Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'science'.
Found 2 results
-
Hi all! About a year ago, I prepared walnut stain from husks by submerging them in a 50/50 mix of alcohol and water, and filtering off the solid contents after it had sat for a few days. Now, looking at my stain, a decent bit of the colorant has dropped out of solution and found itself in an insoluble layer on the bottom of the jar. Just for kicks, I decided to try using this sediment as a colorant and it's a much more lovely warm golden brown than I'm used to getting from walnut stain alone. I've made lake pigments from the same batch of walnut hulls in the past, and this sediment goes far beyond the lakes in its color quality and warmth. Any ideas as to what might be happening in the jar overtime to make this sediment? My hope is to recreate it without having to wait so long. -M
-
I've decided to start a new topic to adress this question, rather to spoil Don Noon's What does the back do? Is not my intention at all to question Don Noon (and others) research, nor was it the reason that brought me to open this thread. Actually I'm very happy that people try to scientificaly explain how an instrument works, beacuse I think there's a lot of mysticism, economic interests, and build-up over the years beliefs on the subject. But I've been reading lately about the science philosopher Karl Popper and his works on the Falsifiability. Here comes an excerpt from Wikipedia (of course!) <<Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable. For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.[2] The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.>> So, what's a luthier?...An artist?, a very talented person?, a scientist?, a master on its field?...one might think there's no science in shoemaking but just a "savoir-faire" as the frenchs would said If the response is no, should lutherie become a science?
