Official Luthiers Forum!

[QUOTE=Mario] Meet me for lunch[/QUOTE]


Hey, EVERYONE, lunch is on Mario!!!!!



Good post, Mike.

Ron

_________________
OLD MAN formerly (and formally) known as:

Ron Wisdom

Somewhere in the middle of Arkansas......

Hey, EVERYONE, lunch is on Mario!!!!!

Anyone who treks this far North deserves a snack. Drop on in!

I was taught in a college writing class that using terms like "I think" or "I believe" are redundant, because any statement should be understood to be the opinion or belief of the writer.

Sure, but for the rest of us who didn't take writing classes in college(or didn't go to college at all), or for whom English isn't even their first language(myself, Mattia, others...), it is better to write it instead of assuming it was taken in its 'proper" unwritten meaning. Reduntant? Technically, yes, but necessary? Yes again.

And besides...

This is more vernacular anyway... much more like a face to face discussion.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

I agree with Mario, although I feel that Carlton brings up a good point: 'I believe' and 'I think' can seem excessively apologetic, and they are, as far as I'm concerned, implicit *as long as the writer remains civil and does not 'resort' to logical fallacies* . If a writer omits them, and begins to spew ad hominem arguments, set up straw men, and so on and so forth, it all just becomes nasty, and an 'I believe' or 'I think' isn't going come across as anything but sarcastic, and potentially even more insulting. Without a solid, logical, well though-out approach, debate is just argument, and argument doesn't often lead anywhere good. It can be fun, even on subjects such as politics and religion, but it's best limited to real-life, and off web boards. I've seen things go sour far too often when those subjects come up.

Civility is always important, but honesty and clarity in communication is sacrosanct when it comes to debating. 'I think..', 'I feel..', 'I believe..' are powerful modifiers, but should be used sparingly, unless you truly believe there's so little truth in the statements you're uttering that you feel like protecting yourself from them. The "hey, its only an opininion" excuse doesn't cut it with me, at least most of the time. It can water down an argument to the point of uselessness. When it comes to guitar building (and, lets face it, most other endeavours) truth is a relative concept, defined by experience, perspective, goals, and any number of other factors. We all know that, and we all should be adult enough to understand that statements of truth, no matter how strong, are very relative.

And, lest we forget, not all opinions are equally valid. We like to pretend they are, we like to pretend all theories are equal, deserve equal respect, deserve equal attention, but this is simply not true. Every argument or opinion may and should be scrutinized for value and truth. The nature and intensity of the scrutiny largely depends on the kind of opinion we're talking about (say, aesthetic appreciation of a certain tone is far 'softer' than, for instance, the reasons for using a certain bending technique), but if something is evaluated and found lacking, it should be adressed clearly and distinctly. Yes, there's the risk some may feel offended, but that's where tact and civility come in. Doubly so when we're having discussions with people of various nationalities, from different parts of the world.

There. That's my bit.

Did any of that make sense?

EDIT: Mario: bizarre as it may seem, English actually is my first language, despite not having English parents or ever having lived in a primarily Anglophone country. Except Canada. But I was 4 when I left, and we lived in Quebec, so that hardly counts, eh ;-)

Also, for the record, you (Mario) can come across quite strongly in a debate. Very clear on your opinions, and on why you hold them, which is why I value your posts so much. There's a clear, well though-out backing behind them, and you're not one (in my experience, or at least impression) to overuse modifiers. You say it like you se it, and we're all the richer for it.Mattia Valente38644.6439814815

[QUOTE=Mario] I was taught in a college writing class that using terms like "I think" or "I believe" are redundant, because any statement should be understood to be the opinion or belief of the writer.

Sure, but for the rest of us who didn't take writing classes in college(or didn't go to college at all), or for whom English isn't even their first language(myself, Mattia, others...), it is better to write it instead of assuming it was taken in its 'proper" unwritten meaning. Reduntant? Technically, yes, but necessary? Yes again.[/QUOTE]

Mario...I only mentioned the college class to clarify the source of my statement. One need not go to college to learn--after all, that's a major reason we're participating in this forum, isn't it? I was just sharing a little knowledge that would seem to be useful here. Since the OLF is a written medium, it's just as important for the reader to know what he's doing as it is for the writer--in any language. It's well to remember that just because the writer leaves out the words "I think," it's not necessary to assume that he meant "you fool," instead. As I mentioned earlier, though, sometimes adding the "opinion" words is, indeed, friendlier and more conversational, and I do use them myself, occasionally; however, in my humble opinion (oops!), they should not be necessary in polite correspondence.

