Quote Originally Posted by gcbryan View Post
Haha...you are a tough audience. I don't think this was intended to be a scientific, peer reviewed paper was it? It was a blog, much like this forum. If someone went to that much effort and went into that degree of detail the bottom of that page would be lit up with "likes" and "Thank Yous" and you would probably be one of them, no?

Anyway, do we know that this guy just started honing the day he decided to do this test?
He has stated that he wants to publish, and he has also admitted that has no experience honing.
This is where the issue is. Lots of new folks that do not uite understand honing, and visuals stumble upon this blog, and see nice pics and "oh cool pics, done with an SEM, the guy must know what he is talking about". Except no one has an idea what a properly finished edge looks like at that level of magnification. So how can one make any conclusions that are of any reasonable value knowing the facts as we know them? We know, from experience, that honing a few razors, does not make one proficient in making razors really shave ready. We also can ask quite a few questions about how controlled all the set up and the process of preparation of the edge was to ask for some sort of statistical confirmation of the results. We can ask a lot of question about the scientific method used for the investigation. I can tell you that there were non and the conclusions are basically theoricrafting.

I am going to state from memory a part of a scentence on the Jnat slurry test "red kiita slurry" that right there is one single enxample of the level of knowledge of the OP.

This whole blog essentially is a logical fallacy, because there is no proof contrary to the statements made.
Here is an example:
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."