PDA

View Full Version : Is string stiffness the same as string crispness?


mikeler
08-04-2010, 05:37 AM
Please explain why or why not.

Keifers
08-04-2010, 05:49 AM
Yes. Incontrovertibly, my dear Watson.

Because the experts say so.

Kirko
08-04-2010, 05:50 AM
what I think is crisp you might reject as crisp.

larry10s
08-04-2010, 06:02 AM
stiffness can be measured.
crispness is subjective.

fgs
08-04-2010, 06:03 AM
of course not. as i'm not a native speaker i looked up the definitions in the websters and the conclusion is that these two words are not synonims.
there are lots of players who refer to natural gut as providing a crisp feeling. i can agree with that. natural gut is very soft in terms of stiffness measurement but provides this crisp, fresh feeling. i may make another analogy - kfc sells crispy strips. well, there is nothing stiff about them!
no matter what string and what material and gauge you'll use, if you string it very tight, you'll have a very stiff stringbed but not a crisp stringbed. it will feel dead - even with natty gut at very high tensions (35-40kg).
glass is stiff but surely not crisp.
crispness is to some extent correlated to stiffness, but there are also other factors that tune in. recoil speed of the stringbed for instance, which would give you this crisp, fresh, lively feeling.
the problem with stiffness and crispness is that there are so many variables AND let's not forget that most lab tests are made on one piece of string - not a stringbed as we encounter on the court.
therefore we sometimes find that these measurements do not correlate fully with the court experience - i played the pacific poly force extreme. according to rsi measurements it's one of the stiffest polys on the market but it played surprisingly "soft, elastic, crisp". same goes for the luxilon adrenaline. other strings which are quite considerably lower in the rsi-rating play much stiffer in the sense of dead, no liveliness, no elasticity - low recoil speed of the STRINGBED in my opinion.
all these things depend on the stick you use, the balls you use, the temperatures you play at, the stringpattern, your swingspeed, your strokemechanics and the list can go on and on.
i hit in the upper third of the racquet, so a string that performs well when hit in the sweetspot can be harsh with my stroke habit and therefore another player, even if having comparable stroke mechanics, the same stick and the same tension might love the string while i find it not to be fitting.
stiffness ratings are not absolute and a tennis player will never be in the controled environment of a lab test!!!!

hoodjem
08-04-2010, 06:12 AM
Stiffness can be measured, whereas I believe that "crispness" is more psychological and subjective, and cannot be measured.

I have tried some strings that seem crisp and measure at a given number on the RSI stiffness scale. I have tried other strings that measure almost exactly the same stiffness, but do not feel crisp at all to me.

Two examples are CF 1.20 and SPPP 1.18. CF 1.20 measures 236 on the RSI stiffness scale and does feel crisp to me. SPPP 1.18 measures 239 on the same scale, but felt quite mushy or squishy, IMO.

Maybe in the future someone will invent a way of measuring "crispness." But as of right now, it is rather subjective.

rodrigoamaral
08-04-2010, 06:36 AM
it definately is not..

how you can guys ruin "centered"'s day like this?? i see him posting by this afternoon and i expect to see some f-bombs thrown at us

mikeler
08-04-2010, 06:45 AM
^^^ I'm looking forward to seeing the "one" vote for Yes :)

drakulie
08-04-2010, 07:04 AM
as others have pointed out, stiffness could be measured.

to me, a srting like BBO is very stiff, put I would hardly refer to it is a crisp string. More like a harsh,stiff string.

To me "crisp" would be a string that is lively feeling, and provides excellent feedback without having that "harsh/dead/muted" feel.

SteveI
08-04-2010, 09:23 AM
stiffness can be measured.
crispness is subjective.

That sums it up for me.. TF X-1 is crisp IMO...but not stiff.

Keifers
08-04-2010, 09:42 AM
To all those voting "No" :

How dare you??!!

Go to your rooms immediately.

mikeler
08-04-2010, 10:09 AM
To all those voting "No" :

How dare you??!!

