Thread: Paper testing razors

Originally Posted by Mike Blue

No problem. I appreciate that you followed the link. Rather than focus on individual variables like test conditions, the type of material and the steels, I suggest taking a wider view of how Cliff describes the process. In the end, his point is investigational bias and how it can result in Type 1 or Type 2 errors and how the investigator can come to an entirely unlooked for conclusion when bias is addressed, as he did when he found himself testing paper and not steels.

I can apply this doctrine to both sides of this discussion. There are a number of threats to validity that appear in both places. The balance shifts, however, in favor of the larger sample size represented by the study group here. This is not to say that your perspective does not have a place, it's simply a matter of addressing biases and the threats to validity in your supposition. There is still a lot to learn.

Time will answer a lot of questions. It's really too bad that you have raised a portion of the discussion that may have already been beaten to death a hundred years ago, or more, but that information lost to history. Now you're left in a position to prove your point and limited references except those in your own shop. Keep good notes so it doesn't get lost again.

I think just keeping the perspective that the test is a subjective, probing test takes a lot of the importance of the materials away. I use the HHT and that has similar issues with the hair being used. I have three distinct types of hair from the same lock of my hair that I use and calibrate my expected results to each type of hair. It is not an objective test, but I still find it useful.