Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Random thoughts on the Fritz thread (and related science ones).


JohnCockburn

Recommended Posts

1. One of the most important functions of a scientific paper is to inspire critical appraisal and discussion. The fact that a paper has been peer reviewed does not mean that the conclusions are sacrosanct or that the experimental protocol is beyond criticism. Reasoned debate should be encouraged and should not be regarded as personal criticism of the researchers involved.

2. If you want to demonstrate your competence in science please do so by presenting coherent and correct arguments germane to the discussion at hand, not by attempts at smart-arsed putdowns of the views and contributions of other posters.

3. Please don't present spectra without a brief explanation of measurement technique and at least first thoughts on interpretation.

4. If you don't have the balls to post under your own name, keep your criticisms of those that do to yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seconded, especially point 4.

We all know who Anders is, and we know that his work is public and permanently under scrutiny, not least by himself. I have always found him to be open to new ideas and challenges, and not easily riled!

We have no idea who Flyboy is. I think if someone is going to be so persistently controversial and critical of the experience of others (myself included!) they should reveal their identity.

I am happy to stand up and be counted, and I can't really be bothered to argue with someone who isn't ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. One of the most important functions of a scientific paper is to inspire critical appraisal and discussion. The fact that a paper has been peer reviewed does not mean that the conclusions are sacrosanct or that the experimental protocol is beyond criticism. Reasoned debate should be encouraged and should not be regarded as personal criticism of the researchers involved.

2. If you want to demonstrate your competence in science please do so by presenting coherent and correct arguments germane to the discussion at hand, not by attempts at smart-arsed putdowns of the views and contributions of other posters.

3. Please don't present spectra without a brief explanation of measurement technique and at least first thoughts on interpretation.

4. If you don't have the balls to post under your own name, keep your criticisms of those that do to yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we are on the subject of random thoughts, here's another...

I was taking my daughter to an examination hall when the traffic stalled on the road there. It turned out that one of the students had created a multiple bumper-to-bumper accident - we passed her on the side of the road frantically talking at a cellphone. I wonder what her mental state was when she took the exam.

Pause for thought in these discussions.

Prior experience/state/circumstance - just one of many variables that can confound human studies (no Wiki or WSJ et al., 2012).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. One of the most important functions of a scientific paper is to inspire critical appraisal and discussion. The fact that a paper has been peer reviewed does not mean that the conclusions are sacrosanct or that the experimental protocol is beyond criticism. Reasoned debate should be encouraged and should not be regarded as personal criticism of the researchers involved.

2. If you want to demonstrate your competence in science please do so by presenting coherent and correct arguments germane to the discussion at hand, not by attempts at smart-arsed putdowns of the views and contributions of other posters.

3. Please don't present spectra without a brief explanation of measurement technique and at least first thoughts on interpretation.

4. If you don't have the balls to post under your own name, keep your criticisms of those that do to yourself.

1. Correct, more or less. But respected scientific journals don't publish just any old thing that arrives in the mail. The methodology and conclusions have to be reasonable, or the paper will be returned for revision, or rejected. Even robust papers are frequently rejected, because of space restraints.

2. Absolutely!

3. Yes, within reason. A0 and A1 - B1+ are still over my head (a bit). It would be pointless to explain the basics every time. Methodology should be available if needed. Interpretation should be the whole point of presenting data.

4. Anonymity in public discourse is an age-old tradition. Names like Amicus, and Joyce Jr. come to mind. But anonymity is valued by thugs and hired assassins as well. Those in the business obviously have reasons for using their real names. Private individuals may not want the Orwellian monster to know every facet of their lives. wink.gif

I use my real name in private correspondence with members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Correct, more or less. But respected scientific journals don't publish just any old thing that arrives in the mail. The methodology and conclusions have to be reasonable, or the paper will be returned for revision, or rejected. Even robust papers are frequently rejected, because of space restraints.