Go to your rooms immediately.


Still waiting for the first dissenting Yes vote.

DownTheLine
08-04-2010, 10:10 AM
Still waiting for the first dissenting Yes vote.

There ya go. :)

Keifers
08-04-2010, 10:11 AM
Still waiting for the first dissenting Yes vote.
You mean from The Dissenter?

Keifers
08-04-2010, 10:14 AM
There ya go. :)
Idiot. We were saving the first Yes vote for The Dissenter.

Centered
08-04-2010, 11:27 AM
In other polling:

Spontaneous generation.
Flat Earth.
Geocentrism.
Facts, do you believe in them?
Measurements? Bah!

mikeler
08-04-2010, 11:29 AM
Idiot. We were saving the first Yes vote for The Dissenter.


OK, now I'm waiting for vote #2 :)

mikeler
08-09-2010, 09:45 AM
Hmm, a flat earth poll might be kind of interesting.

gflyer
08-09-2010, 12:21 PM
Vote #3 :-)

Centered
08-09-2010, 01:21 PM
I'm was thinking of starting a poll about whether or not the moon is really made of green cheese, but I think instead I'll ask if Girl Scout cookies are made from real girl scouts.

MarrratSafin
08-09-2010, 01:46 PM
No, IMHO. Luxilon Alu is stiff but I won't call it crisp, more like boardy and dead. WeissCannon Turbotwist is soft yet crisp feeling for me. Even the soft multi's like X1-Biphase can feel crisp.

mikeler
08-10-2010, 05:02 AM
I'm was thinking of starting a poll about whether or not the moon is really made of green cheese, but I think instead I'll ask if Girl Scout cookies are made from real girl scouts.


I'll vote on either of those.

bad_call
08-10-2010, 07:17 AM
crispness ~ how ball leaves the strings...just a thought.

Chezbeeno
08-10-2010, 07:43 AM
I think not. I view stiffness as a negative attribute whereas crispness is something I definitely desire in a string. Crispness is what gives you excellent feel on the ball (in my opinion at least) but a stiff string might very well feel quite dead on impact.

donnygg
08-10-2010, 07:48 AM
For me, a crisp string pockets the ball and snaps back. A mushy string pockets and slowly propels the ball. A stiff string doesn't pocket. So, to me, no, stiffness =/= crispness.

bad_call
08-10-2010, 09:27 AM
For me, a crisp string pockets the ball and snaps back. A mushy string pockets and slowly propels the ball. A stiff string doesn't pocket. So, to me, no, stiffness =/= crispness.

yeah...i see you got the memo.

kcjim
08-10-2010, 10:30 AM
imo crispness is a function of how quick a string returns to its original position (and hence the rate of energy return to the ball) after being struck, whereas stiffness is a strings resistance to deflection when struck. They would have to be two different things, therefore.

The Dampener
08-10-2010, 03:53 PM
Hate to monkeywrench this discussion, but where does firmness fit in?

mikeler
08-11-2010, 04:16 AM
Hate to monkeywrench this discussion, but where does firmness fit in?


Start your own poll pal! :)

genius24
08-11-2010, 06:12 AM
Please explain why or why not.

you need to ask Centered, the TTW resident expert on this...

Centered
08-11-2010, 08:53 AM
you need to ask Centered, the TTW resident expert on this...
I think you mean the Tennis Warehouse Professor, the people who write the Racquet Sports Industry articles, and every Engineer and Physicist on the planet. Find me a textbook, or even an academic paper, that discusses the properties of strings that supports the notion that there is a unique property called crispness.

After all, none of those people have supported the claim that there's some mysterious property of strings called "crispness". However, what the Tennis Warehouse professor said is that stiffness is the only objective property for comparing strings. And RSI said stiffness and crispness are synonymous.

People can pretend that polls affect reality and that expert-back facts don't exist if they want to. Please continue! So far no one in this forum has provided even a shred of actual proof that crispness is different than stiffness. Anecdote and the bandwagon and ad hominem fallacies don't cut it.

