Attitudes to Terry's research?

Irish Flute
1

Hi all

I’ve been carrying out this research on the effects of tenon thread wrapping on old flutes for quite some time now - there are now 16 articles spread over two series. Somewhat of a record in old flute research on a single topic I would venture. And if you’ve been following the series, you’ll recognise that we are now getting to a very interesting part.

You will remember that some reactions at the start of Series 1 were a bit hot-tempered, and the moderators decided the only safe way to proceed was a special arrangement to permit me to announce publication of each new phase of the research, but not to permit any discussion. That arrangement is still in place.

A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then, and I hope it might be possible to normalise arrangements, once more allowing discussion and debate. What do people think? Are we ready to discuss this topic rationally and gently, or is it still too emotive a topic to permit that? Would you rather we stick to the current arrangements where only I get to talk, or would you rather be able to chime in with questions, criticisms, rebuttals, suggestions and so on, as you do on other topics?

I’m not suggesting that we discuss the research itself in this thread - that would be in violation of the arrangement I have with the moderators, so please don’t go there. Nor is this the place to review what happened before and pass judgements on protagonists or moderators. All I’d like to hear are your thoughts on whether this single topic continues to need the protection of a special arrangement. Should I ask the moderators to consider a trial period of open discussion?

I’ll kick off with my preference. I’d hope we could return to robust but respectful discussion.

Terry

2

Dunno Terry…it was this topic that caused you to leave …and led to bad vibes between you and the Moderators..
I followed the discussions for a while and then lost interest…and did’nt return.
I think this is a topic for Flute makers and tinkerers that would’nt hold that much interest for the general Fluter.
It went on for quite a time… and then the poo hit the fan..
I think that results of your research could easily be put up on your own website…Interested parties can access that just as easily as they can access this one..
Summing up,I’d suggest that things be left alone …and come back to the Chiffy with your expertise and wit .. I reckon there’s lots of people here who value your opinions.
My two bobs worth …

3

I could hardly have put it better, weedie.

4

Why would you ask “us” if you should ask the moderators? Why not just ask the mods? Unless you are asking if we will behave ourselves while you trot out (er, sorry: I mean “present”) something many of us feel is obvious and easily avoided.
I did post a send-up of your research called “Flottelization,” hoping you’d get a kick out of it. But the wise mods didn’t want to see us get involved in fruitless confrontation. Who can blame them?

5

being a noob here I can at least throw my 2 rookie cents.

I for one cannot thank Terry enough for his research. I’ve been following and learning a lot from his research. Yet I feel I could even get a better appreciation of it all if discussion would be allowed. I’m a scientist myself (really!) and I can assert for the need of peer review and discussion for accurate publication and hopefully unbiased research. This being a forum of knowledgeable people I can see no better place for good and educated discussion.

This said, science is perhaps our best guide here. If the discussion can carry on following strict scientific guidelines using the top 3 levels of the refutation pyramid (see below) I can see no harm coming to the world. Quite the contrary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

6

Well, I would like to say that:

1 That’s entirely wrong.
2 I don’t like the overly academic way in which it’s couched.
3 I question andref’s authority to state what he does. Let’s see some credentials!

Oh, and finally, andref, you are a complete …

:swear:

:smiley:





PS Have I got the hang of it?

7

Terry,

Here is my brutally honest opinion since you asked…

In a strictly scientific sense your “research” wouldn’t pass muster or even come near it. To call it research you would have to go through, besides data collection and experimentation, the process of having your writing peer reviewed by other experts which can be a harsh process (I know this process well from having gone through this in the paleontologic world), then publishing it in an appropriate forum such as the Galpin Society Journal. Posting your results here with your conclusions does not constitute peer review. Peer review involves being taken to task by experts in your field, so that the fact can be sorted from unproven theories, usually guided by an editor who will publish only after the reviewers’ concerns have been met, or the results successfully defended.

Frankly, on your website where you also market and sell your flutes, its difficult to tell if your research is truly research, or is simply marketing disguised as research, so as to impress potential clients. Even posting links to your latest research here is essentially a commercial post saying “come look at my website”. Why do you need to include all this razzle-dazzle when your flutes should speak for themselves (as they do - they are excellent, especially the GLP)?

The language used (“Strangled tenon”) was also loaded, and seemed targeted at modern makers such as myself who use thread wrapped tenons. I felt targeted, and it became an additional task for me when I had to face freaked out clients who emailed me and called me, horrified that there was something wrong (“Strangled!”) with their flutes, based on reading your web pages and comments here. I mentioned this to the C&F moderators, who responded properly and limited the discussion.

Something I’ll mention now is that a certain flute that I made (you know the one) you changed the thread to cork, with the result that the barrel joint cracked and split and had to be replaced (you had corked it way too tightly). I could have just as easily gone on the offensive, declaring the dangers of using cork! I can only say that corking doesn’t work on my flutes and will result in cracking, which is why I mention doing so will violate any warranties. However, I can’t say the same about all the flutes made by others, based on my few experiences. Similarly, because you find tenon compression on old flutes, usually boxwood, doesn’t necessarily mean that thread wrapping is the cause (you have yet to prove this convincingly, especially since you haven’t looked at other possible causes such as compression caused by the socket itself), or is a bad thing on modern made flutes. This was the implication from your posts however, or at least how people interpreted it. Frankly, I would rather have tenon compression than a cracked socket!

