Soundboard Thoughts (Kind of long)

[Ron Nossaman]

Hi Stephen,

I've watched people try to solve perceived problems for a pile of years now,
and I've made an observation or two. Most folks tend to diddle the symptoms
of the problem with modifications and work-arounds rather than trying to
understand the root cause. "When you shave this down a bit, that responds
better." "I left this part out altogether and the sucker works better than
it ever has. wonder why it was in there in the first place." Any perceived
positive shift in the state of the problem is viewed as a partial fix, and
the method used is added to the repertoire of tricks. That, simplistically,
is what passes for the empirical method in most cases. The scientific
method, however, too often involves ignoring the vast accumulation of tips,
tricks, work-arounds, and "black arts" that comprise the world of the
empirical, and press on to an entirely new set of disasters based on numbers
to multiple decimal places. The point I'm trying to make here is that
neither empirical, nor scientific methods are, themselves, adequate. Neither
should be accepted without question within their own framework. If each
outlook meshes and supports the other concerning any given phenomenon, the
observation is almost certainly valid. If the two factions disagree, either
one, or both could be wrong, but they are probably talking about two or
seven hundred different things in the first place! If anyone is going to
make sense out of anything, it seems to me that it's going to take empirical
practitioners with scientific methods and instruments and a hard core
distrust of anything they can't explain simply. I'd put you and Del, and a
few others in attendance, in this category. The biggest problem, IMHO, is
for each of us to be willing to release, or even modify, our individual
"cherished concepts" when something more plausible shuffles by and
challenges them.    
That's it, thanks for listening, Ron



>
>It is a mistake to think that we are in a better position to "understand" 
>piano designs than our predecessors were, because we have technology they 
>didn't have. Early builders had an intuitive understanding acquired from 
>empirical observation...we will never be able to match this with any 
>amount of scientific analysis. That isn't to say scientific analysis is a 
>waste of time...it is just a different approach to problem solving.
>
>Climbing out of those snakes,
>
>Stephen
>
>
>Stephen Birkett Fortepianos
>Authentic Reproductions of 18th and 19th Century Pianos
>464 Winchester Drive 
>Waterloo, Ontario
>Canada N2T 1K5
>tel: 519-885-2228
>email: birketts@wright.aps.uoguelph.ca
>
>
 Ron Nossaman