Academic research: musings

Edster · 26th September 2021, 02:19 AM

Thanks Jim, excellent counterpoint. I, too, enjoy the entertainment quality of good reasoned debate. However, as an example, I would also like to know the objective differences between a German made 19th C. munitions grade trade blade and those made in Kassala in the early & mid 20th C. Without makers marks most look the same to me.

Best regards,
Ed

Jim McDougall · 26th September 2021, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edster

Thanks Jim, excellent counterpoint. I, too, enjoy the entertainment quality of good reasoned debate. However, as an example, I would also like to know the objective differences between a German made 19th C. munitions grade trade blade and those made in Kassala in the early & mid 20th C. Without makers marks most look the same to me.

Best regards,
Ed

Thanks Ed,
Actually when I began writing on these forums over 20 years ago, Mostly I just wanted to learn from other guys involved in studying the same weapons I was interested in. I have never cared especially for debate, but in sharing information and observations with examples and evidence.

I always appreciate when an example or observation is shared and when contrary views are shown, with explanations and details. Rather than debate these are discussions evaluating information at hand and constructively compiling material to advance the collective knowledge of all reading.

Great example on those Sudanese blades, I am always baffled at trying to evaluate them without markings as well. We often presume a blade must be European , but these guys in Kassala were pretty good.

ariel · 26th September 2021, 04:58 AM

Alan,
But of course! I thought I was pretty clear on it. 95% of all posts have nothing to do with real research: they are just a way to get straightforward information, to learn.
Re-search is " to seek anew", to start with uncertainty or doubt about current state of affairs in a particular area and subject the reality to additional tests ( experimental or purely mental, no difference) to either modify or confirm the existing state of knowledge.

Fora by and large are just social interactions to learn something known to others. How often do we see here really structured "research" topic, systematizing a particular field in a novel way? Once a year? The rest of the time we just learn from each other, and this is wonderful! Nothing wrong with it: that what all students do from the first grade to let's say masters degree. Only then they start addressing novel problems and re-searching. But those early years prepare at least some of them for a PhD level of thinking. I am pretty good in my field, but in my wildest dreams I cannot compare myself to specially educated David Alexander, Don LaRocca and Robert Elgood and even to such a "non-university" person as Robert Hales, who had learned so much by the sheer volume of personal experience combined with first class brain that he can teach us ( me, at least) more than a bunch of professors.

To recap: yes, "..... in this Forum, is it acceptable for random, unstructured ideas, observations & comments to form a basis for discussion". It prepares us to go one step further, to ask a really unexpected question, to develop a hypothesis.

A. G. Maisey · 26th September 2021, 08:56 AM

Thank you Ariel,

I actually asked a couple of questions, I'm guessing you have answered "of course" to both of these questions. So I assume you mean that the relaxed approach is fine where no actual research has been done, but where research has been done, this research should have been done in a systematic manner? Is my understanding of your response correct?

Ariel, I do not want to introduce any new unrelated discussion to this thread, but I was under the impression that we were talking about research, not re-search.

The word "research" comes from Old French, and the "re" in this case does not mean "again" it indicates the use of a great degree of force, the root is probably "cercher". This is as I remember, I'm not good on French, and I only recall little interesting bits & pieces here and there. I guess "cercher", or maybe "cerchier" might have come from the Latin --- "re" was originally used with words from the Latin. But in any case, when the intensifier "re" is added to "cercher" we have a word that means to seek for something with extreme dedication, & thus "research". I'm running on 60 odd year old memories here, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.

Is "re-search" in fact an English word, or English usage? I don't think I've ever come across it.

Anyway, no matter about words, I think that in broad terms you & I have a similar take on the nature of this Forum.

ariel · 26th September 2021, 12:36 PM

Alan,
Glad we finally came to full understanding.
My French sucks. But English, in its meticulously- precise way, gives “ re” an interesting twist. Linguistically it is likely incorrect, but it raises the meaning couple of notches up.
This was not my invention: I have seen it in several classy publications and liked it immensely.

