinating, no doubt, but as far as practical applications go, how are we using this information? Is it simply a mental exercise for those wishing to expand and/or flaunt their knowledge base, or are we learning something of use... and if so, what is it?

I think the most important question is, "Have you used any of the knowledge gained from these discussions in a practical application that has improved and/or broadened your skills?"

When discussing our favorite topic, "What's the best saxophone?", the question of, "Does finish impact tone?" often does come up. The answer of "No" is extremely helpful if you have a limited budget and you've decided that a Saxpics Model 730 Alto is the best possible horn out there, but you can only afford lacquer: you don't have to spend the extra $1200 to get the horn gold plated (I'm offering SOTW members a discount of 15.2% off retail, btb).

However, in the case of the topic, "Does finish impact tone?", you have to look at several other things, like, "OK. If finish doesn't impact tone on modern instruments, how about vintage instruments? Why does it make a difference?"

I, personally, won't benefit from a discussion about sound waves and such, it's because that discussion is of no benefit to me as a player or as an instrument historian. It would have a great benefit if I were a saxophone designer -- or if I were more into electronic music than I have been and wanted to create sounds on my synth.

Know your audience.

 

[14470]

That's funny, because it seems to be at its best in preparation for war.

If you are talking science to make bombs and vehicles for bombs, you are probably right. Otherwise, it is neither funny nor logical but utter nonsense. WWII destroyed a generation of scientists in Europe (except for a few rescued to make the atomic bomb). These days, it is way better to be occupied with genetically engineering plants to emit fluorescent light in the presence of explosives, than improving treatment for ailments that will affect just about every member of this board sooner or later. I suppose if you have your arm ripped off that you may be able to get a better prosthesis because of wars, but not one that allows you to play the sax.

 

[Grumps]

Not true at all. Science does best in times of peace and prosperity of a society.

You mean it gets a day off and gets to rest?
Otherwise, most major scientific advancements have come as a side effect of our figuring out better ways to kill each other. But hey, maybe I'm on to something here... perhaps this is why the science threads cause the most mayhem.

Science Kills. Now there's a signature line for ya...

 

[Giganova]

Science Kills. Now there's a signature line for ya...

It makes me sad that you think that way.

 

[Grumps]

Makes me even sadder when irony and dark humor are misinterpreted.
Perhaps we need a smiley for that?

 

[Carl H.]

Makes me even sadder when irony and dark humor are misinterpreted.
Perhaps we need a smiley for that?

 

[JL]

Science doesn't care about practical applications. It is a method to learn about nature, nothing else. .

Exactly. Science is a method of investigation that seeks out and uses the best evidence at hand. Some evidence is gained through direct observation, some through experiment. The results of investigation using the scientific method can be put to use in various ways, for better or worse. It's not the fault of science that the laws of physics can be used to craft a bomb and drop it on innocent people. It is funny though, that the same people who knock the scientific method, and refuse to accept the proven fact of certain natural processes like evolution, are often the first ones to jump out and cheer the use of such bombs. Unfortunately the existence of science and use of the scientific method by some cannot guarantee rational thought for the vast majority.

Wow, how did I get so far off topic? Back to saxophones, science does not have all the answers and no true scientist will make such a claim. You can study the physics of sound waves through the bore of a saxophone, but no one can really say WHY we love the sound of a sax, or prefer the sound of one horn model over another.

 

[Giganova]

LOL, that's funny! Where do you find all those smileys??

 

[Grumps]

It's certainly ironic, in darkly humorous way Carl.

JL, no one is knocking the scientific method. It's the scientific mundane, and perversion of same we're getting at. Also, watch the hasty generalizations (converse accident) in regard to describing your perceived opponents. Otherwise it would seem your scientific approach isn't above the use of a fallacy in making your point.

By the way... why does Al keep deleting his posts before I can read them? Or has science come up with internet invisible ink?

 

[Saxmusiclover]

Science is good as long you don't let it blind you (he, he, he )

 

[BryanZSax]

I once read of a women who lost her eyesight while doing a science lab. I guess this counts as "Blinded by science."

 

[JL]

It's the scientific mundane, and perversion of same we're getting at.

I definitely agree with you here. Unfortunately science is not well-understood by a lot of folks and a whole lot of nonsense can be spouted under the guise of "science." How many ads have we seen where some "scientifically proven product" that promises wonders is sold? The problem is the scientific method is not really taught very well in schools, or not taught at all, until someone gets to college and decides to go into science. I think the scientific method should be taught from the 3rd grade on, along with reading, writing, and math. Seems like we are going in the opposite direction. Keeping the masses ignorant or superstitious is perhaps more useful to those in power. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying there is any vast conspiracy or anything like that.

To some extent scientists are to blame for living in their ivory towers, speaking their own language among their peers, and not "lowering" themselves to speak in plain language to the general public. But, as I said, it would really help if we educated kids from day one at least on how the scientific method works.

 

[rabbit]

I like science. It gave us silicone implants; or is that engineering?
Does it matter?

Science is pursued by people and in it's process
is subject to all human foibles, failings, abuses and strengths too.

I like science 'cause at the end, because of the scientific method,
the facts (read: truth) come to the top. Such is not the product
of the 'faith' or 'opinion' methods. And, there are silcone implants.