By the way, I have to say that your command of English is quite impressive, as is that of the other non-native speakers on this forum. It doesn't seem that misunderstanding has been a problem with any of you, either as a writer or a reader. My one-language brain salutes you!!!

Hmmm . . . I don't object to "I think" or "I believe" statements as much as some of you guys do. Odd, Carlton, that you took a class where these terms were eschewed, since statements beginning with "It seems," or "It appears that," are so common in academic writing. And really, they mean just about the same thing as "I think . . ." Really, it would strike me as being quite presumptuous if one left them out.

Hypothesizing is important, but hypotheses are not provable, thus one who is trying to be rationally consistent will couch his or her words in these terms.

There is indeed room for them in discussion or debate, or so it seems to me. (See how well that worked? ) For example, consider the statement: "I believe the best sounding wood combination is Euro spruce and Brazilian rosewood." This is, to my way of thinking (there I go again), totally different from the statement "The best sounding wood combination is Euro spruce and Brazilian rosewood." It would seem to me that this is a way of allowing for other points of views to be expressed while still expressing a personal opinion.

Best,

Michael
Michael McBroom38644.6549074074

_________________
Live to Play, Play to Live

Stating an opinion as a definitive statement may not accurately reflect what you are trying to say. Let me give a real world example. A week ago or so I made the claim that removing the popsicle brace was a waste of time since that part of the body was almost entirely structural. Mario, replied with two points.

One questioned my experiance level in this regard. He was quite blunt. However, this was a valid point and not necessarily a personal attack. In fact, my experiance with this modification was very limited and it was important to the discussion because of the second point he made. Namely that a large number players had had their guitars modified this way and noticed an improvement in the trebles. The discussion is still around if you care to read it.

If, however, I have made may statement in a more equivocal way. For example, "My understanding is that the top of the guitar above the sound hole is almost all structural. Given that, I don't see how removing the popsicle brace could have much effect". This statement more accurately reflects my position and conveys a degree of uncertainty that I certainly have about the subject.

Sometimes an "I believe" or a "My understanding is" is a more correct representation of the point I'm trying to make.
Mike Mahar38644.6898148148

[QUOTE=Michael McBroom]   Odd, Carlton, that you took a class where these terms were eschewed, since statements beginning with "It seems," or "It appears that," are so common in academic writing.
[/QUOTE]

Most likely, it's because an opinion hasn't been formed, or the writer agrees that there's not enough evidence for a statement of fact. That's okay, as long as the writer isn't just wimping out, which wastes the reader's time. For example, a musician from outer space might write, "It appears that wood is the best material from which to build a guitar." He, and his readers, need more information. I, however, would state it as a fact: "Wood is the best material from which to build a guitar." Someone who builds with graphite might disagree with me, but shouldn't assume that my statement is questioning his parentage, if I don't preface it with "I think...." He's welcome to change my mind, but he'd better have a good argument!

[QUOTE=Bobc] here's an 8 step stress management technique recommended in the latest psychological texts. It really works . . . .

1. Picture yourself near a stream.

2. Birds are softly chirping in the cool mountain air.

3. No one but you knows your secret place.

4. You are in total seclusion from the hectic place called "the World".

5. The soothing sound of a gentle waterfall fills the air with a cascade of serenity.

6. The water is crystal clear.

7. You can easily make out the face of the person you're holding underwater.

8. See, You're smiling already.
[/QUOTE]

Bob, With (or without!) your permission, I am posting this at work! We have a few sour pusses that can use a jolt (and I don't mean the cola drink!)

