From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/26/03-09:52:00 PM Z
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Katharine Thayer wrote:
> I've never understood the virulence of the attacks lobbied here against
> that pigment test and its proponents; it simply makes no sense to me. My
> position on the pigment test, which I've elucidated at length before,
> (anyone who's interested can consult the archives) is that if the test
> is useful to you (as it was to me) use it and be glad for it, and if
> it's not useful, don't use it. But to attack so vehemently those who
> have used the test and found it useful, makes no sense. It makes no
> sense in terms of community; it makes no sense in terms of science, it
> simply makes no sense.
> CUt ... (some say that the addition of dichromate DECREASES
> the likelihood of staining; some (myself included) say that the addition
> of dichromate doesn't seem to make enough difference to matter, and some
> say that the addition of dichromate INCREASES the likelihood of
> staining) the only possible thing that can be said about it, from a
> scientific point of view, is that the evidence is inconclusive, and that
> none of us can say with any certainty that we have the final answer on
>
> .... I just don't see any
> evidence that supports the suggestion above that the pigment test should
> be dead by now; the reason it's still around is probably that people
> have found it useful.
Sorry it took me so long to get back on this (reality again). I realize my
words are probably futile, but for newcomers to the list, and what I feel
is my debt to the sorry state of "science" in alt ("classics" I re-read on
my "summer vacation" could plunge me into despair if I weren't so cheery
by nature), I try again.
Katharine has strangely re-written "history" above, which I cannot take
lightly. Far from attacking "proponents, " I myself was nearly lynched on
this list for heresy in doubting said GPR test -- mostly by Katharine
herself, who found my disrespect for "authority" (Scopick) "disgraceful,"
declaring "I hope I never see such a sight again," in about those words.
Given the vehemence and emotion of her attack, I replied more mildly
perhaps than I should have. If I'd made more fuss, revision might not have
come so easily.
Part of the problem seems to be trouble in distinguishing between
disagreement with a theory and "attack" on a person, especially her
person. I have certainly explained the nonsense of that "test," and may
have to do so again, but if disproof/disagreement is taken as personal
attack, we're all in trouble. (And reproaches about "community" are hardly
more useful.)
Now she says,
"> ....some say that the addition of dichromate DECREASES
the likelihood of staining; some (myself included) say that the addition
of dichromate doesn't seem to make enough difference to matter, and some
say that the addition of dichromate INCREASES the likelihood of
staining) the only possible thing that can be said about it, from a
scientific point of view, is that the evidence is inconclusive, and that
none of us can say with any certainty that we have the final answer on
this question."
The only *possible* thing ??? Sorry, this is as *unscientific* a statement
as I've read on this list. Scientific is not equivocations or assertions,
it's controlled *tests*. Which I have done many times, and printed as
evidence, and have yet to see or hear of any which contradict them. Even
stranger, however, is that Katharine nevertheless proves my point !
Actual gums, she allows, made with the dichromate and exposure, don't
necessarily behave as predicted by the GPR test with just gum & pigment.
Exactly. And, if you don't know the meaning of your "finding" (if it could
mean more, less, or the same staining) until you've done the "real"
process itself, what use is it? About as much as testing a car by kicking
the tires. Adding the dichromate is no big deal, why go through a
rigmarole that has to be checked against reality anyway?
My own gum tests, as I have said repeatedly, exposed with the dichromate
under a 21-step, never showed a "threshhold" past which stain occurred and
below which it didn't -- as is the premise of the GPR test. If there's
stain, more pigment may give more ABSOLUTE stain, but not more relative
stain. I realize no "evidence" I produce (even should she read this far)
can trump Katharine's conviction, but I refer others who may be interested
to my extended explanations in the archive, also to P-F #2, p. 46, & P-F
#3, p. 38, which shows a "solarizing" effect in stain in steps 10 thru 21,
but steps 5 thru 9 with no stain at all. If this isn't evidence, what is?
But, she asks, if the GPR test is not predictive, how come it's
everywhere? How come 68% of the American public believe in angels with
wings? Few persons putting that test in books (except probably Scopick)
are likely to have done it, and none can have checked it against a
control. It's most often performed by beginners (as Katharine was when she
did it), who are unlikely to doubt holy writ of 65 years.
Nor I expect does the beginner notice that the opening salvo in many of
those GPR texts (including Anderson's original) is a gross error: "The
longest scale of gradation is secured when the coating mixture contains
the largest possible amount of pigment." More pigment may give more D-max,
but also yield shorter scale because the shadows block up. This is hardly
a recommendation for the rest of his act.
Another popularizing factor is the placebo effect of the ritual. As an
article in the latest Onion, "FDA Approves Prescription Placebo,"
explains, "For years, scientists have been aware of the effectiveness of
placebo in treating a surprisingly wide range of conditions" (although
animal testing "for some reason was totally ineffective in determining its
effectiveness"). However, the article concludes, "drug makers say placebo
is safe."
In gum printing, however, it is not safe. It's a false promise -- voodoo
photography. Anderson's failure to understand the actual mechanism of gum
(he seems to have done very few gums during only a brief period) may have
contributed to his early abandonment of gum for oil printing.
Finally, let us note that some of the earliest how-to articles on gum
begin with an ode to how SIMPLE gum is. Demachy wrote that if he had to
learn from some of the tracts that appeared later, he would have given up
before starting. No recent book I know of would dare say gum is simple --
the odes are rather to how difficult it is. That may be due to what in
medicine is called "iatrogenic disease."
cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST