Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
Back in the 1950's it was difficult and very expensive to buy a half-decent flamenco guitar in England.
Being just out of Her Majesties forces (National Service) I had no money and no access to quality guitar shops, so decided to try building a guitar myself. I ended up building two, both played not too bad (better than the crude elcheapo store-bought plywood boxes of those days) but they both looked like hell, very crude finish, etc. And it was a lot of work and worry. I learned a few things, but never again. . .
Since then I have maintained a keen interest in the craft of guitar-building and always enjoy the Foro Luthier forum.
Sorry for the rambling preamble, but:
Currently there is an interesting thread on sound ports that has numerous references to experiments, logistics, etc.etc. relating to guitar building and sound quality. Much of which appears to be trying to say that building a quality guitar requires more science than art. Almost like a game of numbers, rather than a traditional craft married to an art form.
Which begs the question: Is the craft of guitar-building an art or a science?
Maybe its some of each, but just how much art, and/or science goes into making a premium-quality hand-crafted instrument.
A naive, 'going-nowhere' question perhaps; but I find it interesting to speculate.
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to britguy)
quote:
ORIGINAL: britguy
Which begs the question: Is the craft of guitar-building an art or a science?
Maybe its some of each, but just how much art, and/or science goes into making a premium-quality hand-crafted instrument.
Making music is an artform or should be. Making guitars is a craft or more specifically bench carpentry. The problem with labels like "art" when applied to a craft is you end up with auto mechanics, farmers, plummers, electricians, etc. calling themselves artists. Words have meaning. In my opinion we should be happy being called artisans or craftsmen. Lutherie is an admirable profession that requires years of experimentation and patience to become proficient. I suppose there's room for some science but I think the best of us use intuition more than we'd like to admit.
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to jshelton5040)
quote:
Making music is an artform or should be. Making guitars is a craft or more specifically bench carpentry. The problem with labels like "art" when applied to a craft is you end up with auto mechanics, farmers, plummers, electricians, etc. calling themselves artists. Words have meaning. In my opinion we should be happy being called artisans or craftsmen. Lutherie is an admirable profession that requires years of experimentation and patience to become proficient. I suppose there's room for some science but I think the best of us use intuition more than we'd like to admit.
+1. It's neither an art nor a science, although there are elements of both. Luthiers are craftsmen, or artisans if you want to get fancy. Calling things like cooking or lutherie "art" is misleading. An artist has infinite freedom of expression, they don't have to make something that's useful. Food should taste good, and if you order a flamenco guitar, you don't want to end up with one of these because the luthier decided to get artistic
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to britguy)
To speak more to your main point, there is a lot of interesting science around acoustics and performance of guitars which is interesting to know and observe. But I don't think building from a quantitative or numbers-based perspective is the right way to produce really great guitars. I think there is no substitute for intuition that's fed by experience and a keen ear for important sound qualities.
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to britguy)
quote:
Currently there is an interesting thread on sound ports that has numerous references to experiments, logistics, etc.etc. relating to guitar building and sound quality. Much of which appears to be trying to say that building a quality guitar requires more science than art. Almost like a game of numbers, rather than a traditional craft married to an art form.
Flamenco guitars are pretty much set in terms of form and don't need to be changed, but some technology enables makers to look at situation with more objectivity. The scientific method is often used to analyze specific problems or mythologies to see them without the filter of human bias.
For example, how much much surface area do you need to under a guitar bridge to give it a secure purchase on the top? An engineer can do calculations to determine how much area is needed if they know factors such as the glue strength, the tension on the bridge and other factors which effect this condition. When these kinds of engineering analysis is done the investigators usually come up with calculations very close to what traditional trial error building methods have indicated works over a 100 years. What can happen then is that any false mythologies or fuzzy logic as to why the condition works or functions can be dismissed after an investigation shows that that reasoning does not actually apply.
In traditional guitar making, let's stay specifically with flamenco guitars for this purpose, through looking at the final guitar with good audio equipment which analyzes the output of the instrument, and concurrently seeking reasons through backwards engineering about how the building method works we can accumulate knowledge that tell us which strongly held ideas about the guitar making process are true or untrue. That does not mean you can engineer the process of guitar making, although some have tried and gotten good results, it does mean there are ways of cutting through the false notions of why guitars operate. If enough investigators come up with the results after testing certain ideas that many investigators are looking at, then it means there much be some truth to it.