2. Absolutely!

3. Yes, within reason. A0 and A1 - B1+ are still over my head (a bit). It would be pointless to explain the basics every time. Methodology should be available if needed. Interpretation should be the whole point of presenting data.

4. Anonymity in public discourse is an age-old tradition. Names like Amicus, and Joyce Jr. come to mind. But anonymity is valued by thugs and hired assassins as well. Those in the business obviously have reasons for using their real names. Private individuals may not want the Orwellian monster to know every facet of their lives. wink.gif

I use my real name in private correspondence with members.

Hi Addie. I have no problem with anonymity for the right reasons. I have a problem when people dish out personal abuse whilst hiding behind an alias.

Regarding 1), "reasonable" does not equal flawless or beyond criticism or discussion. Peer review is often deeply flawed. One is reminded of Churchill's views on democracy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. One of the most important functions of a scientific paper is to inspire critical appraisal and discussion. The fact that a paper has been peer reviewed does not mean that the conclusions are sacrosanct or that the experimental protocol is beyond criticism. Reasoned debate should be encouraged and should not be regarded as personal criticism of the researchers involved.

I think we may assume that the test procedures used in Friz et als study is as good as it can be in the 'scientific business'. As I have stated many times before: Friz have a very good scientific background and have been working on this. along with co workers or collaborators, over many years refining the experiments and methodology. I do not know the other scientific participants, but know Joe and Fan, good organizers and people with ideas and contacts. I think the concept idea to do such a test basically was Fan and Joes. The team here has been good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we may assume that the test procedures used in Friz et als study is as good as it can be in the 'scientific business'. As I have stated many times before: Friz have a very good scientific background and have been working on this. along with co workers or collaborators, over many years refining the experiments and methodology. I do not know the other scientific participants, but know Joe and Fan, good organizers and people with ideas and contacts. I think the concept idea to do such a test basically was Fan and Joes. The team here has been good.

Anders, if I may make a respectful and constructive point about your posting style in these matters, I would say that in general you have a tendency to place too much emphasis on the people involved (verging on pointless name dropping in some cases IMO) and too little on objective appraisal of the work in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anders, if I may make a respectful and constructive point about your posting style in these matters, I would say that in general you have a tendency to place too much emphasis on the people involved (verging on pointless name dropping in some cases IMO) and too little on objective appraisal of the work in question.

We did attend a similar test at Oberlin the summer 2010, which I think may have been a tranining for this one. The authors also have shared results from other similar tests done in France and in Canada during the meetings they have attended, so we have been both participating in the tests and seen and discussed the results of some of these. We were asked not to tell anything about the results of this 'Fritz test' until this last test got published, which I think has been respected.

I also have met the researchers they have been collaborating with in a smaller violin acoustics setting in the UK a couple of years now. So we know a bit about their work that has been done and are in progress. I think that makes me a bit more qualified than most persons that have not been involved or attended the workshops with these people are.

Maybe I am defending them a bit more than what I would if I did not know them. But on the other hand I also have given some critics on points no else have covered. I am a pretty idependant personality, as you may have observed. But are in general much more humble in person than I appear to be behind a computer screen.

I think that I will be a bit more polite in my discussions from now, and rather utilize this sites ability to ignore certain posters. Being quite sensitive and outspoken, that may be a better solution for everybody. I have no plans quitting name dropping, though. Because the names are persons to look up in the literature, if anybody might be interested in reading about certain themes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. If you don't have the balls to post under your own name, keep your criticisms of those that do to yourself.

I'm not planning to start criticising anyone but when I tried to join this forum I discovered that someone else in the violin world has the same name, and the same middle inirial. The more I read :huh: the more I thought it was probably a good thing I couldn't use my own name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not planning to start criticising anyone but when I tried to join this forum I discovered that someone else in the violin world has the same name, and the same middle inirial. The more I read :huh: the more I thought it was probably a good thing I couldn't use my own name.

Don't tell me - your surname is Hill? :D

Honestly, I didn't mean to come across as pompous: if people want to use an anonymous username, that's their own business.

