Thread: HHT Levels?

Originally Posted by Jimbo

How on earth can a test be more predictive than the thing it is testing for? Let's try to keep the conversation in the realms of logic, please.

James.

From the standpoint of logic, the thing being tested for cannot be predictive at all. Because the shave test is nothing more than cutting many whiskers instead of just one, it follows that it cannot be as objective a test as the cutting of a single hair. After all, what is a good shave? Is it one that is BBS, DFS, one pass, two passes, or is it one that starts off wonderfully but degrades a bit as the shave continues? This subjectivity doesn't even take into account additional variables like technique and preparation.

While there may be levels of HHT as described in the Library article, it is still a comparatively objective fact whether the hanging hair is cut or not and in what way that happens. From the point of view of logic, a good shave is nearly undefinable, while the cutting of a single hair, no matter in what fashion that occurs, is much nearer to being a binary determination than whether a shave was a good one or not. Not only are the criteria for a good shave complex compared to the cutting of a single hair, but, even worse, the shave has to be subjectively evaluated by the person doing the shaving whereas the cutting of a single hair is a comparatively objective, much nearer to binary judgment.

At least the HHT is designed to be predictive. The problem with saying that a blade will shave well because it did shave well is that it is not predictive at all. In logic, such a statement is referred to as a tautology. It may be true all the time, but it cannot be predictive. The successful HHT, on the contrary, is not a tautologous reference, but is a logical implication which is inherently a predictive proposition.

Originally Posted by ace

From the standpoint of logic, the thing being tested for cannot be predictive at all. Because the shave test is nothing more than cutting many whiskers instead of just one, it follows that it cannot be as objective a test as the cutting of a single hair. After all, what is a good shave? Is it one that is BBS, DFS, one pass, two passes, or is it one that starts off wonderfully but degrades a bit as the shave continues? This subjectivity doesn't even take into account additional variables like technique and preparation.

While there may be levels of HHT as described in the Library article, it is still a comparatively objective fact whether the hanging hair is cut or not and in what way that happens. From the point of view of logic, a good shave is nearly undefinable, while the cutting of a single hair, no matter in what fashion that occurs, is much nearer to being a binary determination than whether a shave was a good one or not. Not only are the criteria for a good shave complex compared to the cutting of a single hair, but, even worse, the shave has to be subjectively evaluated by the person doing the shaving whereas the cutting of a single hair is a comparatively objective, much nearer to binary judgment.

At least the HHT is designed to be predictive. The problem with saying that a blade will shave well because it did shave well is that it is not predictive at all. In logic, such a statement is referred to as a tautology. It may be true all the time, but it cannot be predictive. The successful HHT, on the contrary, is not a tautologous reference, but is a logical implication which is inherently a predictive proposition.

I like your reasoning, but you completely skip the part of how a razor feels on the skin. One of the reasons for using a straight razor is the reduction of skin irritation and the unmatched soft skin feel. While I agree that the HHT is slightly more objective, it is only an indication of sharpness. It will tell if the razor will shave hairs, not if it will rub three layers of skin off and leave your face red for two days.

Other than that, we're discussion symantics. While interesting, it misses the point of the HHT even more.