Centered
08-11-2010, 08:59 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

I am perfectly happy to see crispness as something different from stiffness once someone here does credible testing and provides some evidence.

Or, just pick up an Engineering textbook and post a PDF of the relevant material, highlighted.

Really, any sort of actual evidence will do.

gflyer
08-11-2010, 09:33 AM
Stiffness is a physical measurable property.
Crispness is more a perception of stiffness IMHO.
So crispness CANNOT be measured and it IS NOT the same thing as stiffness.
But for one specific person the perception is always the same.
So if I use two different strings, the stiffer one will feel crispier TO ME.
So for one specific person stiffness and crispness are strictly correlated.

Now, I am thinking how to come up with an argument to prove that the moon is flat. :-)
fun thread. Thanks.
Cheers,
g

Centered
08-11-2010, 10:52 AM
Stiffness is a physical measurable property.
Crispness is more a perception of stiffness.
By that logic, crispness and stiffness are the same.

All you're saying is that crispness is a muddy understanding of stiffness. That's hardly impressive.

the stiffer one will feel crispier TO ME.
And if the argument is that crispness is so subjective then it's a waste of time for people to comment on it, because it will only matter "TO THEM".

Centered
08-11-2010, 10:54 AM
So crispness CANNOT be measured

If there's no evidence for it, it's magic, not a physical property in reality.

Saying something can't be measured is a cop-out and it won't fly. The emperor's new set of clothing (http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm) can't be measured, either.

You know, I've been through all this before. I don't care to repeat myself a dozen times.

jmverdugo
08-11-2010, 11:05 AM
I think you mean the Tennis Warehouse Professor, the people who write the Racquet Sports Industry articles, and every Engineer and Physicist on the planet. Find me a textbook, or even an academic paper, that discusses the properties of strings that supports the notion that there is a unique property called crispness.




I am an engineer and I beleive they are different. I beleive that the stiffness is a property of the string and the crispness is refered to the whole stringbed. It may not be a property but it is the feeling you get from hitting with a given string at a given tension. By the way, the measurement of stiffness on a string is done to a single string. You can have a string in your hand and you can tell if it is stiff or not but you can't tell the type of stringbed it will produce. With some strings you get a stringbed that everytime you hit ball you feel like the strings "breaks" , it is a very distinctive feeling, that is IMO crispness. Can it be measured? I do not know, I know crispness in food can be measured, but honestly I really do not care.

Centered
08-11-2010, 11:10 AM
I beleive that the stiffness is a property of the string and the crispness is refered to the whole stringbed. It may not be a property but it is the feeling you get from hitting with a given string at a given tension. By the way, the measurement of stiffness on a string is done to a single string. You can have a string in your hand and you can tell if it is stiff or not but you can't tell the type of stringbed it will produce. With some strings you get a stringbed that everytime you hit ball you feel like the strings "breaks" , it is a very distinctive feeling, that is IMO crispness.
Then, as I suggested in the older topic on this, perhaps this "crispness" has to do with foundational stiffness, as well as dynamic stiffness.

In any case, it's still a matter of stiffness. The problem one runs into when dealing with issues of foundational stiffness is ambiguity, as the engineering text I quoted mentioned. There are a lot of variables, like:

String tension. String pattern. Head shape. Racquet material. Where the ball was stuck on the string bed. And on and on. It makes things needlessly complicated when comparing strings unless all the variables are the same. And, how is someone going to practically measure foundational stiffness given the plethora of racquets and tensions used?

Maybe it's worth doing, but "crispness" it ain't. It's still a matter of stiffness.

Centered
08-11-2010, 11:14 AM
The problem with this "crispness" stuff is that even if it has something to do with foundational stiffness it can also be a matter of the dynamic stiffness in the way people use the term – mixed up. It makes things too muddy.