Thanks for your comments and questions.They were very useful for clarifying what I wanted to say. Your critique made my position more understandable. Socratic method still rules! :-)

A. G. Maisey · 26th September 2021, 01:30 PM

I think English would be a swine of a language to learn.I'm glad I was born as a native speaker.

But it is I think a very marvelous language, a wonderful tool for communication. I am familiar with a few languages, none of the other languages I have met seem to permit the same universal precision as does English.

As to the invention of words, well it was good enough for Bill Shakespeare. Perhaps some of our personally invented words help us to remember or realise things that we otherwise would not.

But "re" is not uniquely English, it comes from early Latin and originally it meant "back" or "backwards", it now occurs in languages other than English, and in English it has a broad range of meanings. In English its attachment seems to be almost infinite.

ariel · 26th September 2021, 05:07 PM

Alan,
I went to the Wiki to search ( not re-search :-), because I am not a physicist and understand nothing about mathematics and quantum theory) the particulars of Einstein- Bohr debate. It lasted for years and the pendulum of different chapters swung back and forth. At the end of the debate most of the contemporary theoretical physicists agreed that Bohr appeared to have an upper hand, but that we still did not know it with absolute certainty. But the important point is stressed by everybody: throughout the entire debate both remained close personal friends with no bitterness toward the opponent.

And that reminded me of the Talmudic analysis of two kinds of argumentation ( or dispute) : argument for the sake of God, and argument not for the sake of God. The former is for the sake of Truth, the latter for the sake of Power.

A Talmudic example of the former is a long argument about epistemology of Biblical laws: how do we know which of the potentially many interpretation is correct? There was a long and heated argument between two schools of thought: Shammai stressed uncompromising truths of Biblical laws while Hillel ruled by adapting them ( at least temporarily) to special circumstances and finding a common ground. In the majority of cases Hillel interpretations were accepted, but some views of Shammai ( the harsh one) became the law over Hillel’s and the rest of them will become laws in Heavens, where only the absolute Truth is going to rein.

The latter is the example of the rebellion by Korach and his adherents, who wanted to dislodge Moses as High Priest, as the leader of the entire community because they cleverly advertised that the entire community , down to the last individual, was holy already and did not require a Priest to transmit the word of God to them. But in reality they wanted this function to themselves. They wanted not Truth , they wanted victory, they wanted power, they wanted humiliation of their opponent .

And every time we want to argue, we should remember Bohr vs. Einstein, Shammai vs. Hillel, Korach vs. Moses: what is the purpose of our conflict, of our argument: Truth or Dominance?

It is a sheer pleasure arguing with you. Both of us are seeking truth, but are willing to adapt our criteria to circumstances and are never trying to dominate over each other. Thanks.

26th September 2021, 02:19 AM	#1
Edster Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 411	Thanks Jim, excellent counterpoint. I, too, enjoy the entertainment quality of good reasoned debate. However, as an example, I would also like to know the objective differences between a German made 19th C. munitions grade trade blade and those made in Kassala in the early & mid 20th C. Without makers marks most look the same to me. Best regards, Ed

26th September 2021, 04:58 AM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Alan, But of course! I thought I was pretty clear on it. 95% of all posts have nothing to do with real research: they are just a way to get straightforward information, to learn. Re-search is " to seek anew", to start with uncertainty or doubt about current state of affairs in a particular area and subject the reality to additional tests ( experimental or purely mental, no difference) to either modify or confirm the existing state of knowledge. Fora by and large are just social interactions to learn something known to others. How often do we see here really structured "research" topic, systematizing a particular field in a novel way? Once a year? The rest of the time we just learn from each other, and this is wonderful! Nothing wrong with it: that what all students do from the first grade to let's say masters degree. Only then they start addressing novel problems and re-searching. But those early years prepare at least some of them for a PhD level of thinking. I am pretty good in my field, but in my wildest dreams I cannot compare myself to specially educated David Alexander, Don LaRocca and Robert Elgood and even to such a "non-university" person as Robert Hales, who had learned so much by the sheer volume of personal experience combined with first class brain that he can teach us ( me, at least) more than a bunch of professors. To recap: yes, "..... in this Forum, is it acceptable for random, unstructured ideas, observations & comments to form a basis for discussion". It prepares us to go one step further, to ask a really unexpected question, to develop a hypothesis.