A great example of dismissing a mythology happened right here on Flamenco Foro about 2- 1/2 years ago. There was a conversation about putting finish on the inside of the guitar and whether or not it created a surface that had less friction thus allowing the air in the guitars body cavity to move faster and released sound faster and with less wasted energy. It sounds logical right? A great argument was mounted on this premise and varnishing the inside of the guitar was in part justified b y this rationale. Enter Richard Jernigan, who happens to be an actual rocket scientist with the mathematics skills to rapidly calculate the resistance values of friction inside the body cavity on both varnished and unvarnished guitars. He revealed that the differential in friction between varnished and unvarnished was almost non existent and that the air moving inside the body cavity would basically be not effected by this condition.
So Richard's calculations put to bed the friction angle on that argument and it allowed the conversation to move farther into what does actual happen or why does it actually work. I my view guitar making itself is not a scientific process, it is more intuitive, but I am very thankful that there are investigators who can dispel wrong ideas with true objective research. And i listen to them very carefully for a few reasons. One reason is that it helps to speak about the guitar making process in a way that is not vague or arbitrary when there are some clear answers to why different aspects of guitar making operate. And it helps move the art, craft and science of guitar making forward by not perpetuating the same old mythologies and misunderstandings.
Posts: 401
Joined: Mar. 5 2010
From: Caves Beach Australia
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to britguy)
In my approach there are elements of art, craft, science, engineering etc. Using tools such as electronic scales, measuring frequency response with virtual Analyser, measuring stiffness etc is all just an extension of using your senses of sight touch and hearing, as are things like accurate rules and calipers. For me, measuring material properties and final resonant peaks of the guitar just gives me a method for greater constancy in achieving my goals. No disrespect for those who have the experience to evaluate materials by other means.
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Jeff Highland)
quote:
In my approach there are elements of art, craft, science, engineering etc. Using tools such as electronic scales, measuring frequency response with virtual Analyser, measuring stiffness etc is all just an extension of using your senses of sight touch and hearing, as are things like accurate rules and calipers. For me, measuring material properties and final resonant peaks of the guitar just gives me a method for greater constancy in achieving my goals.
That is very succinct, because this is what it is, a combination of all the disciplines working together. Some makers emphasize one or two elements a bit more than others, but we use all of them to some extent.
Posts: 401
Joined: Mar. 5 2010
From: Caves Beach Australia
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to britguy)
Unfortunately in the past there has been a lot of Pseudo science used in explaining how the guitar works and in attempting to redesign it. I would include the books by Simminoff and the designs of Kasha in this category.
The books by Trevor Gore however, are quite outstanding.
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Jeff Highland)
quote:
The books by Trevor Gore however, are quite outstanding.
My friend has a set of those books and I've looked through them. They are beautiful books with some interesting scientific ideas. It's still the case though that building and selecting guitars is highly based on taste and personal preference. He examines a number of high end guitars and evaluates them for different qualities. If I remember correctly he puts down the Conde, saying the top is too stiff and resonances are wrong etc.... Yet everyone keeps playing Condes. It could be that a lot of these things just break down when it comes to flamenco guitars.
The stuff on monopole mobility and bridge rotation is interesting but I'm not sure it can be used as a blanket generalization for all guitar styles. I would bet that a lot of German guitars perform very differently from Spanish guitars in those tests.
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Andy Culpepper)
quote:
If I remember correctly he puts down the Conde, saying the top is too stiff and resonances are wrong etc.... Yet everyone keeps playing Condes. It could be that a lot of these things just break down when it comes to flamenco guitars
Gore was talking about his method on Delcamp. He said the tested Fleta, meaning he tested two Fleta's and came to conclusions which as I read as he rated the Fletas according to two samples.
One could just call them guitars and be generic about, but list the properties he found. It's not really fair to look at a small cross section of a makers output and assign a value to all that makers work. Testing Conde's? Which one of thousands?
Posts: 3446
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to britguy)
In science you have to measure accurately the predicted outcome of experiments to validate or invalidate your theory. In engineering you have to accurately measure the finished product to see whether it meets the specifications and you're going to get paid.
I'm not a guitar maker, but I spent a fairly long career in science and engineering. As an obsessive guitar player, I've had a long interest in luthiery and have met a fair number of famous luthiers.
The most scientific luthier I have run across is Al Carruth. I know him only from the net, but have corresponded a little, and posted in threads on the same forums, learning a lot from him. He has conducted a lot of experiments to explore the scientific lore of guitar making.
