Jump to content
Maestronet Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by miles

  1. Thank you for the reply, David. quote: Originally posted by: David Burgess For example, we have spectral data up the wazoo for violins, but so far nobody has been able to convert this into useful information for makers. The person who takes a step in this direction will be more significant to me than those who took the measurements. I reckoned this aspect in my original post. It is the audience that made that difference--Nature is usually read by scientists, not violin makers/players. Ferbose is a scientist, and he was able to decode Nagyvary's "conumdrum" for his intended audience (that is, us). In the process of deciphering, one will, for better or for worse, inevitably introduce ones understanding and even ones own thoughts into the original work. The same phenomona is ever-prevalent in Classical Chinese. Since you recommended A C Graham's work in another thread, I assume that this phenomenon was not new to you. While the later interpreters might enjoy great reputation for their work, the due credit to the original has never been outshined. I am not related to Nagyvary in any way, and have no prior experience with Ferbose. But I feel it is unfortunate that if someone became the target of negative critism due to the critics' ignorance let alone receiving proper credit. Since I am ignorant in violin making, my statement is a general statement, not aimed to be a response to other threads or this one. In reality, I also feel that some posters seem to be hostile toward you unnecessarily. One of the reasons I can think of might be that your unwillingness to share "your secret", which I agree that you are entitled to. If you feel that Nagyvary did not shed enough light and his "break-through" experiemnt should go to another, I then feel the hostility here is more or less justified. That said, I think offering/inviting ferbose to publish his work on a trade magazine is a "brilliant" idea. quote: However the academic and scientific domains bestow credit, including for publishing, doesn't mean much to me. Information from some grad student involved in a research project might be more useful than from some professor who takes credit by publishing. I've found information from amateur and un-recognized violin makers as useful as that published in trade journals by high-profile makers, some of whom have an incredible talent for taking up space on a page without saying anything. [/a] Been there, done that. Thank you very much for your sympathy. In your cited scenario, often the grad students or research associates will take the position of primary author. In the science community, we know how to "decode" such arrangement. Unless, one works for a extremely mean primary investigator, more often than not one will receive proper credit. quote: Nagyvarys work and Ferboses paper may raise more questions than answers, but good answers are usually preceded by the right questions. It's all good food for thought. This really is the impression about you I've got after reading most your posts -- open-minded and brilliant.
  2. I think this last bagel can pass for a nice bracelet for Christmas. :-) Seriously, where did you get that kind of bagel, apartmentluthier? I think I am hullucinating now--the golden bown, the smell...Darn, it's 10:20 PM grocery stores will be closed by the time I get there, and they don't this fancy kind...
  3. quote: Originally posted by: David Burgess Ferbose; I think it's your paper rather than Nagyvary's which deserves the billing, "A landmark paper on violin research" While I very much appreciate Ferbose for his excellent work to supplement/compliemnt the original research, I think, with all due respect, the praise in the quote is out of proportion. The original paper was published in Nature, which is a well-established and highly respected publisher for science. Since most violin makers (and players for that matter) are non-scientsits, it is understandable that additional information will be needed in order for these people to understand fully at least at the methodological level. As David Tseng and argon55 pointed out, there are still holes in this paper. Nonetheless, it should not confuse us who should have the "landmrak" status. I agree with Tseng's and argon55's comments (except for argon55's point #4, which I have reservation). However, I would very much like to see if Dr. N not only uses more samples, but also conducts the same research on bad or not-so-good sound antique violins from pretty much the same period for comparison.
  4. quote: Originally posted by: DSutton I think it is important to recognize what science is capable of and what it is not. I reckon that. BUT do you or do you not agree what I said in response to Andres that Any science/experiments is only as good as its designer? The incapability roots in human limitations. So what's the problem? quote: Originally posted by: DSutton Mankind has invented science to model reality. Mankind has invented science to model reality???? Modeling or mimic reality is only a vehicle for scientists to get to the bottom line. Modeling reality is NOT the goal of science. I was a scientist by training and by profession prior to my joining IT. But please pardon my ignorance, I didn't even know that my job was to model reality. Sorry, no refunds for my salary from me. quote: Originally posted by: DSutton Science makes no claim to truth, only that reality is 'like' such and such.....and that is all it can do. So who makes claim to truth? Philosophers or religion leaders perhaps? So philosophy and religion are almighty? If the limitations of science is inherited from those of the humans, shouldn't we then conclude philosophy and religion are not man-made? Since I also majored in literature, I am, almost by default, interested in "What is reality?", "What is illusion?" "What makes one think there is no illusion behind another illusion?" Perhaps you can shed some light for me?
