STRIDER BT Destruction Test Video completed.

Well, aren't all tests by definition scientific (it can be bad science, but nonetheless)? I'll think on it, but it seems impossible to test something non scientifically--I suppose to translate some common terms, I think that it would be better written as:

All empiricism (testing) is by definition empirical (scientific).

Ahh, but, splitting hairs, I know what you mean--you're not adhering to any scientific standards, controls, etc--but really, it might be best to remove the idea of "testing" at all in such conditions, as the number of plausible auxillary hypotheses will expand exponentially, and you won't be able to infer anything from your data.

If that is the case, then, this might be better viewed as recreation and not testing at all. I'm not sure that accurately captures the nature of it though--you are testing a hypothesis in your head, I'm sure (if knife a is used during condition x, then knife a will/will not break).

So my best guess now is that it is, in fact, scientific, just poorly executed. (no insult intended, in all sincerity)
 
Jerry over in the busse combat knife forum stated they are going to test a knife of their make. Looking forward to see this. I have been there and done that. These knives are not brittle (unlike the Beckers) and very ductile. While holding edge retention very well.
 
Getting back to the STRIDER, one thing I also found strange and it seems Noss4 found it strange also is the fact that the blade did not spark? when hitting concrete. Usually that is the sign of a softer steel, but That cannot possibly be unless that knife was specifically softened for the test to avoid premature failure from hard blade. Could be that S30V's high chrome content and other alloys reduces sparking as well. Anyone know or care to try with their S30V blade??

Noss, would you mind sending me the pieces?? or one piece? I'd like to do an Rc test on it.
 
Science does not equal precision. It simply equals knowledge. Note as well that a method can never be scientific, you have to look at what was proposed to be learned and was that actually supported by what was done. If you don't actually conclude anything then by defination it isn't scientific.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting definition of the term science. Is that a commonly accepted definition in your field? Can you cite the source for this definition or is it an individual term?

I am not trying to start crap, I am not a scientist by any measure, and am just interested as your terminology is not consistent with how lay people such as myself would use the term science.
 
The thing about science is...people talk about it as if it were some clear and easily defined thing. It's somewhat easier than say...art....but there are problems...

So, in a nutshell, it's a system of identifying objective observations....and the methodology to get there, the scientific method, is merely a system of inductive reasoning.

What do I mean by objective knowledge? Well, things that aren't subjective--basically, anything that is "falsifiable." I can't prove whether or not you like the painting we're looking at, but I could probably effectively prove that the painting existed for both of us. (this is a troublesome matter, because it appears that you really *could* prove whether or not someone else liked a painting if the ID theory is true and given a complete neuroscience--it may be true that there are no truly subjective things ever). Basically, for a statement to be considered scientific, it should be able to be proven false (unlike whether or not you like the painting). Now, the conditions for proving it false needn't be realistic--it might involve searching every planet in the entire universe for life, for instance--in theory totally possible, in practice quite impossible--but satisfactory for a falsifiability critereon for the claim "there is no alien life."

People mistake the role of science as being in the business of proving things. Science will always fail to prove anything by definition--inductive reasoning is inadequate for proof (Hume's problem with induction). No matter how many times you repeat an experiment, it does not imply that the next time won't have different results. Perhaps you wish to prove the existence of gravity, for instance--in order to do this, you hold a book up high and drop it to the ground. You do so five times, just to solidify your case. It is quite possible that on the sixth time, it will not fall at all--granted, none of us believe that, but it is in principle impossible to prove otherwise. Such is the case of reasoning from cases or examples (another way of saying inductive)--it can't ever attempt proof (validity)--it can at best show cogency (that it is very probable that this is the case).

It's a hotly debated subject, but I'm a scientific nonrealist--I believe good science is believing things that are useful to believe. It is impossible to prove that the physics behind the automobile engine are correct, but it is certainly useful to believe in the results empirical testing provides--it gives me a running car, proof be damned.

