Re: [Harp-L] comb material

["Vern Smith" <jevern@xxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "B Boggs" <ceudoazul@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: [Harp-L] comb material


>  An earlier post on this subject was responded to off list (or so I 
> thought) until I saw the same email posted on list.  As a courtesy, 
> perhaps include the list address with mine so I am aware of the fact. My 
> offlist response to the sender (Vern)  was because an obvious 
> misunderstanding of what I said and meant.

My apologies for responding to a private email on-list.  I have changed my 
procedure to avoid that mistake in the future.  Mea culpa.

> I am now repeating again my point that a objective discussion requires 
> defining terms so all are privy to the same diefinitions. Anything less 
> only adds to extremism and fuels egos and misunderstandings. WIthout clear 
> communication, what good is arguing a belief or "fact".

I could not agree more.

Tim Moyer and several other writers made reasonable comments about bone 
conduction and how the brain fuses senses into a perception. This is an area 
science respects, explores and disusses outside of "mysticism, gauzy soul, 
etc."

The discussion need not not be about the internal processes that contribute 
to a listener's ability to perceive.  It should be about the external end 
result.  Can he perceive differences in sound arising from the choice of 
comb materials and report these perceptions to the rest of us?  This is all 
that is required for a valid experiment.  It is not important how he does 
it, with bone conduction, brain-fusion, soul, or whatever.

> Scientists who can not listen without righteousness and condescension do 
> no service to "science". My own experience is that the best teachers can 
> share their knowledge.

Although I aspire to employ the scientific method in harp experiments, I do 
not characterize myself as a scientist.  I assume that the audience for our 
discussion includes people of widely varying technical training. Some clumsy 
attempts to describe things in layman's terms may seem condescending to 
those of you who are more technically sophisticated.

> without condescension and pride. That ablility to communicate is an art 
> and a science. So much of the discussions that are on this list involve 
> subtle and not so subltle condescension and ego tripping.

I assumed that as long as I addressed my arguments to the issues and not to 
the people, I was on safe ground. I'll try my best in the future to avoid 
pride, condescension, and ego-tripping.

Vern



> ---------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> _______________________________________________
> Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
> Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l