From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 12/20/01-10:35:14 PM Z
Carl Weese wrote:
> But it's completely > unfounded to assume someone did that just because
one's personal tests fail> to confirm.
Carl, mea non culpa of "personal test" in the gum-pigment-ratio business
-- as soon as I realized the PREMISE was wrong, I quit. As Mike Ware of
Holy Name pointed out (either when still on this list, or in e-mail with
me -- we had a lot of dichromate correspondence), the dichromate is part
of the equation. Such info as you may get without it may or may not pan
out.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as any "test" may be, even on a
false premise. In the wider world of science, when a time-honored
principle of medicine, physics, or whatever becomes inoperative, it's
often as not the *premise,* not the test, that's faulty. (When I've had
to toss tests of my own, it's usually that -- wrong premise.)
Katharine Thayer wrote:
QUOTE: When whole sections of the community are not welcomed here,
What sections? Is there a committee? Am I on it?
QUOTE: ...and when disconfirming data are misconstrued as personal
attacks, it is unlikely that enough the community will speak up to give us
a complete picture."
I try to be brave; I promise to speak up anyway.
QUOTE: The whole dustup here came about because David Scopick, a major
figure in the field of gum printing, was disrespected and an attempt made
to discredit his authority;
"Authority" is what we're obligated to disrespect when necessary -- even
at grave personal risk -- under the social contract and the US
Constitution. But it's unclear to me in this case who defines "major" and
who defines "disrespect," not to mention who anoints "authority." Is it,
say, four people on this list? Consensus? Is it OK to disrespect *minor*
figures? Etc.
Can we address error without "disrespect"? I know tone counts -- a lot of
adverbial phrases, interior clauses, and disclaimers (like the difference
between "art photography" and porn is the facial expression and lighting).
Still, the word "disrespect" is scary: In China, if you criticize
govenment policy, they say you "disrespect" the state, execute you and
sell your organs. Or is that Egypt? Syria? I think I remember something
about Nigeria. Whichever, patriotic Americans have an absolute *duty* to
"disrespect" when called for.
[following paragraph garbled; I get only one strand] QUOTE: Scopick ...
had cited that pigment test that was useless and worthless and had been
proved so wrong by Judy's tests.
As noted above, I never proved much of anything on that "test" after the
first run at it. When I realized the *premise* was wrong, I quit. (See
above under "premise.") But when my good friend Dave Rose cites the
ur-authority, Crawford, about changes in gelatin while printing, we see
AGAIN the irrelevance of that test (unless it's run for each "condition").
QUOTE: I hope never again to be treated to the disgraceful sight of a list
member apologizing for mentioning the name of a person whose name and work
should be welcome here. Not that anyone has to agree with him; I disagree
with Scopick myself on many particulars, as I disagree with every source
on one particular or another. But disagreement does not entitle us to
disrespect, banish, or attempt to discredit those we disagree with.
Let's do disgraceful sights another time. Now let's do *disagreeing* vs
*disrespecting* vs *discrediting* -- namely when and how one becomes the
other. Is it tone alone, or also numbers? I'm pretty sure it's OK to
disagree once, like if I knew something about dihydrates that started this
thread. How many more? Three? Five? If I find five disagreements, let
alone 5 disproofs, am I *then* entitled to say I don't take any of it as
gospel? (After all, there could be more -- those are just the things I
happen to know.) Is that Disrespect or Discredit? Or, maybe they're
joined at the hip? If the "authority" is "respected," to discredit it must
DISrespect it. But wait a minute -- who assigns these honors and
categories anyway? Katharine Thayer?
It seems to me so basic I shouldn't have to say it, but, besides having
fun, making friends, and having teapot tempests, we're here to share
knowledge and inspire each other to create more knowledge, as we do almost
daily. If that means toppling icons, or breaking eggs, c'est la vie -- and
'twas always thus. I looked in the World Book today and noticed how
Copernicus disrespected the old Ptolemaic view of the sun & stars going
around the earth, which got Galileo into a heap o'trouble, too. Not that
gum printing is quite on that level -- tho to us its systems are more
crucial than which way the stars and sun turn.
And for anyone still here, I damn well will not accept as authority a book
that presents formulas it hasn't tested without identifying them as such
(and there were others). "Respect" for that "authority" is misplaced (as
of course respect so often is, seen by the many "respected" figures who
end up in jail -- tho not as many as should have). But I respect a pioneer
who gave us new info and a new point of view, even with MANY mistakes.
I picked up Keepers of Light today to check a formula I think is wrong
found in a recent book. Opening to the cyanotype chapter for the
first time in years, I was startled to see many pencil notes about what I
doubted, or knew wasn't true, or meant to test. (For one tiny example, it
says cyano emulsion can be dried with "considerable" heat without
affecting results. Not so.) But I respect William Crawford enormously --
the whole book, including the first half, which I've read & reread with
heavy appreciation. Crawford earned his mistakes. But I don't respect a
book that 30 years later lifts a formula word for word ("cut-and-paste")
without crediting *OR* testing.
As for Paul Anderson: a mixed case. When I read him the first time I
didn't know what I know now. He's certainly guilty of "seems logical
disease." Here's a for-instance much easier to prove than that gum-pigment
business: Anderson says (as I recall, in his own book, but picked up AND
elaborated in Schaefer's "Ansel Adams Guide 2"), that the more pigment in
a given mix, the more tones you get, because, more pigment particles will
make more layers of density. But in fact, with all other variables the
same, gum emulsion with more pigment shows fewer steps, because paint is
opaque and the shadows block up. Less pigment has more steps. The palest
tints show the longest range, and no pigment at all, just dichromate and
gum, can get 16 or more steps, or so I believe Peter Fredrick attested on
this very list re his dichromate stain tests a few years back. (True, the
"topic" wasn't Anderson's conceptual error, but the finding was. I show
tests to prove same thing, p. 46 of P-F #2. )
But, "respect" for its own sake? We don't know what contributions might
have been made in an alternate universe with less respect and without
those errors. So I cite the iffy nature of such received wisdom --
including sources so *respected* I draw wrath for mentioning. Sorry about
that.
best,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST