Klarinet Archive - Posting 000155.txt from 1999/04

From: David Renaud <studiorenaud@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Evidence
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 19:44:41 -0500

Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:

> David Renaud comments about perception of change in sound character
> and offers as evidence his own experience and the perception of
> both his wife and his child (perhaps more than one) in support of
> his statements.>>> And I have an objection to David stating
> that his opinions are closer to scientific fact than anyone else's
> on the basis of how he feels and how his wife and child hear things<<
>

This began with my response to statement presented as fact.

"Wood density, like plastic vs. wood, is irrelevant as long as the inside
shape is identical."

I apologize if I implied that my opinions are closer to scientific
opinion then anyone else's, not my intention or belief. My original post was
simply
in response to this comment and to demonstrate how my experience
is different in a way others can try for themselves. I was immediately
attacked and implied to be unscientific and irresponsible. Why become
personnel about it. I only wanted to present reasons to be critical based
on my experience, and others.

Obviously I need to be clearer and more careful about wording.
I never intended to present these observations about my experience
dogmatically, or as scientific undisputed fact.
I admit to taking offense too easily at the implication that my
beliefs are likened unto a religious experience rather then science.

Science is based on experience, and when experience contradicts a theory,
a critical response. as I offer, is responsible.

> No disrespect to David's family, but the observation of his family
> is not evidence. It is anecdotal data which has no value in
> supporting or denying assertions.

It is evidence,although I admit little evidence, and should be scrutinized,
it's enough to justify
a critical attitude when put together with others observations.
I do not intend to "prove" only to demonstrate reason to be critical,
and invite other to test this.

> David then makes reference to Fobes and Pyne and decides to trust
> them because of their experience, which in both cases is substantial.
>

This company only is offered to suggest I'm not alone in beingcritical of the
generalized statement.
"Wood density, like plastic vs. wood,
is irrelevant as long as the inside shape is identical" presented
as absolute fact.

> There are serious studies done on this subject that deny David's
> position most emphatically.

Fine and thank you. I am researching this.In the meantime my observations
are repeatable,
and observed by enough people to have reason to be critical.

> That is not anecdotal evidence and it must hold a more secure position
> that David is willing to give it. I cannot, of course, insist that
> he hold any position, but his credibility suffers when he denies
> technical truth and substitute how he and his family hear sound
> as more authoritative than contradictory technical positions.

I think that I have been dogmatic about one thing only.
The wood does vibrate, we can touch the bell and feel it vibrate.
If I am ridiculed for observing wood vibration, I find this bizzar.
As for anything else, I have not said I am more authoritative
then contradictory technical positions, only to offer reasonable
grounds to be critical, grounds which people can test
and research for themselves.
I think it is self evident that these are my observations, and there
is no need to get personnel. I tried to be concise with my statements,
and stated little about the opposing view except to defend where
I was being ridiculed. I just stated and defended
my experience hoping other would test it and start a discussion.

Sincerely
Dave Renaud

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org