  5. quote: "There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge." Great spirit, especially, for the holiday season. If the statement is necessarily true, then I don't understand how "troll" came about, and how we concluded "don't feed troll". And how Randi and Dr. N would be the target of negative criticism (seems negative to me)? Apparently, I am missing something.
  6. Incidentally, I tend to press the strings too hard on the left hand, which makes my shifting a problem. I don't really have too manyproblems with right hand.
  7. http://cgi.ebay.com/ITALIAN-HA...8QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem I have over 17 years old pine lying around in my home...might be time to find them a good home for making violins... Is pine any good for making violins?
  8. Hi yuen, Yep. Although my mother played no musical instruments, she would take a dog over me any time as I suspect....
  9. quote: Originally posted by: Michael Darnton he was trying to gently insult me and said that I was "a cesspool of useless information." You have to troll deeply to find the really useless stuff. :-) One man's useless information is another's treasure? I have always been wondering where/how you found all that "useless information", including your internet dog cartoon. Really cool stuff!
  10. Liz, The post was my response after reading the survey, which was not related to Michael's posts at all. I did not intend for an answer, but did enjoy upnorth's reply. Since you contined, I assumed that your comments were for me as well. So there you go. In regard to your comments: quote: Just because something is currently unexplainable, it does not automatically follow that it is bogus. I totally agree that "just because something is currently unexplainable, it does not automatically follow that it is bogus." But, on the other hand, does it automatically follow that it is not bogus? I think not. [edit] After a good night sleep and re-read your post, I still don't believe someone would say "just because something is currently unexplainable, it does not automatically follow that it is bogus" as a response to my post. My original post was a statement with displeasure (please see the disgusted icon I put), which has nothing with logic at all. Apparently, I was either under-understood or misunderstood. However, upnorth and chronos got my thinking right. quote: One of the criticisms of Randi is that he passes judgement on things about which he has absolutly no knowledge or understanding, simply on a basis of his personal gut feelings. I would tend to agree with the critism if the claim "...he has absolutely no knowledge or understanding, simply on a basis of his personal gut feelings" is true. However, on the other hand, if Randi knows his stuff, I would not dismiss his gut feelings with ease. In reality, I think it is probably true that I am more ignorant than he is. So I read the posts and made no comments on/about Randi. That said, I would certainly give the benefit of doubt to Michael for his expertise. So if you think I disagree with Michael or critics of similar thoughts in their criticism about Randi, you were certainly mistaken. I know my limitations especially in world of music. If your remarks were not intended for me, I apologize for the misunderstanding. In any event, thank you for digging out the article I missed from Michael's post. That's an interesting paper. I got the part II as well.
  11. Thank you, chronos. Sold immediately on the author of the essay. :-)
  12. quote: Originally posted by: DSutton "I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Can you give me an example of pure reason?" It is reasonable to say the apple will probably fall, or that it is very likely to fall. It is not reasonable to say that it WILL fall. I am just pointing out what I believe to be the limitation of all human observation and deduction. It is not reasonable to say that an apple will fall [from a tree]? Have you been able to walk in the air even once in your life time without any external assisstance, say wires? quote: Originally posted by: Andreas Sender Miles--I'm afraid I'm not understanding your point. The last quote is mine, but I am not part of the anti-certainty crowd, and I would hardly imagine Heisenberg to be the antidote to Hume. What I was trying to say is that taking things out of context and asking to be examined is just a waste of time. By merely stating "Science cannot prove or disprove the Humian proposition that there is no such thing as certainty." doesn't support your point/argument. According to your quote, Hume and Heisenberg had at least one thing in common: They both concluded "uncertainty" in their own arguments. Even so, can anyone say that there was no certainty in the world? Of course, not as illustrated in my gas-car analogy. My point is that science is like solving jig puzzles. It requires a well-defined scope and proven methodology to draw a valid conclusion. When the scope is changed, the correct conclusion might no longer apply, just like a jig piece, which is put in a wrong slot on the puzzle board. But it does not mean the piece is a wrong piece in the entirety. In order to find the right pieces to portray a big picture, it requires good designs and appropriate material to carry out the experiments, which is costly. Does science have its limitations? Oh yeah. Any methodology is only as good as the person, who designs the work. Even if the designer has the perfect everything, without adequate funding, it is unlikely that a significant work can be carried out by an individual investigator/investigators in our time these days. Anyone, who commits fallacies even in a passive-aggressive fashion, cannot win the argument regardless what he/she wants to believe. Admittedly, everyone is entitled to free speech in the US, and I respect that. Happy Holidays, everyone!