Al puts it in a nutshell. "At present, by measurements we can tell good guitars from bad guitars, but we can't tell good guitars from great guitars."
The great guitars I have played have been built by luthiers who, it seemed to me, relied much more on experience and intuition than they did upon science and scientific measurements.
But as Ramon Zalapa said to me in Paracho, when I bought my first guitar, "Pues, todos no salen igual."
When I first inquired about the great '73 Romanillos I am fortunate enough to have, I quoted Zalapa to the dealer, before asking him to say something about the guitar. He is a professional guitarist who has played Romanillos guitars throughout his career. He laughed hilariously for a long time.
He said the guitar in question was probably one of the four best Romanillos he had played. I asked him where it ranked, 1 to 4? He said he couldn't say. Some of the four were better one way, some were better in other ways. The evaluation depended on the player.
Posts: 401
Joined: Mar. 5 2010
From: Caves Beach Australia
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to britguy)
Trevor Gore's work is actually far from prescriptive. What it does is help you make Your guitars to your taste consistently. If you have one guitar you have built which sounds amazing to you, you can test it to see where the resonances sit and that gives you guidance for the next.
As far as ranking Conde's in general from 2 examples that would of course be a nonsense. I think what he details(from Memory) in the book is testing about 20 guitars from various builders which had already been rated by players as great examples to see which characteristics were common and how they varied.
I don't think he is anti Fleta either he includes a detaied fleta plan in the build volume
Posts: 3467
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
quote:
In science you have to measure accurately the predicted outcome of experiments to validate or invalidate your theory.
I think you are confusing theory with hypothesis here. A theory has already been extensively tested, repeatedly observed, and is a generally accepted principle. A hypothesis is speculative in nature and has yet to be tested and repeatedly observed to validate or invalidate it as a theory. Your statement above suggests you are working on a hypothesis. Only after it has been repeatedly tested and observed does it become a theory. While undergoing testing and repeated observation it remains a hypothesis.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
Posts: 3446
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to BarkellWH)
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
quote:
In science you have to measure accurately the predicted outcome of experiments to validate or invalidate your theory.
I think you are confusing theory with hypothesis here. A theory has already been extensively tested, repeatedly observed, and is a generally accepted principle. A hypothesis is speculative in nature and has yet to be tested and repeatedly observed to validate or invalidate it as a theory. Your statement above suggests you are working on a hypothesis. Only after it has been repeatedly tested and observed does it become a theory. While undergoing testing and repeated observation it remains a hypothesis.
Bill
You sound like a philosopher.
Scientists and engineers use the words almost interchangeably, since they know the relative validity of different theories or hypotheses. There is no clear distinction between theory and hypothesis. The words are applied to the opposite ends of the spectrum of validity, but the area between is one of continuous gradation. Scientists and engineers say "theory" much more often, even applying it to what you might call a hypothesis, probably because it's a shorter word.
While responsible for the operation, modernization and maintenance of some of the planet's most complex electronic equipment, when presented with a perplexing failure, I probably heard the phrase, "Here's my theory" at least a hundred times more often than I heard the word "hypothesis." Extensive testing was often needed to validate or disprove the theory. We didn't have enough budget to keep any philosophers around to set us straight.
Quantum mechanics is an extensively tested and validated theory, yet the details of its predictions of entanglement are currently the subject of considerable experiment.
It has often been the tiny observed inaccuracy of a well validated and extensively tested theory which has led to a new idea. See this history of the succession of theories that resulted from increasing accuracy in spectroscopic measurements:
Posts: 3467
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
quote:
You sound like a philosopher. Scientists and engineers use the words almost interchangeably
Not a philosopher; rather, someone who cares about language precision. Scientists and engineers may use the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" interchangeably because "theory" is shorter, but I assume they do understand the actual definitional difference between the two terms, and there is a real difference.
One of the problems today is the imprecise use of language that leads to muddled thinking and wrong-headed conclusions. A perfect example, using the two terms under consideration, is the intellectual wasteland inhabited by certain religious fundamentalists, "Creationists," and the like who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and who do not believe that evolution is a settled principle, claiming it is "just another theory." In stating evolution is "just another theory" they demonstrate their ignorance, because what they really mean (within the framework of their warped view) is that evolution is still a hypothesis, yet to be demonstrated as a principle, and therefore no more valid than their view that life forms were originally created on earth as they exist today.
