From: Robert W. Schramm (schrammrus@hotmail.com)
Date: 09/27/03-11:21:15 AM Z
Greg,
Science has been so popular in our modern age that everyone wants to get on
the bandwagon. Therefore, a lot of stuff is called science that isn't
science. Also, there is a lot of what I call "bad science" out there which
is being used to actually make things worse. So called "global warming" due
to CO2 comes to mind but I won't start on that.
Yes, scientists must be objective. It is very hard to do. Also real
scientists sometimes rely on hunches or maybe they could be called
intelligent guesses to get them moving in the right direction.
Scientific discoveries come about as a result of understanding all the
variables involved in a phenominon and controlling them in such a way that
all variables are kept constant while one is changed so that the result of
this change can be observed. Any discovery must be reproducable by other
scientists.
In my opinion gum printing, like most alternative processes, is far from
being a science. There are simply too many variables which are both known
and unknown at the present time.
Example: I learned how to make a daguerreotype from a master
daguerreotypist. While he was showing me how to determine is a plate was
properly fumed in iodine (by its color) I asked if it could not be done by
simply timing the process. He said no, because the fuming box is constantly
changing due to temperature changes, barometric pressure, humidity and just
being used and that it was almost never
the same twice. Often the second and third plate etc you fume takes a
different time.
Also let me point out that it is important to know who is putting forth the
scientific statements. Does the individual making the statements have any
credentials and what are they? Remember "cold fusion?"
As soon as it was announced, I had many serious doubts about it (my degree
is in nuclear physics). Then I found out that the discoverers were chemists.
Now this rule works for many fields other than science.
So if you want answers that are valid, its a good idea to consult the
experts.
I have seen Judy's gum prints. Consequently, when it comes to gum printing,
I would be inclined to
accept her opinions.
Bob Schramm
Check out my web page at:
>From: Greg Schmitz <gws1@columbia.edu>
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Scientific Method <was Re: the great GPR "test">
>Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 03:55:00 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>I know there are more than a few trained scientists on this list (Bob?
>Gord?) - help me I'm melting :*). I thought about using the subject
>line "Science and Art," but I could write a book on that subject and
>it would have more to do with one inspiring the other and vice versa.
>So............
>
>Enough is enough. You are both wrong.
>
>If you are really claiming to be using science this statement is wrong!
>
> > 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.
>
>and so is this!
>
>on Friday, 26 September, Judy Seigel wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>Please don't use the word science if that is not what you really mean
>you will only muddy the waters - or perhaps be the fool, and here's
>why (IMHO):
>
>The nature of the scientific method is that you can reproduce and
>document the results of your theory using standardized materials
>(keywords here: standardized and reproduce), and so can others. If
>others cannot reproduce your results, chances are your results are
>incorrect (not wrong - there is no "value judgment" involved).
>
>I once read a wonderful essay (which is packed in a box somewhere and
>the author of which I don't recall, perhaps: Franklin Pierce, Jacob
>Bronowski, Jaques Ellul...I simply can't pull it out of my Cranium -
>sorry) which described the scientific method as it relates to the
>working scientist in very human terms. First and perhaps foremost,
>personality and ego have nothing to do with what you are
>investigating. The object of your investigation is what is paramount.
>It is perfectly legitimate to attack both the methodology and the
>results of your colleges, provided you have proof or can demonstrate
>logical inconsistencies, but you must take care not confuse the object
>of the research with the investigator. As an investigator you must be
>able to remove your ego from the process and focus on the subject of
>your investigation. The colleague that might prove you wrong is not
>attacking you, she/he is doing you a favor by speeding your
>investigation and research forward.
>
>I am not a scientist but I use the scientific method in my day to day
>work (thus, applied science) to reduce the time it takes me to do
>things and to achieve the results I want. You can give me an unknown
>film and developer and after running some tests I can go out and
>develop a given field exposure to within .05 logD 2 hours later using
>the same. I can make the material serve my vision using the methods I
>have adopted from science; very handy (Historical note: I think common
>sense preceded science - even if it was sometimes called magic - see
>Ellul).
>
>Best to all -greg schmitz
>
>
>----------
>Thus, if it be true that death is annihilation, then the man who
>believes that he will certainly go straight to heaven when he dies,
>provided he have fulfilled certain simple observances in this life,
>has a cheap pleasure which will not be followed by the least
>disappointment.
>
> Charles Sanders Peirce
> "The Fixation of Belief" (1877)
>
>----------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Share your photos without swamping your Inbox. Get Hotmail Extra Storage
today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST