No vendors. No forums. Just pure impact.

2+2=5 or, Honesheister intelligent design meets A level geometry

August 22, 2010 — R

Creationism is broken as designed: No-one with an IQ > 75 would try to "prove" something with faith and beliefs. The same can be said of honing. Honemeisters - genuine and self proclaimed alike - keep claiming that honing is not science. Instead, they claim it is a form of art. And artists, as we all know, produce works of art. And they come at a price.

However, creating a geometric shape (in this case, a cutting edge)  using a  well-known and heavily researched material (in this case, steel) is as scientific and technological as it gets. Of course, to bring the scientific insights in to practice turns in into a craft, but that does not make the underlying principles any less scientific.

Back when I put the following piece of SRP's FAQ together, I was using Bart's research. And the result was logically sound. Much to my surprise, the following change was made two days ago:

 
 
Line 341:   Line 341:
 
=== What is a convex bevel?  ===
   
=== What is a convex bevel?  ===
         
-
When a blade is honed on a strop loaded with some sort of abrasive compound, the cutting bevel looses its triangular shape and becomes arc-shaped (or "convexed"). This has both advantages and disadvantages.  
  +
When a blade is honed on a strop loaded with some sort of abrasive compound, the cutting bevel looses its triangular shape and becomes arc-shaped (or "convexed"). This has both advantages and disadvantages. '''[This statement and the following Advantages/Disadvantages has been proved to be an opinion, not a fact, there are to many variables to deterimine if this is always true..]''' http://http://www.straightrazorplace.com/forums/stropping/41343-pasted-strops-experiment.html
    +
 
         
 
==== Advantages  ====
   
==== Advantages  ====

Chaps, this is the straight razor equivalent of creationism at work. Someone refusing to accept a proven fact because it is uncomfortable for the personal situation. Quite simply put: If you are going to abrade an edge with a pliable or compressible abrasive surface, the resulting edge bevel will be convex. That is as true as Sir Isaac Newton's apple falling to the Earth. The mere allowance of any doubt concerning that fact, in an encyclopedic environment, would be the same as writing a similar remark next to the Wikipedia article about gravitation. Rather ridiculous: "This statement and the following Advantages/Disadvantages has been proved (sic) to be an opinion, not a fact, there are to many variables to deterimine if this is always true.." and then a reference to a guy who sat in his garden for a week, looking at an apple tree, and the fact that he did not see an apple falling, has now "proved" (sic) that gravitation is just an opinion.

Well, it would seem that SRP's Wiki is becoming a lost cause. Not because it does not contain a lot of valuable knowledge, but because,  unlike valid encyclopedic knowledge, it is not filtered and stripped of tendencious and even wrong information. The reason is twofold: part of the contributors lack the academic abilities to discern between fact and myth, and another part has a distinct non-scientific  agenda.

And just for the record:

  1. A Wiki article must not be based on one person's opinions or  experiences. Therefore, a Wiki has no place for opinions other than  in the talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#First-person_pron...
  2. Annotations are made using the annotation function, never inline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Annotated_article
  3. The use of bold face is strongly discouraged. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics
  4. The use of underlining is forbidden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations
  5. The parentheses are wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Brackets_and_pare...
  6. [http://foo.com this is a link].
  7. It should be "proven", not "proved".
  8. It should be "fact. There".
  9. It should be "too many", not "to many"
  10. It should be "determine", not "deterimine".
  11. The "this" in "if this is always true" is dangling.

What a waste.