Pushed for an OPINION I'd probably profess more respect
for someone obsessing over his sax's surface finish for
cosmetic reasons than for sonic reasons. Hey man, do you or
do you not have something to say with that horn?
But silver & gold finishes, right up there with silicone implants.

Can you write a post that cites 'silicone implants'
3 times?

 

[Rick Adams]

I like science. It gave us silicone implants; or is that engineering?
Does it matter?

Science is pursued by people and in it's process
is subject to all human foibles, failings, abuses and strengths too.

I like science 'cause at the end, because of the scientific method,
the facts (read: truth) come to the top. Such is not the product
of the 'faith' or 'opinion' methods. And, there are silcone implants.

Pushed for an OPINION I'd probably profess more respect
for someone obsessing over his sax's surface finish for
cosmetic reasons than for sonic reasons. Hey man, do you or
do you not have something to say with that horn?
But silver & gold finishes, right up there with silicone implants.

Can you write a post that cites 'silicone implants'
3 times?

That's four times in fact Rabbit - a sure sign of someone who obsesses about err... silicaon implants :tongue9:

Science is a methodology not a doctrine and by its inherent nature science can never prove anything, just provide evidence to support or disprove an hypothesis. Later science may some day disprove any hypothesis currently supported.

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to the rules of reasoning.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. Any hypothesis that cannot be subjected to a test is not considered to be scientific. These steps are repeated to refine hypotheses and allow for increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Another facet shared by the various fields of scientific inquiry is that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results. There is also an expectation that scientists document all of their data and methodology for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers. Most scientific journals and grant agencies require a well documented set of data to be archived. This allows other researchers to conduct statistical measures of the reliability of the results and to verify results by attempting to replicate them.

Human beings on the other hand are highly subjective rather than objective and this applies to all of us regardless of how we view science. Science provides a framework to remove subjectivity as best as it can, but it will often still creep in.

 

[saxophrenic]

Mad Scientists

Modern day mythology - Mad Scientists

Variation on fear of the unknown (what are those shapes and sounds out in the dark outside the light of our fire and outside our cave?)

Variation on fear (or envy) of power and knowledge -
let's demonize scientists because we don't understand (or trust) what they are doing (witch hunting? - burn the alchemist?)

See - Goethe's "Faust"
Stevenson's - "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde"
Shelley's - "Dr. Frankenstein"

End of interpretation - our time is over for the week.
Have a nice day.

Sigmund - please explicate or refute if you please

 

[rabbit]

That's four times in fact Rabbit - a sure sign of someone who obsesses about err... silicaon implants :tongue9:

Science is a methodology not a doctrine and by its inherent nature science can never prove anything, just provide evidence to support or disprove an hypothesis. Later science may some day disprove any hypothesis currently supported.

Science provides a framework to remove subjectivity as best as it can, but it will often still creep in.

Rick,

Chose 'three' to make the challenge fair.

Science is a methodology for finding fact. Your definition
is technically, rhetorically correct I guess, but suggests that there
are ultimately no completely knowable facts. That is philosophy,
science doesn't accept that, but it accepts new facts.

Creeping subjectivity. Hmmm. Creeping creepers creep creepily.
It's the meds.

 

[Grumps]

I think the scientific method should be taught from the 3rd grade on, along with reading, writing, and math. Seems like we are going in the opposite direction. Keeping the masses ignorant or superstitious is perhaps more useful to those in power.

I'm with you here, most definitely. What really gets me is the way television is being used in this regard. It is a disgrace to see certain channels, that hold themselves out to be educational no less, featuring ghost hunters and psychics as if what they're doing is anything but chicanery. We could all use a good dose of Randi.org in this regard.

 

[JL]

I'm with you here, most definitely. What really gets me is the way television is being used in this regard. It is a disgrace to see certain channels, that hold themselves out to be educational no less, featuring ghost hunters and psychics as if what they're doing is anything but chicanery. We could all use a good dose of Randi.org in this regard.

Yes, scepticism is very healthy. Oh man, you just hit one of my all time pet peeves. Don't get me going on this one! I will point out that children are basically sponges and will absorb unquestioningly any information they are fed. This is an evolutionary necessity (there's some science creeping in again). We spend the rest of our lives sifting through and identifying what makes sense and, hopefully, deleting all the bs. The superstitious nonsense on those programs you mention falls firmly into the bs catagory!

Hey Al, what were your first thoughts? Some of us are wondering.....

 

[Rick Adams]

Chose 'three' to make the challenge fair.

you are a sporting rabbit!

...there are ultimately no completely knowable facts.

This is indeed what science states. Science is "predictive" ie "the evidence supports a hypothesis that..." - anything else is not science. Of course a lot of hypotheses are now taken as read and have become so normalised that they are indeed now seen as "ultimate truths", but that does not mean that science shows that they could not be challenged, in just the same way that Galileo challenged the ultimate truths of his time by showing the the Earth revolves around the Sun and Einstein challenged the ultimate truths of our more recent time by showing that Newton's laws do not hold in all circumstances, tomorrow new science may well overturn our most preciously held "beliefs of today" for that is all that they are. Who'd have thought it eh?

It is not science that turns a current hypothesis into an "ultimate truth" but the misconceptions of wider society and more particularly popularist media, just like Grumps and JL are saying.