  13. Andreas, Thank you for the post. DSutton's second to the last post is a classical example of fallacy, not science. In human history, science is like the development of language; human thoughts goes first, but it doesn't stop there. I did not initiate the "philosophical" discussion, but could resist responding. quote: I don't think what I am saying is a paradox, I was only mentioning the limitation of science. What you said was actually a fallacy. Will any scientist care for examining known fallacies? The limitation of science is mostly the limitation of minds and available funding. quote: Observation and deduction can only take you so far. Science cannot tell the future, it can only tell you what is likely to happen. If the "mind" can tell the future, science can, too. Do you think philosophers can tell the future? If I recall correctly, Einstein did predict the future. He said something like this, "I don't know what weapons will be used in the Third World War. But I know in the Fourth World War, the weapons will be similar to what was used in the Stone Age." Do you dare or care for testing his hypothesis out? quote: Science cannot prove or disprove the Humian proposition that there is no such thing as certainty. Well, you might want to ask the well-known German scientist, Mr. Heisenberg, about "there is no such thing as certainty". Or you wan to make it easier by trying this out: Driving a car at night until there is no gas in its tank, and see whether or not your car will still move on itself...Is there any certainty? Oh yeah!
  14. Wow, Oded, your receipe looks "yummy" already. Apartmentluthier, Is that Paganini? I watched a documentary about him, and his looks matched this one NICELY.....
  15. My apology, DSutton. You did say you were skeptical. When I wrote the previous post, I had Andreas's posts in mind, but remembered your sentence by heart (due to the length of the statement). Now I am waiting for Andreas to fire back. But from his other posts, I know he's a well-intended person as well. So it is only a mental exercise in the slow season... So cheers!
  16. quote: Originally posted by: skiingfiddler My concern with a tuner is whether you can play a sequence of notes, quickly and conveniently, as you can with a piano. If all you want is a drone note or a note to match, then a tuner might do the job. But if you want to hear a string of notes in succession, for example, the sequence D, E, F#, G, then the piano would let you do that, while twisting knobs on a tuner to get those notes might be less convenient. Depending on the tuner, I would think a pattern of non-adjacent notes, such as D, F#, A, E, G, B would be very clumsy to do on a tuner, while posing no difficulty on a keyboard. I think you want to train your ear to hear the relationship between notes (ie, intervals), and you want to train your ear to hear sequences of notes (for example, the first 4 notes of the major scale compared to the first 4 notes of a minor scale. For that kind of stuff, the piano will work. Whether most tuners will conveniently allow that kind of training, I don't know. As far as all the different tunings go (Equal Temperament, etc) I would say that if a player is a beginner and can produce the exact same pitches as a carefully tuned piano, that's good enough. I wouldn't worry about different tuning systems. Hi Skiiingfiddler, Thanks a lot for the explanation. It now makes a lot of sense to me. I totally agree with you on using a sequence to learn notes according to my own experience with metronome. After I upgraded to a new metronome, which allows beats in sequence bar by bar, I started to feel the rhythm. Not very good at it, but enough to get really excited about improving upon my sense of rhythm. I am seriously considering following Steve's step in looking for a tutor...It sounds exciting to learn the interval and chords... Thanks again for the advice.
  17. quote: Originally posted by: stevenwong the new teacher does not use tapes or tuners.... i am trained to use my ears... recognise the sympathetic vibrations of the open strings, the relations of the note to the previous or open strings... my ears have wokened up from the deep sleep.... Congrats! Sounds like you've found a great teacher. My first teacher was like that, but then our lesson time was 5 hours per week. Now I only have 30 minutes per week, and cannot really demand much although my current teacher has been very dutiful. That might be something you want to think about, Andy: lesson time and what you want to get out of it.
  18. Now, that's really COOL! I would agree with French origin since we Chinese tend to like round (circluar), real round--the center of this bagel looks more like a triangle to me. Can I order a more reddish antiqued bagel please?
  19. quote: Originally posted by: stevenwong it seems that we have drifted pretty far away from Strad, Nagyvary and James Randi... lol.... You are so right. However, PHILOSOPHICALLY we are still talking about philosophy and science, which was the spirit of this thread, no?
