Klarinet Archive - Posting 000213.txt from 2001/12

From: CEField@-----.com
Subj: Re: [kl] scientists on the list
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 14:37:26 -0500

In a message dated 12/8/01 9:04:12 PM, GrabnerWG@-----.com writes:

<< I work totally pragmatically. If it works, great; if not, move on. >>

Science comes in two flavors: basic science and applied science. What Walter
is describing above might fit under the second category. While he lacks the
equipment to make pure (mathematical) determinations to figure out what's
going on, he apparently finds the effect reproducible. Perhaps he's wrong
about the underlying theory; perhaps he's right. Perhaps the hypothesis needs
to be tested in a way that has until now been ignored. Or maybe there are
variables that have yet to be tested. I would shudder to think that we know
everything there is to know about clarinet acoustics. Or any other topic for
that matter.

Whatever the truth in this particular situation, it is the ability to observe
and ask questions that makes one a "scientist." Those of us with formal
training are simply held to a much higher standard. But seeing with the
artist's eye -- or in this case hearing with the artist's ear -- is not to be
underestimated. Maybe we just have to wait a while for science to catch up
(LOL).

Cindy Field

---------------------------------------------------------------------