There needs to be a way to separate foundational from dynamic stiffness in order for comparisons to be clear enough. And, I'd like someone to prove that this is a matter of foundational stiffness before I spend a lot more time musing on it. So far, no one talking about strings in an expert capacity has discussed foundational stiffness as being a significant factor.

jmverdugo
08-11-2010, 11:20 AM
Then, as I suggested in the older topic on this, perhaps this "crispness" has to do with foundational stiffness, as well as dynamic stiffness.

In any case, it's still a matter of stiffness. The problem one runs into when dealing with issues of foundational stiffness is ambiguity, as the engineering text I quoted mentioned. There are a lot of variables, like:

String tension. String pattern. Head shape. Racquet material. Where the ball was stuck on the string bed. And on and on. It makes things needlessly complicated when comparing strings unless all the variables are the same. And, how is someone going to practically measure foundational stiffness given the plethora of racquets and tensions used?

There are not a lot of variables, since I am talking about something I feel and it is relative, all I have to do to know the feeling of a given string is to string my racquet with it and go out a hit with it. The only variable is the string.



Maybe it's worth doing, but "crispness" it ain't. It's still a matter of stiffness.

Do you have any tests that show it isn't crispness? ... nevermind ... I am done with this discussion.

Centered
08-11-2010, 01:11 PM
There are not a lot of variables
The Engineering encyclopedia says foundational stiffness involves ambiguity.

since I am talking about something I feel and it is relative, all I have to do to know the feeling of a given string is to string my racquet with it and go out a hit with it. The only variable is the string.
But that "feeling", this high level of subjectivity due to many variables, is hardly useful when comparing strings in an objective practical way. It's like my signature, with a quote from Brian Gottfried (paraphrase):

I kept asking the technicians for a more flexible racquet, but after much trial and error nothing worked. After Warren Bosworth got involved I realized I actually wanted a stiffer racquet!

That a tennis professional can be so clueless about stiffness suggests that highly subjective musing about "crispness" isn't very useful in comparison with objective testing/measurement. As the TW Prof and RSI make clear, stiffness is what matters.

Do you have any tests that show it isn't crispness? ... nevermind ... I am done with this discussion.
Not that again.

Once again, when someone makes a claim that has no evidence to back it up, the burden of proof is on them. I have backed up my claims with hard evidence. Even my musing about foundational stiffness has an Engineering encyclopedia entry to back it up.

The "crispness" stuff ranges from "it can't be tested" to "it is so subjective that only I can understand what it's like for me".

mikeler
08-11-2010, 01:53 PM
Finally this thread has gotten going! My thanks to Centered for finally engaging.

bumfluff
08-11-2010, 02:17 PM
My opinion is that stiffness is different to crispness.

Stiffness is easily measured as the resultant rate of strain under an applied rate of stress when a material is not subjected to loads which cause it to deform plastically (ie. an unrecoverable deformation). This however is a static load test which is not the conditions when playing tennis, a dynamic load test on a string bed would vary not only due to string type but also string pattern, racket size etc.

Crispness is not a quantity as such, however I believe it could still be measured but not in a situation which could apply to every player and every racket. Crispness is based on feedback to the player which in tennis would be in the form of vibrations from the string bed. It would be possible to measure vibrations in the handle and determine whether a string is crisp or not based upon some average string which would have to be user specific. My guess would be that a crisp string would give a larger amplitude of vibration giving more feedback to the player.

gflyer
08-11-2010, 02:32 PM
If there's no evidence for it, it's magic, not a physical property in reality.

Saying something can't be measured is a cop-out and it won't fly. The emperor's new set of clothing (http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm) can't be measured, either.

You know, I've been through all this before. I don't care to repeat myself a dozen times.
Chill out man.
I just stated my opinion. I am not saying I am right...and to be honest I don't care if I am right. It is the least of my problems.
I just come to this board for fun not to expand my ego.
Cheers,
G

The Dampener
08-11-2010, 03:36 PM
Posters egos can't be measured, but I'm pretty sure they exist.