  20. quote: Originally posted by: NewNewbie "Before the establishment of genetics, there were two leading hypotheses in explaining inheritance, known as Lamarckism and Darwinism. The core of inheritance is genetics, which is not easily understood by "the mind", and that was the reason why Lamarckism was the leading thoughts, which was later disproved by science although Lamarckism may be logically valid..." ================================= Remember Robert Hooke? He was found to be wrong by Newton, only to be found to be right by Einstein. Remember the mysterious Ether Theory that was declared to be not so, it's making a come back now. If one takes a long range view of Science, then there is one conclusion that is consistent, and that is that whatever they say is so today, will not be so tomorrow. Science, it would seem, is very good at finding out that it is wrong. That is the point! The "mind" may not understand something at a given point of time, but "science" will revise when sufficient evidence surfaces. However, the logic might not be invalid. Is light a wave or particle? Is the nervous system chemical or electrical in nature? Blindly saying that "science cannot scratch philosophy" is what I disagreed with. Only the minds and funding are the limits.
  21. quote: Originally posted by: Virtusoso I like them best with cream cheese and a slice of tomato. Sorry . I couldn't resist. I'm with you, Virtusoso. Better make it toasted, golden brown. Ah, I can even smell it... Toast!
  22. quote: Originally posted by: JohnCee oral sex and simon cowell mentioned in a maestronet thread? What on earth is the world coming to? How can one know if things are taken out of context?
  23. quote: Originally posted by: Andres Sender Just as one can imitate the patterns of speech while saying nothing sensible, so it is not terribly difficult to imitate the patterns of reason while promoting the unreasonable. People have been doing so since long before Aristotle found it necessary to codify the common forms of distorted reasoning in 300-odd B.C. Certainly agree. May I also add "spin doctor" to this equation? quote: Miles - the elaboration is the 2nd part of my post, otherwise I'm not sure what you're looking for. Please pardon my inability to understand the elaboration. However, your previous post seem to be your conclusion to me with the firm belief that science cannot address philosophy. quote: A 'knowable existence' means: a reality which can be understood by the mind. Yes the validity of logic is part of the core, indeed it is prerequisite to science, which is why science cannot address the validity of logic. The statement "A 'knowable existence' means: a reality which can be understood by the mind." is too vague for my "mind". Quantum mechanics and Relativity are difficult to understood by most minds I am afraid to say. So are quantum mechanics and relativity science or not? The statement "science cannot address the validity of logic" is rather confusing. Logic is a set of rules, which is deployed to test a hypothesis. That is, logic is a set of tools (i.e. reasoning patterns), which one can utilize to support ones claims or PREDICTIONS. Logic itself, of course, needs to be tested before it can be established, and that's why we have so-called "fallacies" if my understanding is correct. One way logic can be tested is through experiements, or so-called scientific methods. Before the establishment of genetics, there were two leading hypotheses in explaining inheritance, known as Lamarckism and Darwinism. The core of inheritance is genetics, which is not easily understood by "the mind", and that was the reason why Lamarckism was the leading thoughts, which was later disproved by science although Lamarckism may be logically valid...
  24. quote: Originally posted by: mogozuzu ...but note that reproduction and use as such constitutes copyright infringement. I can say with confidence that one will seldom find my posts with personal attack, and that I have been neutral in this thread as well. However, I must say that this cited statement is certainly groundless. First of all, the citation of your restoration/conservation work has no commercial gains to the thread poster. Secondly, the thread poster did not claim the work to be his or hers. Lastly, the thread poster only posted link to your website, which clearly and further supported all the aforementioned reasons why the thread did not violate any copyrights to your work. I do understand it is hard for anyone to be the target of negative criticism, and I am sympathetic. But it is not a good reason to throw in meritless accusations to "get back" at the critics, especially at those who provided reasons/facts to support their claims or criticism for one to put the provided reasons/facts in new light for better/further understanding. By the way, did anyone eat the bagel? What a waste of "good" food!
  25. A C Graham is a famous sinologist. In front of me is his "Studies in Chinese Philosophy and Philosophical Literature". I also read his book on value, but have not read this title of his. "My conclusion from reading it is that reason can be very effectively used to break down reason, and support "non-reason"." I wonder whether it has anything to do with a particular school of philosophy, Kung-sun Lung Tzu or Chuang Tzi for example. If so, I think I can understand why you would come to such conclusion. Let's not forget what Clinton replied regarding his relationship with M. L., "Oral sex is not sex". I remember what my etymology professor said to the class over a decade ago, "If you like words, you can become a philosopher. If you don't have a sense of ethics (or moral???), you can become a lawyer." Clinton's reply certainly illustrates how one can use words/reason to break down reason. But is it valid for being classified as "reason"? By the way, Clinton's reply echoed a famous quote from Kung-sun Lung Tzu, "A white horse is not a horse; a hard (as opposed to soft) stone is not a stone."
  • Create New...