If you think this lack of precision is unimportant, I would invite you to think about some of the nation's school systems (such as the case in Topeka, Kansas, and in certain Texas jurisdictions, of which I'm sure you are aware, as well as others) where it has been mandated that in biology classes the "Creationist" view must be taught along side, and as equally valid as, evolution. This is an abomination that values ignorance above science and learning. And it is, in part, due to the acceptance of the sloppy use of imprecise language, as well as the lack of understanding of the intended audience. Dressed up as "just another theory," the ignorant not only subvert the definition of theory, in doing so they also perpetuate their ignorance via the school system.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to BarkellWH)
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
One of the problems today is the imprecise use of language that leads to muddled thinking and wrong-headed conclusions. A perfect example, using the two terms under consideration, is the intellectual wasteland inhabited by certain religious fundamentalists, "Creationists," and the like who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and who do not believe that evolution is a settled principle, claiming it is "just another theory." In stating evolution is "just another theory" they demonstrate their ignorance, because what they really mean (within the framework of their warped view) is that evolution is still a hypothesis, yet to be demonstrated as a principle, and therefore no more valid than their view that life forms were originally created on earth as they exist today.
Sometimes you nail things so beautifully, that it is a delight to read. -
If only not opportune to the neocon administration, you and the - unfortunately gappy - interest into backgrounds could be such a support to todays Middle Age burried stepchilds like reason, justice and disgraceful facts.
Nonetheless, despite that hairy wart, seldomly did I sense as much sympathy for a conservative head, muchacho.
Posts: 3467
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Ruphus)
Thank you, Ruphus. I appreciate your comment.
Let me just make a correction to your statement about service in the "neocon" administration. My active career in the U.S. Foreign Service spanned the administrations of Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush (the Elder), and Clinton. I had retired by the time George W. Bush (the Younger), Cheney, and the Neocons came into office.
Nevertheless, I assure you that the career Foreign Service serves the administration in office, regardless of party or political persuasion (conservative or liberal). I occasionally do some consulting in the field of foreign affairs and national security, but, again, I would do it regardless of which party is in office. I did it under Bush and I have done it under Obama.
You have correctly labeled me a conservative. That I am. But please do not make the mistake of thinking I am a Neocon, a Tea Party type, or a right-winger. Those I am not. I am an old-fashioned conservative of the "Realist" school in foreign policy. I most definitely support reason and justice, and I strongly oppose pseudo-science and ignorance masquerading as "fact" and "science."
In any case, forgive my ramblings above, but I just wanted to say it for the record. Again, thanks for your complimentary remarks.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
Posts: 3467
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Ruphus)
quote:
Neoconservatism is considered to be conducting since the 60ies.
Neoconservatism actually arose in the late seventies under Jimmie Carter. Former Democrats and liberals such as Irving Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others thought at the time that Carter was too weak when it came to advancing and protecting the U.S. national interest, and that he was not tough enough in dealing with the Soviet Union and its allies in the Third World, who were constantly criticizing the U.S. in the United Nations and other international fora.
And then there was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranians overrunning the U.S. Embassy and holding our 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days. Carter just appeared to be very weak. Many former Democrats and liberals turned Republican and conservative. Thus the term "NEO"-Conservative.
Even Ronald Reagan (a former Democrat and union leader in the Screen Actors' Guild) was more in line with traditional conservatism than with the NeoCons, who really only rose to power with the election of George W. Bush and Cheney, et. al.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to britguy)
Interesting to hear that Reagan beforehand ought to have been a democrat, as what I remember of him in the first place is his denouncing of progressive heads in Hollywood for McCarthy.
Anyway, we can ignore that other sources like Wikipedia are dating the beginning era of neocons back to the sixties. What I was aiming at were the antisocial policies of US admins on pathologic level, and specially their irresponsible, more precisely literally insane, counter measures against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. ( Actually US foreign policies had been supporting Middle Eastern fanatics already up from the fifties, but on a massive scale yet in Afghanistan and afterwards.)
Whomever you served at a time in question, it obviously took leaving one´s conscience in the locker. This will be hunting you and your colleagues yet when the worms be nibbling on your bones underground, whether rejected or not.
The resurrection of the most aggressive backwardedness out there has been product of your very employers, with the doings of the IS now being merely the most flashy symptom of criminal plot. - And who knows what the hell yet to follow.
Posts: 3446
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to BarkellWH)
Britguy's thread has already been hijacked. I apologize for my part in it, nonetheless here goes....
In my experience with fundamentalist Christians (there are some in my extended family and large numbers of them in the state of Texas) they believe they have an unbeatable argument.
