Quite a while ago, Herman coined the expression that "he has a sharpening hobby". This rang true with me at the time and still does.
Herman recently added another expression with the ring of truth. In an email he said he "offered evidence, not proof". That struck me as actually what we do on the forum. In good faith we share our experiences with the Tormek. While perhaps not documented in extensive scientific tests, our advice has worked in our shops and is meant to be helpful to our newer members who will someday be the old timers of the forum.
I feel good about that. Thanks, Herman.
Ken
Ken, I think you've opened quite a difficult philosophical question. Thanks. :)
Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. ??? Proof exists only in mathematics. You cannot prove anything in science to a certainty, e.g. the Newton's "law of gravity" was revised by Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Science is about evidence, which is the result of an experiment or observation.
So Herman was definitely correct, when he "offered evidence, not proof".
Jan
Quote from: Jan on May 14, 2016, 11:16:20 PM
Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. ??? Proof exists only in mathematics. You cannot prove anything in science to a certainty,
Right. But as evidence accumulates we gain confidence that we've got the science right. In the end, all that matters is utility. In other words, when we use the idea to do new things does it work for us? Do we get it right? Like, can we land that spacecraft on that asteroid? Or can we build an automobile engine that produces more power with less fuel?
Or, can we build a machine that spins a grindstone in a water bath and use it to sharpen our tools?
Quote from: Herman Trivilino on May 15, 2016, 12:12:51 AM
Or, can we build a machine that spins a grindstone in a water bath and use it to sharpen our tools?
Yes.
Quote from: Herman Trivilino on May 15, 2016, 12:12:51 AM
Right. But as evidence accumulates we gain confidence that we've got the science right. In the end, all that matters is utility. In other words, when we use the idea to do new things does it work for us? Do we get it right? Like, can we land that spacecraft on that asteroid? Or can we build an automobile engine that produces more power with less fuel?
Or, can we build a machine that spins a grindstone in a water bath and use it to sharpen our tools?
The art of sharpening science. Or is it the science of sharpening art? As an old newbie, I'm not sure I'm qualified (or sure I'm unqualified!). Thanks for this thread folks, made me think and smile!
As one old newby to another, thoughts and smiles are good things. :)
Ken
Amikek, thanks for your feedback! :)
The main purpose of this forum is to share our experience but we try to do it in a funny way.
The reason for sharing opinions and views is nicely described in Talmud: "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are."
Jan
A quote worth pondering, Jan.
I think "utilitarian" oversimplifies things. I believe our Tormek interest is multidimentional. The math support for the development of the kenjig is certainly scientific/technical. While the original idea might seem utilitarian, a way to set up jigs more efficiently, my real motivation was to help an older member I have grown to like be able to use his Tormek in spite of eyesight difficulty. This was clearly emotional rather than utilitarian.
Jan's restoration work of his grandfather's chisel was also not utilitarian or mathematical, yet Jan is probably the most mathematical member of the forum.
Herman's small knife jig was made to help another forum member.
Rob's turning sharpening helps him made whimsical magic wands to donate to his sons' school. While sharpening his turning tools is utilitarian, donating magic wants certainly is not.
I have noticed that as I increase my basic skills with the Tormek, my philosophical side also increases.
We are a complex group. I would not have it otherwise. I am proud to be a member.
Ken
Yes Ken, the Hebraic Talmud, I have quoted from, is beautiful piece of universal old wisdom gathered by our older brothers. :)
What concerns utilitarianism I agree with you that it is an oversimplification of things. I have grown up with personalist philosophy and feel that utilitarianism tends to be a civilization focused mainly on production and use, where persons have to some degree similar value as things.
Nevertheless some utilitarian philosophers presented recently several nice concepts. :) E.g. Toby Ord, a young Australian philosopher, founded in 2009 "Giving What We Can", an international society dedicated to the elimination of poverty in the developing world. Each member should donate at least 10% of their income to anti-poverty charities.
Jan
Good thoughts, Jan. There is benefit to the tither.
In my cookbook days, a favorite was written by Mennonite women of Pennsylvania. In a nutshell, the book encouraged good cooking utilizing less food, the remainder to be donated to the hungry. The premise makes sense to me.
I do not mean to belittle the concept of utilitarianism. on the contrary, I believe utility is essential and also connected with many elements.
Ken
Novel, commence. This is great. I too second the "sharpening hobby", I have used that phrase many times. I have even referred to it as part of my "garage time with a sharpening problem".
More-so, I agree with offering evidence as opposed to proof. The amount of philosophy that this could dig into is mind boggling, even to the point of erasing most of what I was going to post. However, I also subscribe to educating the difference between theories and postulates. I don't know that I will ever formulate a theory, but I have many postulates about life.
In my mind, I am living too stagnant of a life if I am not learning something. I have started a trend at work where I pick a person on my team, and ask them to "Teach me something". Never does it have to be about work, but I won't turn that away as knowledge (Iliad Ch. X, where with two men, two may see an opportunity where one may miss). Now it is to the point where my coworkers come to me with questions and aid in tasks, thus creating a community of genuine subscription to furthering knowledge. I look forward to learning from you gentlemen in the same way. I may not have the knowledge of the Tormek system yet, but I do thermal-hydraulic mechanical engineering well enough that they pay me for it.
With regard to proofs in science, I believe that the closer we get to understanding the quantum realm, the better chance we have of achieving the first scientific proof as opposed to merely a theory. For instance, in statistical thermodynamics the use of information theory allows us to confirm our conventional equations. Yet, even then, we have much to learn.
I will "mic drop" with this:
Were numbers discovered or invented?
Welcome to the forum Jon alias yargnoj. :)
Thanks for posting interesting thoughts including your "Teach me something" initiative.
Scientific theory is the most reliable form of our scientific knowledge. Scientific theory should be elegant and simple. As additional evidence is gathered, a theory may be rejected or modified to fit the new empirical findings.
What concerns your optimism to understand the quantum mechanical realm, I have to remind you the uncertainty principle defining a fundamental limit to precision with which we can know position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. ;)
Thanks for the question from the philosophy of mathematics, I'll think about it. :-\
Jan
Quote from: yargnoj on May 18, 2016, 11:31:03 PM
Were numbers discovered or invented?
They were invented as a means to enable the explanation of discoveries.
Quote from: jeffs55 on May 19, 2016, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: yargnoj on May 18, 2016, 11:31:03 PM
Were numbers discovered or invented?
They were invented as a means to enable the explanation of discoveries.
I agree with Jeffs55.
I also think that numbers were invented to describe and understand the world around us. I think the universe would exist even without numbers.
Plato probably believed that numbers do exist as abstract objects outside human thought. Plato's answer would be that humans had discovered numbers.
Jan