A couple other issues real fast: I mention auxiliary hypotheses often. Basically, in science, you must assume other lower level things to talk--you might say--if the lock was properly constructed, and we tested the lock and it failed, then it shows that it is the design of the lock that is problematic. But the first if is an auxiliary hypothesis--we need other arguments to keep that in--perhaps the design of the lock IS good, and our auxiliary hypothesis (that it was properly constructed) is incorrect. In fact, all science has this issue, except for perhaps discussions of qualia, where things are considered to be immediately apprehensible (but the existence of qualia, weirdly, is still debated, thanks to Dennet...). This is a big problem in scientific testing, and the reason we have so many standards and controls.

Lastly, I've been doing a lot of thinking about so-called fundamental forces. We want science to explain the fundamental force that is gravity--but if it is truly fundamental, it is unexplainable by definition. That is to say that if it could be explained by talking about underlying principles, it would no longer be fundamental. Which leaves us with one of two possible and bothersome issues: first, fundamental forces do exist, and science can never, ever, ever explain them by definition, and we just have to give up. Alternatively, there are no fundamental forces, but an infinite regress of lower level forces. Option two I think is quite impossible, as with all supposed instantiations of infinity...
 
Basically, for a statement to be considered scientific, it should be able to be proven false (unlike whether or not you like the painting). Now, the conditions for proving it false needn't be realistic--it might involve searching every planet in the entire universe for life, for instance--in theory totally possible, in practice quite impossible--but satisfactory for a falsifiability critereon for the claim "there is no alien life."
Click to expand...

Again I am not a scientist, and basically don't remember any science classes or information since grade 11. I did go to college, but I can't really remember a thing I learned there, and certainly no science stuff that was not "social science." I did take a few classes in stuff that may be considered "science" but I guess from Cliff's above definition, everything I took in college and since then is "science" since it was "learning".

The definition just proposed by MA seems to conflict with Cliff's. He postulates that science menas the ability to be proven wrong. In grade 6 (I remember grade 6, but not my seniour year of college-strange, eh?) we learned about the "scientific method". I don't rememebr all of it, but I do remember that part of it was that you came up with an idea, then tested it. In order to meet the "method" it had be repeatable, so in fact it could be proven or disproven by others. Kinda like that peer review thing or something.

Anyways, in my admitedley limited mind, this notion of repeatability conotes some form or aspect of precision.

After all, if I was baking a cake (which seems like a science experiment to me some days) and the directions were bounded in terms of:
1. add flour between .5kg and 75kg.
2. toss in some eggs, any amount will do
3. pour in some water, sugar, milk, and maybe some other stuff as well.
4. stick in a hot place, maybe even an oven.
5. take it out sometime later.

conclusion:
You will make a wonderful, taste treat.

Now the person that made the cake may have indeed made the best cake ever, but it is not repeatable, or cabable of being proven false because there was no precision.

Maybe you guys as scientist use "science" as a term of art, maybe it means something to different people in different fields. My hunch is that if I showed some scientists (as definded by wearing white lab coats and wandering around the hallways of a university) Cliff's definition, some would be troubled by it. That does not mean they are right or Cliff is wrong, just food for thought.
 
I think it is an excellent documentary and test and that you will always have people not satisfied. You followed through with exactly what you said you would do. Strider builds their knives to outlive most anatomically correct human beings and this test confirms this. I can only imagine it wore you out. I'de buy you a beer any day for that test. It reaffirms why CPM-S30V is THE cutlery steel.

I would love to see you test a Chris Reeve Hollow Handle.

Once again, great test!:thumbup:
 
Cobalt said:
Getting back to the STRIDER, one thing I also found strange and it seems Noss4 found it strange also is the fact that the blade did not spark? when hitting concrete. Usually that is the sign of a softer steel, but That cannot possibly be unless that knife was specifically softened for the test to avoid premature failure from hard blade. Could be that S30V's high chrome content and other alloys reduces sparking as well. Anyone know or care to try with their S30V blade??

Noss, would you mind sending me the pieces?? or one piece? I'd like to do an Rc test on it.
Click to expand...

Cobalt: Sure, I will send you a piece just email at my web site address so I know where to send it to you. Give me a code word in the email and I will verify it with you on the forum. Just so I know it is you I'm sending it to.
 
