Re: Subject: Re: [Harp-L] comb material

["Monsterharp" <Monsterharp@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

OOPS...I guess Vern already brought up. the buckeye thang ...Sorry 
man..............Dane Paul




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vern Smith" <jevern@xxxxxxx>
To: "J Compton" <jofjltn4@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "Harp-l" <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:57 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Harp-L] comb material


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "J Compton" <jofjltn4@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Harp-l" <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:18 PM
> Subject: RE: Subject: Re: [Harp-L] comb material
>
> > Why is the burden of proof on the "material matters" people?  Why is the 
> > prevailing position that the material doesn't matter until someone proves 
> > otherwise?  Why isn't it that the material *does* matter until someone 
> > demonstrates that it doesn't?
>
> The rules of science and rational argument place the burden of proof on 
> the person who asserts the new, positive hypothesis..."comb materials 
> affect tone" in this case. There are good reasons for this.
>
> * The positive hypothesis only has to be demonstrated once to be 
> convincing. If one person could discriminate among combs of different 
> materials under adequately controlled conditions, then the case would be 
> proven.
>
> * It is almost impossible to prove a negative.  The SPAH97 and Buckeye98 
> camparisons demonstrated that.  The disappointed believers claimed 
> afterwards that the tests were "flawed" and that could demonstrate the 
> ability under slightly different circumstances. If even one person had 
> demonstrated the ability, then the disappointed skeptics would have had to 
> admit the existence of the materials effect.
>
> * If  I did not have the burden of proof, I could say that there were 17 
> little green gnomes in the center of the sun, holding hands and singing 
> "Rock of Ages" and maintain it was true until you proved me wrong. 
> There would not be enough resources to investigate all of the preposterous 
> hypotheses that could / would be advanced.  Until you support your claim, 
> whatever it is, with hard evidence, then it deserves to be considered 
> false.
>
> * "You can't (or haven't) proven me wrong" is a false argument of last 
> resort from those who have none better.
>
>   Perhaps an experienced player could record playing a set series of 
> notes/techniques with a wood comb, then repeating the same with a plastic 
> (or other) comb.  If the sounds are identical (or can even be made to 
> sound identical) as determined by human ears, sound analyzing equipment, 
> or some other measurement, then there may not be a difference (at least 
> within the limits of whatever is used to judge them).  Record the passage 
> a few times w/ each comb and completely randomize which clips are played. 
> (Okay, so the player might be able to compensate for the difference 
> entirely through ability, or might subconsciously play differently...I 
> admit, it's not a perfect plan, but apparently, neither are the previous 
> attempts to approach this from the neighbor's pasture.)
>
> Except that the comparisons were live and not amplified or recorded (to 
> avoid complaints about distortion by the electronics), you have just 
> described what was done at the SPAH97 and Buckeye98 experiments.
>
> So until someone does that, I'm going to stake my position on the side 
> that *feels* that "comb material" matters (although I admit, I really 
> don't *think* it does).
>
> Is this another way of saying that you are swayed more by emotion than by 
> logic?
>
> Vern
>
> _______________________________________________
> Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
> Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l