The scientist begins by not only admitting, but firmly asserting that all physical knowledge is provisional, subject to revision if new data require it. The new earth creationist knows he has the advantage of certainty, derived from Genesis.
To the new earth creationist, the scientist not only admits, but advocates doubt. The creationist is secure in his certainty, no matter what argument may be advanced by his opponent. His knowledge is superior to the scientist's doubt.
I don't think debating the distinction between hypothesis and theory is going to get anywhere. The fact that there is only a fuzzy boundary between the two weakens the argument further, in the eyes of the creationists.
In my opinion the only way to counter the new earth creationist is through education in science and its history. Some fraction of young people will get the point of the numerous scientific revolutions, as well as the unparalleled success of admittedly provisional scientific theories in understanding the world around us. Others will remain faithful to their parents' religions, or adopt new ones in rebellion.
At some level, religious fundamentalists understand the dangers of education. That's why ISIS has outlawed the teaching of evolution, mathematics, and other post-neolithic subjects. That's why some Texas school boards and the state of Louisiana have insisted that the wells of scientific knowledge be poisoned by religion.
Belief in God is not logically opposed to science. You may append to any scientific theory the religious codicil that "This is the way God does it." In the view of most scientists this is unnecessary, however there are a significant minority of actively contributing scientists who do exactly that. But if you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, the Torah or the Q'ran, you are morally obliged to oppose evolution--and you have an impregnable argument--you think.
Thomas Jefferson said he was more proud of passing the religious freedom statute in the Commonwealth of Virginia than he was of writing the Declaration of Independence. Another example of his remarkable penetration and foresight, and another example of his political genius. He used the resentment of the non-conformists over having to pay taxes to support the Church of England, which they didn't belong to, as a lever to entirely depose religion from its position of government power. Religion has never stopped fighting back.
In the USA, the defenses against poisoning the well of scientific knowledge are the ballot box and the Constitution. Professional politicians learned long ago that slogans and "gotchas" (known as "staying on message") are far more powerful tools than thoughtful debate. Advocates of science aren't very good at politics, because they are used to thoughtful debate, and are warned against inflammatory rhetoric. Religion has had millennia to develop and refine its political rhetoric. Still I believe scientists should continue to try to inform the general public, while adhering to their scientific values. The distinction between hypothesis and theory at least gives the scientists a short reply to one of the creationists' "gotchas". But I think the real debate is between productive doubt and stultifying dogma.
In my teens I was bored with the history of science. I was eager to get at the real stuff. Now I think the history of science is one of the most important subjects for a general education. But you can't really appreciate the history of science without at least a whiff of the real stuff. You can't appreciate the tremendous impact of the 20th century revolution in physics without an appreciation of what a beautiful, comprehensive, effective and deeply validated theory classical physics was. But many educators still seem to think real science is kind of optional.
Scientists recognize the difference between hypothesis and theory, though you would find a wide divergence of opinion where the division lies. In the battle between fundamentalism and science, as far as I can see this distinction ain't in it. To the fundamentalists both of them mean "doubt" while he enjoys certainty.
Watch any debate between a well prepared scientist and a fundamentalist creationist. You won't see a millimeter of movement in the position of either.
Precision in language is anathema to the politician. But maybe that's your point?
You may still expect educators to inculcate precision in language and critical thinking. Lawyers employ precise language, but at times more in the service of their employers than in the service of principle. After all, most politicians in the USA are lawyers manqué.
Posts: 3467
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Ruphus)
quote:
Whomever you served at a time in question, it obviously took leaving one´s conscience in the locker.
Not at all, Ruphus. It is every diplomat's job to advance and protect his country's national interest while serving under the leaders in power, whether that nation be the United States, Great Britain, Russia, China, Brazil, or Togo. I am very proud to have had the privilege of representing the United States. The United States, Great Britain, and their allies were largely responsible for developing the liberal international architecture of the post-World War II order: political, financial, and economic, that led to prosperity and a relatively liberal political order.
I know you have a particular chip on your shoulder regarding the United States. But ask yourself what the world would look like if the post-World War II order had been shaped by Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China, instead of the U.S., Britain, and Western Europe. It certainly would not have developed the relatively liberal political, economic, and social order that characterized the non-Communist West. The United States has made its share of mistakes, as has every country. But by and large in its over-arching policies, the U.S. has nothing to apologize for, and neither do I.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to BarkellWH)
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
But ask yourself what the world would look like if the post-World War II order had been shaped by Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China, instead of the U.S., Britain, and Western Europe. It certainly would not have developed the relatively liberal political, economic, and social order that characterized the non-Communist West.