Just think it's jolly bad form to go around slagging off other forum members from behind a mask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does the ignore function handle threads that were started by an "ignored poster"?

Hmmm,

As I was reminded in another recent thread - you can just ignore them anyway.

"Ignore" function button or not.

If more members did so, eventually it may have the desired effect. Then again, probably not.

"People" seem to be attracted to them, and to their posts - no matter how rude or ficticious, like "people" seem to be attracted to a train wreck. So, I always assume that such posters feed something that we, as a group, must want to perpetuate, at some level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those of you who want to understand the real physics behind the phenomena I mentioned, you can find a very readable account here (pp. 63-70, page 69 in particular):

http://books.google.com/books?id=pfEATHvL-uYC&lpg=PA64&ots=hdFmwPdpln&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q&f=false

For those desiring more rigorous treatment:

Ruelle & Takens

On the Nature of Turbulence:

http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&id=pdf_1&handle=euclid.cmp/1103857186

Newhouse, Ruelle, & Takens

Occurrence of Strange Axiom A Attractors Near Quasi Periodic Flows on T^m, m>=3

http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&id=pdf_1&handle=euclid.cmp/1103904620

If you have access (although he only covers autonomous cases):

http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v76/i4/e046216

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think it's jolly bad form to go around slagging off other forum members from behind a mask.

It might very well be bad form to slag off other forum members anonymously, but it's even worse form for another forum member to pass himself off as some authority when it's evident that he is not. To wit:

The nonlinarity you refer to is of no use here.

That's by far not the only example.

Secondly, I don't consider a hint to bone up on "Lorenz attractors, non-linear dynamics, and to play with vectorscopes," material that's directly relevant to the discussion at hand, to be "smart-arsed putdowns."

Thirdly, at no time did I ever use bad language (such as "------------"), as he did here: http://www.maestrone...ndpost&p=529703

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those of you who want to understand the real physics behind the phenomena I mentioned, you can find a very readable account here (pp. 63-70, page 69 in particular):

http://books.google.com/books?id=pfEATHvL-uYC&lpg=PA64&ots=hdFmwPdpln&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q&f=false

For those desiring more rigorous treatment:

Ruelle & Takens

On the Nature of Turbulence:

http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&id=pdf_1&handle=euclid.cmp/1103857186

Newhouse, Ruelle, & Takens

Occurrence of Strange Axiom A Attractors Near Quasi Periodic Flows on T^m, m>=3

http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&id=pdf_1&handle=euclid.cmp/1103904620

If you have access (although he only covers autonomous cases):

http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v76/i4/e046216

Thank you for the links, now how do you see those applying to violins ? Could you elaborate a bit ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just use care when exercising the ignore option. A member might seem annoying or have a strong way of posting on a forum but might be very personable in real life. (it takes one to know one) They might also just be having a bad day/week/topic... Support seems like a more human approach then a selfish ignore. A strong passion about a topic, humor, irony and sarcasm is more often lost when read and they can easily piss people off.

Ignoring someone too quickly might make you lose out on good conversation. It can also lead to a strange patterns in replies where it's obvious that people are not reading other peoples posts. For a while I participated on a political forum and it became almost dysfunctional. It seemed to me that it was because so many people ignored so many other people.

Another thing, If there's a poster that you think is speaking above their expertise, it's no better to passively needle them by asking them to "elaborate" then to come right out and say what you think. It's more direct and puts you out there too. I could be mistaken Carl, and I apologize if I am, but it seems like this is what you're doing in the last post.

Another another thing. Remember that this topic will pass and soon will be forgotten as will the hard feelings.

2c

--Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing, If there's a poster that you think is speaking above their expertise, it's no better to passively needle them by asking them to "elaborate" then to come right out and say what you think. It's more direct and puts you out there too. I could be mistaken Carl, but it seems like this is what you're doing in the last post.

--Joe

That's exactly what I'm doing. But I like being polite and maintaining some decorum, not that I can't swear with the best of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...