I hope these comments are useful. Your research is worth pursuing - but the process used to write and present this research needs a different approach.

Casey

8

Hi benhall.1

:smiley:

I’ll show you a (on purpose) off topic discussion:

John Doe:
“All Cows are White”

Ann
John Doe is an a#% -hole. Only s%#!t comes from his mouth

Ben
John Doe left his parents in poverty after cheating them. He is a bad character altogether

Charles
John is always like that, affirmative. Mr no-room-for-discussion. Impossible to talk to him. And this cow thing, it’s the same all over!

Diane
Yeah, right all cows are white! A friend of my husband told me that his cousin is a sailor and he has seen black and white cows.

Ernest
I strongly doubt all cows are white. Oxen in my village are brown, and I see no genetic impediment that would make only white cows.

Felicity
No way. John Doe is not right. Webb et al (1997) mentions black and white cows, and in fact the famous study of Denning and Philips, published in “The Cow Review” in 2003, testifies with hundreds of confirmed sightings of clearly brown cows, and those have been seen in at least 3 continents. Denning is the foremost cow expert in our country and currently the head of the Cow Department at Harvard and Editor in Chief of “The Bovine Journal”.

Gerald
John Doe is unfortunately wrong this time. Here is the proof:

http://piedpatter.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/cows-furious-as-humans-try-to-hone-in-on-their-racket/

This is more or less the spirit! :smiley:

(Ernest, Felicity and Gerald are the models to follow in ascending order, of course!)

9

Andref,

Those cows are named Black and Gus. The one on the left is Black, or that could be Gus.

(see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUgCzpIs0EI )

Casey (not suffering from Cow Naming Impairment)

10

Terry and Forum Members, just to put this threaded tenon vs cork tenon in perspective let me offer up the Bagpipes. I play Irish Flute , but am primarily a Bagpiper. I’m just guessing, but there are probably maybe 10,000 at most Irish Flute Players and I would say close to 100,000 Bagpipers. almost down to a Bagpiper their Instruments are ABW sticks and stocks that are threaded. They do swell up to some extent, but guess what there is not a great deal of cracking. There is some, but not a great deal. If you suggested corking the tenons of Bagpipes, you would get laughed out of the room…why change something that has worked for centuries? That said Terry we love you, but why is this even a point of contention? Its kinda of like do you like blackwall tires or whitewall?
I think this is much adieu about nothing

11

Casey, I agree with most of your post, but disagree with the idea that to be research it must be peer reviewed and published. I’ve published many peer-reviewed papers and many non-peer-reviewed papers. I’ve also done proprietary research that couldn’t be published. The quality of my work has been uniform across them. Just because something hasn’t been peer-reviewed or published doesn’t mean it’s not research.

12

I didn’t say it, but I was thinking the same thing about research. I’ve engaged in a lot of research that was never peer-reviewed or published.

13

Guess you best leave well enough alone. For heaven’s sake, stay with us.

14

The fuss over this has bewildered me from the start. Being touchy over tenon thread/cork? I figured I must have missed something so I went back and read through it all. Not exactly exciting reading, but I am still bewildered. Differences of opinion sure, but why all the heat? That being said, I’ve always found Terry’s research interesting and appreciate that it is being done. Civility is underrated these days.
Clark

15

Chas and Doug,

Sure there is research that is unpublished, and some that is published without the benefit of any peer review. Terry has published his research on his website, and discussed it at length here. So I can safely say that it has been “published”. But it has not been peer reviewed.

So the question I ask then becomes, what is the quality of this published research? In the discussion on tenon compression many including myself took issue with his conclusions based on his testing results. To me it seemed like science poorly executed. Beyond this were issues concerning its direct impact on me (having to field my customers’ worries that their flutes were being “strangled”), and the confusion as to whether this should be considered research or is really marketing disguised as research.

Terry asked what people think of his research. Here and what I wrote before is what I think of it. To conduct it more legitimately and perhaps more respectfully, he should separate it more from his marketing, and submit it to a process of peer review, and publish the results in a vehicle not connected to selling his flutes. Otherwise the confusion and possible marketing aims behind it remain.

My purpose isn’t to squelch discussion on topics of interest on forums like C&F. But in this instance Terry came at the topic swinging a larger bat than everyone else, publishing several pages on it (few of us can keep up with him in this regard). C&F wasn’t the only forum where he discussed this. There are several pages devoted to this on Woodenflute as well. Sheer volume of verbiage doesn’t necessarily equate to good science.

In my scientific field (paleobiology), everything gets peer reviewed for the scientific literature, though it didn’t always used to be this way. This is the current standard. What gets published then in popular science magazines or the National Geographic etc. is merely reporting on this research, though in some cases its the researcher doing the reporting. Underlying these reports by the researchers are the actual published research papers - one can find them by simply delving deeper at a decent university library. The cart should always follow the horse - or its not science, just speculation perhaps.

Casey