I made a question awhile back that didn't catch any attention.
But if people in the know had opinions on my question I'd greatly appreciate it. The question was:

It was interesting to observe from that last clip noss4 added that the blade broke in half from the frontmost spine serration.

I wonder if the serrations were shallower, would the blade be stronger when spine hammering? Is this a possible weak point in Strider's design?


Thanks.
 
noss4 said:
Cobalt: Sure, I will send you a piece just email at my web site address so I know where to send it to you. Give me a code word in the email and I will verify it with you on the forum. Just so I know it is you I'm sending it to.
Click to expand...


very cool:thumbup: lets see what the rc is on a strider. I am betting 58. Does anyone know what the ideal Rc is for S30V?
 
AaaaKKKkk.. I unbookmarked TNK knives after all this B.S. No wonder Cliff has an uphill strugle in testing anything. I am going to get a Rough Rider & be done with it all...hmmm...maybe a new Okapi! Hehehehe.
 
PatriotDan said:
It was interesting to observe from that last clip noss4 added that the blade broke in half from the frontmost spine serration.

I wonder if the serrations were shallower, would the blade be stronger when spine hammering? Is this a possible weak point in Strider's design?[/I]
Click to expand...

This is another reason why it would be interesting to have a metalurgist examine the break under a SEM.
 
Gollnick said:
This is another reason why it would be interesting to have a metalurgist examine the break under a SEM.
Click to expand...

I personally don't have access to metallurgy lab or a electron microscope.

If someone does after I send the blade to Cobalt and he returns it I will
be more than happy to send the knife to whomever has access to this equipment.

Just a note: I will etch the blade All parts. tested by knifetests.com no warranty return just in case some may think of getting a free knife from Strider.
 
noss4 said:
I personally don't have access to metallurgy lab or a electron microscope.

If someone does after I send the blade to Cobalt and he returns it I will
be more than happy to send the knife to whomever has access to this equipment.

Just a note: I will etch the blade All parts. tested by knifetests.com no warranty return just in case some may think of getting a free knife from Strider.
Click to expand...


Noss, sounds good..

Gollnick, that would be interesting. might give a hint to the HT process as well. I am guessing that strider lowers the Rc of his fixed blades so that they are tougher than the typical stainless steel S30V. Whereas folders can be an Rc of 61, I'd bet that these fixed blades are closer to 56-58. Would make sense. Not sure about differential tempering though, but could be.
 
Basically, for a statement to be considered scientific, it should be able to be proven false (unlike whether or not you like the painting). Now, the conditions for proving it false needn't be realistic--it might involve searching every planet in the entire universe for life, for instance--in theory totally possible, in practice quite impossible--but satisfactory for a falsifiability critereon for the claim "there is no alien life."

End Me
Begin You
Again I am not a scientist, and basically don't remember any science classes or information since grade 11. I did go to college, but I can't really remember a thing I learned there, and certainly no science stuff that was not "social science." I did take a few classes in stuff that may be considered "science" but I guess from Cliff's above definition, everything I took in college and since then is "science" since it was "learning".

The definition just proposed by MA seems to conflict with Cliff's. He postulates that science menas the ability to be proven wrong. In grade 6 (I remember grade 6, but not my seniour year of college-strange, eh?) we learned about the "scientific method". I don't rememebr all of it, but I do remember that part of it was that you came up with an idea, then tested it. In order to meet the "method" it had be repeatable, so in fact it could be proven or disproven by others. Kinda like that peer review thing or something.

Anyways, in my admitedley limited mind, this notion of repeatability conotes some form or aspect of precision.

After all, if I was baking a cake (which seems like a science experiment to me some days) and the directions were bounded in terms of:
1. add flour between .5kg and 75kg.
2. toss in some eggs, any amount will do
3. pour in some water, sugar, milk, and maybe some other stuff as well.
4. stick in a hot place, maybe even an oven.
5. take it out sometime later.

conclusion:
You will make a wonderful, taste treat.

Now the person that made the cake may have indeed made the best cake ever, but it is not repeatable, or cabable of being proven false because there was no precision.