26th September 2021, 08:56 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Thank you Ariel, I actually asked a couple of questions, I'm guessing you have answered "of course" to both of these questions. So I assume you mean that the relaxed approach is fine where no actual research has been done, but where research has been done, this research should have been done in a systematic manner? Is my understanding of your response correct? Ariel, I do not want to introduce any new unrelated discussion to this thread, but I was under the impression that we were talking about research, not re-search. The word "research" comes from Old French, and the "re" in this case does not mean "again" it indicates the use of a great degree of force, the root is probably "cercher". This is as I remember, I'm not good on French, and I only recall little interesting bits & pieces here and there. I guess "cercher", or maybe "cerchier" might have come from the Latin --- "re" was originally used with words from the Latin. But in any case, when the intensifier "re" is added to "cercher" we have a word that means to seek for something with extreme dedication, & thus "research". I'm running on 60 odd year old memories here, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Is "re-search" in fact an English word, or English usage? I don't think I've ever come across it. Anyway, no matter about words, I think that in broad terms you & I have a similar take on the nature of this Forum.

26th September 2021, 12:36 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Alan, Glad we finally came to full understanding. My French sucks. But English, in its meticulously- precise way, gives “ re” an interesting twist. Linguistically it is likely incorrect, but it raises the meaning couple of notches up. This was not my invention: I have seen it in several classy publications and liked it immensely. Thanks for your comments and questions.They were very useful for clarifying what I wanted to say. Your critique made my position more understandable. Socratic method still rules! :-)

26th September 2021, 01:30 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	I think English would be a swine of a language to learn.I'm glad I was born as a native speaker. But it is I think a very marvelous language, a wonderful tool for communication. I am familiar with a few languages, none of the other languages I have met seem to permit the same universal precision as does English. As to the invention of words, well it was good enough for Bill Shakespeare. Perhaps some of our personally invented words help us to remember or realise things that we otherwise would not. But "re" is not uniquely English, it comes from early Latin and originally it meant "back" or "backwards", it now occurs in languages other than English, and in English it has a broad range of meanings. In English its attachment seems to be almost infinite.

26th September 2021, 05:07 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Alan, I went to the Wiki to search ( not re-search :-), because I am not a physicist and understand nothing about mathematics and quantum theory) the particulars of Einstein- Bohr debate. It lasted for years and the pendulum of different chapters swung back and forth. At the end of the debate most of the contemporary theoretical physicists agreed that Bohr appeared to have an upper hand, but that we still did not know it with absolute certainty. But the important point is stressed by everybody: throughout the entire debate both remained close personal friends with no bitterness toward the opponent. And that reminded me of the Talmudic analysis of two kinds of argumentation ( or dispute) : argument for the sake of God, and argument not for the sake of God. The former is for the sake of Truth, the latter for the sake of Power. A Talmudic example of the former is a long argument about epistemology of Biblical laws: how do we know which of the potentially many interpretation is correct? There was a long and heated argument between two schools of thought: Shammai stressed uncompromising truths of Biblical laws while Hillel ruled by adapting them ( at least temporarily) to special circumstances and finding a common ground. In the majority of cases Hillel interpretations were accepted, but some views of Shammai ( the harsh one) became the law over Hillel’s and the rest of them will become laws in Heavens, where only the absolute Truth is going to rein. The latter is the example of the rebellion by Korach and his adherents, who wanted to dislodge Moses as High Priest, as the leader of the entire community because they cleverly advertised that the entire community , down to the last individual, was holy already and did not require a Priest to transmit the word of God to them. But in reality they wanted this function to themselves. They wanted not Truth , they wanted victory, they wanted power, they wanted humiliation of their opponent . And every time we want to argue, we should remember Bohr vs. Einstein, Shammai vs. Hillel, Korach vs. Moses: what is the purpose of our conflict, of our argument: Truth or Dominance? It is a sheer pleasure arguing with you. Both of us are seeking truth, but are willing to adapt our criteria to circumstances and are never trying to dominate over each other. Thanks.