Well said, Mattia. I have a learned a lot from Mario's posts, responses, and opinions. I admire the way he cuts through the crap and gets to the point. He, and everyone else here, has been very helpful to me and if it was not for this forum, as well as the MIMF, 13th Fret, and Frets.com, I would have given up a long time ago. Thank you all very much -

Jeremiah Bumgarner

Mario wrote:
"If anyone's read any thread, here or any other place, where Al Carruth and I go at it, you'd think we hated each other's guts!<g> But it just isn't so;"

Ditto from my side. Mario and I do take opposite approaches, but we are both on the same quest. I, for one, am not going to question Mario's experience: I may not agree with all of his opinions, but he's sure earned the right to them!

As somebody who tries to take a 'scientific' approach, I have to say that the use of quallifiers is de rigeur. All science is conditional: the law of gravity would be null and void if you ever saw one apple fall up (but you'd better have darn good proof!). I'm always (I hope) saying things like 'based on my measurements, I think that..." because I have to acknowlege that I may have made a mistake in my work, or not followed out the reasoning fully. The more consistent the results the surer we can be about the 'rightness' of our approach. But, at the same time, a good scientist will accept it when his ideas are shown to be wrong, even if the person debunking him is a nobody. What counts is the science, not who puts it forth. The 'argument from authority' is another old and often used fallacy.

I can't remember Mario ever saying: "it's true because I say so". He says: "I've built a lot of guitars, and this is what I've heard". I always think hard before I contradict him, because I know that if I've jumped to a conclusion or left something out, he's likely to see it, and nail me. That's the best kind of discussion because it smokes out the truth of things.

I don't expect Mario and I will stop arguing any time soon. But if he's ever in this neck of the woods I'd like to take him to a good restaurant where we could discuss this stuff face to face. I bet I'd learn a lot, and maybe even teach something.

Hey Al & Mario,
I know I learn lots from both of you guys!
If we didn't challenge the common assumptions or practices, we would never grow beyond where we're at, and who knows just how far things can be improved in guitarmaking? Keep reaching for the heights...

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

[QUOTE=Michael McBroom]

Hypothesizing is important, but hypotheses are not provable,

[/QUOTE]


Michael, my science background will not let me ignore this.
Hypotheses are proven and disproven all the time. A hypothesis is ones best educated reasoning as to why or how something occurs. Design a good way to test that hypothesis and see what happens. It may be proven or disproven or the hypothesis might have to be revised, but I disagree they are not provable.   I think. I believe. This is my opinion.


Ron

_________________
OLD MAN formerly (and formally) known as:

Ron Wisdom

Somewhere in the middle of Arkansas......

[QUOTE=old man] [QUOTE=Michael McBroom]

Hypothesizing is important, but hypotheses are not provable,

[/QUOTE]


Michael, my science background will not let me ignore this.
Hypotheses are proven and disproven all the time. A hypothesis is ones best educated reasoning as to why or how something occurs. Design a good way to test that hypothesis and see what happens. It may be proven or disproven or the hypothesis might have to be revised, but I disagree they are not provable.   I think. I believe. This is my opinion.


Ron[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree. It is possible to show that a hypothesis is incorrect by testing it. If, however, the test does not disprove the hypothesis, then the hypothesis may still be disproven by some other test. In math we have the theorem which is considered to be proven. Theorem's are never disproven. A flaw in the logic my be discovered but the mathematics community will argue that the theorem was never really proven. We just didn't see the flaw.

In science the highest level confidence is the Theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has withstood every test that we can come up with so far. That does not preclude the possibility that another test may disprove the theory. In which case the theory will have to be either modified to explain the new data or be tossed out and replaced with another theory. Newton's Gravity was a theory. Unfortunatley, it did not adequately explain all the observed phenomona and Einstein came up with another theory that did. So far, no one has come up with a test case that contradicts Einstein. But science does not consider the case closed.

Problems come up when the popular meaning of a word is different from the one used in a technical field. Theory is a word that has two similar but different meanings. In common usage theory is more like what scientists call a hypothesis. Another word that has this problem is the word "or". In common usage, or means one or the other but not both. When your grandmother offers you a choice of two cookies, you can take one of the two cookies but not both. In boolean logic, however, or means one or the other or both. When they want to specify the popular meaning they use the term exclusive or. When you teach boolean logic to students, you have to spend some time making sure that they understand this difference.

I probably should have been a bit more specific. There are at least two types of hypotheses, the one that you address, which is essentially a proposal or idea that is then tested, and if found to have merit, might be advanced to the level of a theory. But there is also the type of hypothesis where there just doesn't seem to be a way to prove or disprove its veracity, and it is the second one I was referring to.