Maybe you guys as scientist use "science" as a term of art, maybe it means something to different people in different fields. My hunch is that if I showed some scientists (as definded by wearing white lab coats and wandering around the hallways of a university) Cliff's definition, some would be troubled by it. That does not mean they are right or Cliff is wrong, just food for thought.
Click to expand...

Well, what science really is tends to be a very debated subject. I've shared my opinions and hopefully defended them well, but they're not the only defendable opinions. I've had a lot of discussions with fellow scientists/philosophers on the subject and I've found that this, thus far, is the most sound way to look at science. Other views seem to have some significant trouble, although there might be a good way out of it I haven't heard of yet (or just hasn't been thought of yet at all). There are certainly many people who spend their entire lives figuring out just what exactly science is. It seems obvious that science is not what it at first appears, in any case (namely, a method of proving something right or wrong).

In regards to the scientific method, it's merely a particular brand of inductive reasoning. Because of this, science is more properly viewed as a sub genre of philosophy (made all the more appropriate science it was developed by philosophers)--it is a very small but very useful area of logic/reasoning, so useful in fact that it got its own field.

In regards to your cake example, you should notice that you loosely set it up in terms of an argument--a premise, conclusion (if-then) set up. If you do this and that, then you should have this. This is properly so, as it is a form of logic. Basically, you're generating observations in order to test their consistency. Other forms of inductive reasoning do not have testing--for instance, you can look over past cases (using Mill's Methods, no doubt) given data. However, you claim that because of the poor precision in your experiment, it is unfalsifiable. I don't think this is the case. For instance, presumably, had you followed none of the steps in the recipe at all, you would not have the cake--this is a simple falsifiability criteria.

The experiment is repeatable, within the bounds of those steps. However, the auxiliary hypotheses count will greatly increase the less precise you are--people will start to be able to claim that experiment 2 failed because the amount of step 3 was too different, for instance--you can eliminate the majority of auxiliary hypotheses using precision. However, it's impossible to get rid of all auxiliary hypotheses--for instance, I might claim that small gremlins are actually instrumental to creating the cake--so small that they're invisible and undetectable. Fortunately, they're very helpful, so they're there everytime. This, of course, seems insane, but trying to prove it false is surprisingly difficult (perhaps impossible).

You would most likely be displeased to know that most scientists have no idea what science is, nor what logic is, and this often results in massive flaws in theoretical sciences. I've been a scientist for years now (first degree in radiology, second in biology) and this never came up. I studied logic as a personal interest during the second degree.
 
I know I'll get shot for this but...
Were any of these knives actually designed to be used as tested? To specifically split pressure treated lumber and to break up concrete cinderblocks?
I mean- deriving metrics from a test can be a great gauge of relative performance- but to do that you have to use special machines so that the forces/time exerted is equal for all the different knives or a particular category. In other words- the test ought to be scientific, not casual.Using a human tester, target materials containing variation and employing a test method that is not repeatable isn't really meaningful testing in this day and age.
Not only this, but meaninful metrics would require that you destruction test a product at the rate of at least 1/1000 in evenly spaced intervals in the production line. To achieve 6Sigma a product line has to achieve a failure rate of less than 1/1,000,000. So how do we know that the actual blades that you 'tested' weren't amongst the 'flawed' or rejected ones?
Portraying such tests as 'empirical' is a big stretch. I think the vids are fair material for UTube- where there are no standards anyway. Real lab tests also can explain not only what the mean time to failure was but exactly why a failure occured.
In a way, the costumes are befitting of the methodology- humerous.
I can't wait for you to try kitchen knives too! After all, those are the knives that are actually used by 90% of the world, 90% of the time.
 
so cold steel just released a super cheap strider clone, same price range as the bushman, in 1055. i'd like to see it put through the same exact paces that we saw this strider go through.
 
I just looked at the Cold Steel GI Tanto It says on the web site " it’s ready to take all the abuse you and Mother Nature can dish out"

I will test this knife. It only retails for 29.99. The site says it will be available 3/1/07
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top