Anyone care to debate me on that?

jmverdugo
08-11-2010, 04:13 PM
Years ago there were tons of things that couldn't be measured but smart people wouldn't dare to say that they did not exist, same thing happen these days, just because something can't be measured or isn't defined yet it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, people need to leave open the posibility to new ideas - things change everyday. There is also the chance that some people have reached their top level of understanding so it doesn't matter what do you say they just can't get it, then any discussion becomes useless. Now I need some stairs to get down of my high horse ...:)

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/funny-pictures-superior-cat-on-horse.jpg

Centered
08-11-2010, 05:43 PM
Finally this thread has gotten going! My thanks to Centered for finally engaging.
Going in circles once again. Someone wake me when some actual evidence is produced for your side.
I just stated my opinion. I am not saying I am right...and to be honest I don't care if I am right. It is the least of my problems. I just come to this board for fun not to expand my ego.
(The world's biggest eye roll.)

rodrigoamaral
08-11-2010, 05:44 PM
Going in circles once again. Someone wake me when some actual evidence is produced for your side.

Centered: You are losing 36-6..maybe it's time to move on to another, more intelligent discussion?

Centered
08-11-2010, 05:49 PM
My opinion is that stiffness is different to crispness.

Stiffness is easily measured as the resultant rate of strain under an applied rate of stress when a material is not subjected to loads which cause it to deform plastically (ie. an unrecoverable deformation). This however is a static load test which is not the conditions when playing tennis, a dynamic load test on a string bed would vary not only due to string type but also string pattern, racket size etc.
The Tennis Warehouse article clearly states that dynamic, not static, stiffness is the main issue.
Crispness is based on feedback to the player which in tennis would be in the form of vibrations from the string bed. It would be possible to measure vibrations in the handle and determine whether a string is crisp or not based upon some average string which would have to be user specific. My guess would be that a crisp string would give a larger amplitude of vibration giving more feedback to the player.
Stiffer strings feel stiffer. Whether or not vibration is perceived differently will likely depend upon some of the variables I mentioned, like stringing tension, racquet material/shape, and so forth. A stiff string in a wooden racquet is not going to cause shock that feels the same as if it's in a Pure Drive.

I'm done with the speculation. If someone wants to prove this crispness, write to the TW Professor and get him/her to post!

Centered
08-11-2010, 05:50 PM
Centered: You are losing 36-6..maybe it's time to move on to another, more intelligent discussion?
Your latter point is a good one, since the former shows just how paltry this "discussion" is. If you think truth is created by popularity I suggest re-evaluating that belief. There are more people in North America who believe in Astrology and psychics, too.

The Dampener
08-11-2010, 06:56 PM
No, of course not. The truth isn't created by popularity. It's created by categorically dismissing others and their beliefs in the hopeless pursuit of being crowned The Last Poster Standing.

Sheesh, everyone knows that!

fgs
08-12-2010, 04:23 AM
holy cow!!! i just had a revelation!!!!
the universe does not exist pecause it can't be measured. so far, it seems that the experts don't know where it starts and where it ends, so since there is no hard evidence to back this up, the universe doesn't exist.
a truly wonderful perspective!

origmarm
08-12-2010, 04:46 AM
This again? :)

My take on it, I think it can be measured, just it hasn't been done.

What is crispness:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4872297&postcount=63

How is this different to dynamic stiffness:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4889656&postcount=137

Centered
08-12-2010, 05:28 PM
How is this different to dynamic stiffness:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4889656&postcount=137
I took a look at this and it seems like a speculative tangle of partially misused terminology. Plus, two of the paragraphs had sentences with "to me" in them.

Science isn't "to me". Science is to reality.

Centered
08-12-2010, 05:29 PM
holy cow!!! i just had a revelation!!!!
the universe does not exist pecause it can't be measured. so far, it seems that the experts don't know where it starts and where it ends, so since there is no hard evidence to back this up, the universe doesn't exist.
a truly wonderful perspective!
Try harder.

rodrigoamaral
08-12-2010, 05:29 PM
Your latter point is a good one, since the former shows just how paltry this "discussion" is. If you think truth is created by popularity I suggest re-evaluating that belief. There are more people in North America who believe in Astrology and psychics, too.

lol.........no comment

Centered
08-12-2010, 05:29 PM
No, of course not. The truth isn't created by popularity. It's created by categorically dismissing others and their beliefs in the hopeless pursuit of being crowned The Last Poster Standing.

Sheesh, everyone knows that!
Once again, the ad hominem fallacy does not substitute for evidence.

The Dampener
08-12-2010, 06:16 PM
Once again, the ad hominem fallacy does not substitute for evidence.

Ad hominem? You bet. Fallacy? Far from it.

My satirical statement successfully spotlights your stubborn stance. Buy why am I explaining my comments? Instead, in situations like this when others aren't persuaded by my lack of imagination and glib attitude, I should just type out a flip little response like, ohhh, I dunno, maybe..."Try harder."

Centered
08-12-2010, 08:06 PM
Again, the ad hominem fallacy does not substitute for evidence. Try harder.

You could, for instance, write to the TW Prof. But, that would require constructive action rather than more of the same.

origmarm
08-13-2010, 02:28 AM
I took a look at this and it seems like a speculative tangle of partially misused terminology.

I'm not really sure where I misused terminology, I just tried to make it into English as opposed to mathematics as I'm posting on a tennis board, not a discussion of classical mechanics terminology. When I studied this it was in German so sometimes the terminology is difficult to translate/pinpoint without using maths. I'm no physics professor so the translations I used are the aerospace standard which may differ from those taught in physics classes I guess. I don't think it alters the key distinctions

Dynamic stiffness for me (and the aerospace industry, where I got my understanding of it) is measured using the direct stiffness method. A brief explanation of it can be found here (yes I know it's Wikipedia but it's correct...."for me" :)):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_stiffness_method

I don't think there's any misuse of that terminology based on the commonly accepted direct stiffness method definition.

Dynamic stiffness in simple terms is different from static stiffness i.e. there is constant (as opposed to vibrating) force applied to measure static stiffness.

As for the difference between dynamic stiffness and velocity of elasticity, dynamic stiffness is the amount of distortion that occurs when a vibrating force is applied. Velocity of elasticity is the speed at which a material returns to it's original shape once the force has been removed. For me that's the difference between dynamic stiffness and velocity of elasticity which I would equate to "crispness".

I'm not really sure what you think is contentious about that. You just don't think that "crispness" is velocity of elasticity but simply static stiffness?

I feel that fails to explain how people perceive things that are not statically stiff as "crisp", whereas if you consider it as velocity is both explains how statically stiff string tends to be crisp but also how it's not necessarily the case.

Plus, two of the paragraphs had sentences with "to me" in them. Science isn't "to me". Science is to reality.

"To me" as in my understanding of the science as opposed to the science itself. I'm willing to accept that my understanding is incomplete. There are people that spend their entire lives studying this and I'm not one of them, thankfully :)

fgs
08-13-2010, 03:01 AM
every material has a certain stiffness. for strings, the experts of rsi have devised a method of measuring this - they tension a single piece of string and determine a physical value. so far, everything is perfect, even if i understood that tw professor has devised another method (more detailed because he's tensioning at different values) of measuring stiffness (also on a single sting) at different tensions and obtains partially different results as rsi. i'm not scientist but i can understand the different methods and am very sure that they are scientifically correct.
there are two points i would like you all to help me get cleared:
1. can a single string (as measured by the rsi or tw) have crispness? in my opinion not, because what i refer to as crispness, and i see some other fellows here on the board do the same, is the feeling a STRINGBED confers, which is strung into a frame at a specific tension for each player. therefore it is in my opinion perfectly possible that the same string, at the same tension but in different frames feels crisp in one setting and not crisp at all in another one. not to talk about stroke mechanics of each individual and position of the point of impact on the stringbed (i for instance hit in the upper third, so some strings that feel ok for some do feel harsh - not crisp - for me!).
2. there cannot be a 100% correlation of stiffness and crispness because we all know (at least those who had the priviledge of playing vs team), that a soft string can feel crisp. so, we are basically talking about the measurement of a value taken on one piece of string vs. the feel a full stringbed confers. i can vvery easily imagine (in fact i have even experienced this), that the same string can feel crisp at a certain tension and dead at a higher tension - the stiffness of the material being obviously the same!!!

mikeler
08-13-2010, 04:36 AM
Again, the ad hominem fallacy does not substitute for evidence. Try harder.

You could, for instance, write to the TW Prof. But, that would require constructive action rather than more of the same.


You rely on the TW Prof. as one of your core arguments yet we don't really know the qualifications of this person. Come to think of it, we also don't know the qualifications of the folks at RSI. The RSI tests seem quite simple, so I have a tendency to trust their data more.

Centered
08-13-2010, 11:18 AM
More ad hominem. More of the same.

I also relied on Engineering encyclopedias.

You do realize that I have more expert testimony behind me than your side does, right? So, please save the red herrings and provide some actual evidence for your side.

If one looks at the RSI String Selector 2010 and the TW Database, one will see a lot more objective information and analysis than one will get from your posts. lol

For me that's the difference between dynamic stiffness and velocity of elasticity which I would equate to "crispness".

I'm not really sure what you think is contentious about that.
Two things:

1. "For me". Speculative.
2. The term crispness has no scientific basis. There is no published scientific literature anywhere that uses the term. So, it's not acceptable for serious discussion. Every physical property of strings has very likely been documented so people should discover which existing terminology is appropriate first.

Keifers
08-13-2010, 12:04 PM
More ad hominem. More of the same.


What do you mean by "ad hominem"? I've looked it up and there are a couple of meanings given. I'd like to know how you're using it.

Centered
08-13-2010, 12:33 PM
An ad hominem ("shoot the messenger") changes the subject by questioning the credibility of the messenger rather than the message. It's therefore a fallacy because it doesn't engage the message itself, bypassing it for the purposes of (usually emotional) distraction.

The ad hominem "works" only when there is evidence provided that the speaker's credibility makes the message so questionable that it is generally unworthy of examination. An example is if someone asks Sarah Palin for her views on particle Physics at a conference. If someone stands up and says "Sarah Palin is unqualified to give a worthwhile opinion", that ad hominem actually is fairly worthwhile. However, it is entirely possible for her to read an expert's opinion that very successfully addresses the question.

Ad hominem is a heuristic (a shortcut) but the vast majority of the time it is used to attack a speaker because the attacker is either too lazy to engage the message or knows he/she can't provide a proper rebuttal. Ad hominem is rarely acceptable in quality discussions. It's much better practice to simply respond to the claims made by a person with a proper fact-backed rebuttal.

Some of the posters here who continually use ad hominem will reply to this post with "ya, you are a good Palin-like example", but that fails given the fact that I have cited credible sources and provided direct evidence from them. By contrast, the attackers have not provided credible sourced evidence.

origmarm
08-16-2010, 05:59 AM
Two things:
1. "For me". Speculative.
2. The term crispness has no scientific basis. There is no published scientific literature anywhere that uses the term. So, it's not acceptable for serious discussion. Every physical property of strings has very likely been documented so people should discover which existing terminology is appropriate first.

Re 1, it's not speculative. It's my understanding which may or may not be correct as I'm not omniscient. Definitive proclamations in the realm of science have an awful habit of being shown to be incomplete or incorrect years from now :).

I think we are saying the same thing here in an odd sort of way. The term "crispness" is not defined. As such you've equated it with stiffness. I think in this case it's that this particular property ("crispness") of strings has not been either measured consistently or documented as opposed to being equal to stiffness. So I think we're both agreed that it's undefined. I just think we disagree as to how to define it...