My background is in Linguistics, aka 'the scientific study of language.' For decades now there has been a debate between the philosophies of Linguistic Determinism and Linguistic Relativisim. It began because of a "hypothesis" set forth by Benjamin Lee Whorf about 75 years ago.

The hypothesis offered by Whorf is:

That the commonly held belief that the cognitive processes of all human beings possess a common logical structure which operates prior to and independently of comunication through language is erroneous. It is Whorf's view that the linguistic patterns themselves determine what the individual perceives in this world and how he thinks about it. Since these patterns vary widely, the modes of thinking and perceiving in groups utilizing different linguistic systems will result in basically different world views (Fearing, 1954)

In other words, according to Whorf, language affects culture just as surely (and perhaps even more so) as culture affects language.

The debate continues to rage on, with no sign of letting up.

Best,

Michael
Michael McBroom38645.4698726852

_________________
Live to Play, Play to Live

Mike, I really can't argue with all that you've said. There is a problem with semantics here, though. Can anything be proven? I suggest that it can't. Things can only be looked at in the circumstances in which they exist or in which our experiences allow us to study it. Everything that we accept as fact is only fact "as far as we know".    So, to my teeny brain, a hypothesis is as provable as anything else.

Maybe I should of said that a hypothesis can be proven within a set of parameters.

Sorry Michael, I didn't mean anything in answering your post. I understand what you said. Hypothesizing about something like a specific part of a guitar and its effect, does present an unprovable situation, not only because it is impossible to set up two identical guitars, but also because the results are all subjective, if quality of sound is the goal.

Ron (sometimes full of hot air)old man38645.4994791667

_________________
OLD MAN formerly (and formally) known as:

Ron Wisdom

Somewhere in the middle of Arkansas......

Mike Mahar and Michael McBroom...Now, that's what I'm talkin' about! Your positions were written clearly and politely, with nary an "I think," or "I believe," or "In my humble opinion" to be found. Used occasionaly, those words are friendly and conversational, but they remain largely superfluous in correspondence.CarltonM38645.5161689815

Carlton, I think you're reading too much into all of this. I believe most of us don't really care if a word or phrase is over-used in writing on this forum; this is a loose knit community of folks who simply write the way they would converse. Same as some of us would sound out of place, speaking at a science symporium, and the same scientists would be out of place in a sports bar filled with Nascar fans cheering Junior on to a win.

Ease up... If we don't all follow the proper rules of written English, it's 'cause we don't follow no rules where there ain't none<g>

IMHO, of course.

I would take the Al and Mario approach. Makes sense and no one should get offended. I personally like the various opinions on things. Good for the old timer, newbie or in between.

I think Mario is right on the money.

Ron (often full of hot air) (part of being an old man)

_________________
OLD MAN formerly (and formally) known as:

Ron Wisdom

Somewhere in the middle of Arkansas......

Guys, as I've said, I sometimes use those softening, conversational words in my writing, too. I just wanted to shine some light on how to READ a post as well as how to write one. There's danger in always expecting certain modifiers to be included in a post, though, because then insult is assumed if they're missing, and that shouldn't be the case. I just wanted to pass along some of the little knowledge I have that may not have been available to the general group here, but may still be useful on the forum and elsewhere. Besides, is ANY knowledge wasted knowledge--especially if it promotes understanding among people?

Guys, the horse is dead!!

    RussellR38645.6923032407

The problem with making assumptions while reading(as you suggest), is tha one can assume something the wrong way. If you no longer resspiond to this thread, I'll assume you're either happy with where the thread is, or so ticked at me that you can't say anything nice, therefor won't say anything at all <bg>

It's like a boss who doesn't speak his/her mind, then gets angry when we don't do what they expected us to. they asumed we think like they do, but they may assume wrongly. If they just said it outright, it may have seemed redundant to most, but at least everyone then understood what was to be done.

So, being an optimist, I believe I'll assume all is cool. Assuming I'm correct, of course, IMHO.

<bg>

Sheeewwww...that thread made me tired. I'm going to bed.Brazilwood38645.8921643519