Tuesday, February 18, 2014


I am surprised when knitters and spinners do not accept what I say. There are simple tests for everything that I say. I do tests on what others say, and I expect others to test what I say. What always surprises me is when people reject things without testing them.

It should not. I see that a quarter of all Americans do not accept that the Earth orbits the sun. (http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/1-in-4-americans-dont-know-earth-orbits-the-sun-yes-really-140214.htm ) This, of course, can be easily tested by watching and recording which constellations are near where the sun rises and sets in different seasons. It was well known in classical times, but somebody writing the Bible got it wrong and the church spouted nonsense for centuries.  Copernicus reminded them of what could be seen if they would just pay attention to what was in the sky, rather than what was in the Bible.

I look a the polls on evolution (e.g., http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx , http://ncse.com/polls-evolution , and see that only a minority of people accept the Darwin/ gene model that I consider most useful.

I look at polls on climate science e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/22/how-americans-see-global-warming-in-8-charts/ ) and again see that my views are in the minority.

Now really, why should I expect folks to be any better at spinning and knitting than they are at biology or atmospheric physics? On the other hand, almost every professional biologist accepts the Darwin/ biochemical model and almost every professional climate scientists accepts global warming.  It is only the people that are not familiar with details of these fields that reject evolution and global warming.

And, of course there is always, http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Gobshites_Kill_The_Planet


K A Archer said...

For the love of all that is holy. For the billionth time. It isn't, necessarily, *what* you say, more than how *you* say it.

I am using my real name. I'm not hiding behind anything. I am telling you what the issue is, as many people have tried to do in the past...I've seen the attempts...and it's *YOU* who does not listen.


=Tamar said...

It depends on which segment of the population is being tested and how large the sample is. According to one poll, the United States is more science-literate than Sweden. http:// ace.unl.edu/ archive/ ScientificLiteracy_Hobson,A.pdf

Gordon said...

Well, to briefly answer your question. Where people don't accept what you say it's because of:

a) Lack of evidence
b) Made-up bullshit invented on spot to make up for previous lack of evidence
c) Wild unsupported speculation (see also a) lack of evidence)
d) Wrong maths and physics
e) Wrong and/or made-up history
f) Hysterical attacks on anyone who has tested your wild claims and found them to be wrong
g) Strawman misrepresentations of other people's findings and opinions
h) A truly stunning inability to think anything through in a logical way
i) Jealousy of real experts which manifests itself in abovementioned hysterical attacks.

Too many examples to go into here, but they're all here or on Ravelry for those who wish to find them. And refuting specific claims all over again is a waste of my time because you'll invent some bizarre Gish Gallop non-refutation and run away.

Hope that helps.

Aaron said...

The proof is in the spinning.
I set out to spin faster, and I do.

I have posted a list of how fast I spin various grists. There might be a 10% variation from day to day, but as an average rate of spinning, the numbers are good. If I am racing or motivated, I can spin faster.

To get there, I had to go far outside the box. It may not be logical to you, but in the end, it works. My goal was not to stay inside the box, my goal was to make the yarn that I want in a reasonable time frame.

Likewise, you try to put all the spinners in history in a box. How fast do you spin? If all the spinners in Flanders and Florence had spun at that rate in the 16th century, could they have produced all the cloth that they exported? No, history does not fit in your box. All the numbers for that little calc. are on the Internet.

Would you like a demonstration? Let's get together and spin. You can use any muscle powered spinning device. I will use my Traddy. We can spin hanks (560 yards) of worsted singles @ 5,600 ypp (10s). For every hank you spin, I will pay you a $1,000 and you pay me $1,000 for every hank I spin. We should be able to spin 14 hours per day to produce 10 or 11 hanks per day. I am willing to make a similar wager for 20s or 40s. However, my hands are a bit rough for spinning 60s just now.

I am getting old, so this is a limited time offer. The point is that by thinking outside the box, I made tools that let me spin faster. You say, "it can't be done." I say, "Watch me do it", it will be an educational experience. I can spin 10 or 11 hanks of 10s in a day. That is a pound per day of what you would call "lace weight". Honestly, how much lace weight can you spin in a day?

Aaron said...

I do not think the exact numbers matter, what is important is that there are many in the US with misconceptions about science.

The problem is when we get a mob of such people that all feel the same way. Then they act like a mob, and mobs are dangerous. Gorden's points sound like the chant of a mob. (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestley_Riots )

Look at how passionate "Gordon" is. Has he watched me spin? No! Has he talked to somebody like Henry Clems that has watched me spin recently? No! Gorden just goes on and on, bearing false witness against me. That is not criminal, but it is a sin. That tell me what kind of a person Gordon is.

I am not going to take Gorden seriously as a spinner until he shows me that he can sit down and spin a pound of fine lace singles in a day.