That is like defending a dictature ( or any example of injust), because there having been worse before.
Further it is a disguise of what the US actually opposed like a national enemy, which was not regime by any means, but social form of society, and if it was even just pseudo / only attempting to name itself thatt way.
And the US policy was not just countering and sabotaging the Eastern Block, but fiery enemy of each and every attempt towards democracy. Let aside the banal strategies of exploiting the so called Third World,its people and mineral ressources, and therfore overthrowing legitimately elected leaders and to then install dictatures.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
The United States has made its share of mistakes, as has every country. But by and large in its over-arching policies, the U.S. has nothing to apologize for, and neither do I.
The least have possibly been mistakes. There was and still is in place a completely undemocratic agenda on the benfit of US industrials.
And you don´t even ttry to imagine where we could be if the US foreign policy had not been suppressing autonomous development and progressive societal course in the world.
The truth is that American policies after WWII have radically messed up this world.
Just the feeding up of the worlds most fanatic mysticism alone has been an opening of Pandora´s box like no other in international history.
No unspeakable Stalin existence is going to change anything on such blaimful reality. - And Stalin at least had one point to chalk up for him ( * the halting of Hitler´s foray ), of which Middle Eastern retards would have nothing alike productive up their sleeves.
* BTW; follwing your rhetoric example: You wouldn´t had liked to live under a global SS regime either, innit. So one´s got to be thankful to Iosif Vissarionovic; right?
Posts: 3446
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to BarkellWH)
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
The United States has made its share of mistakes, as has every country. But by and large in its over-arching policies, the U.S. has nothing to apologize for, and neither do I.
Cheers,
Bill
Having been personally involved in one of those mistakes, and believing that many present day disasters stem at least in part from some of our mistakes, I think the USA has some things to apologize for.
If I tried to describe our overarching policies, I fear you would find a degree of cynicism in my description. But if you did, I would argue that my cynicism was directed at failure of foresight, not at consciously evil motives. Not being a champion at foresight myself….
From what I have seen, most of our mistakes have been bungling, not criminal conspiracy. The character of our mistakes springs from our culture. Like any culture in the history of the world, it is an uncompleted work. I almost said "a work in progress" but from my viewpoint we have backslid at times, progressed at times. {Yes, two different definitions of "progress".)
Four of my ancestors served as officers under General Washington--a Virginian, a North Carolinian--they were cousins--and two New Englanders. I think some of the idealism of their generation still survives, though today it might surface in opposing currents.
Under both Mao and Stalin perverted versions of communism took on the evil attributes of religion. Together with 20th century communications and organization they enabled enormous crimes.
I wholeheartedly agree that whatever the flaws of the West, it has been vastly preferable to the alternatives.
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
quote:
Still I believe scientists should continue to try to inform the general public, while adhering to their scientific values. The distinction between hypothesis and theory at least gives the scientists a short reply to one of the creationists' "gotchas". But I think the real debate is between productive doubt and stultifying dogma.
Posts: 3467
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
quote:
You may still expect educators to inculcate precision in language and critical thinking.
I absolutely expect educators to inculcate precision in language and critical thinking in their students. Politicians, religious fanatics, and others who wish to subvert ideas and programs to suit their own ends largely depend on imprecise language and a lack of critical thinking in their audience to serve those ends. Skilled individuals who are schooled in language, the use of argument, debate, and critical thinking will by and large be in a position to thwart arguments of those pushing everything from Creationism to other forms of religious intolerance and pseudo-science.
While the religious fanatic may be certain that he holds the truth from a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, Qu'ran, or other religious text, the evidence to counter his argument in the hands of one skilled in the use of precise language and critical thinking is usually sufficient to convince any rational person. (How hard is it to demonstrate that the earth is not 6,000 years old and life forms were not originally as they are today? The evidence is overwhelming.) One may not convince the "true believer," but that is not the point. It is to the vast majority who the true believer tries to convince that one must present the counter-argument. And that includes local school boards and their constituents.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Richard Jernigan
From what I have seen, most of our mistakes have been bungling, not criminal conspiracy.
It would be interesting to learn about this interpretation in view of examples like the overtrhowing of Mossadegh in Iran or of the Contra instigation against the Sandinista in Nicaragua, just to name two cases.
Printable Version
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread