This reminds me of an episode of This American Life, A little bit of knowledge. Making up something that sounds logical but is total bullshit is to "quote Modern Jackass".
"A couple years ago, friends of hers were traveling in Europe, and they are walking through these old buildings. And these people do not know anything special about architecture. But you know how it is when you're a tourist. They're walking through these buildings, and they're looking at the doorways and the tiles. And they decide that they think that this one building has a very Moorish influence. And they're pointing out details, and saying the Moors this, and the Moors that. And finally, one of them turns to the other and says, you know what? We sound like we're in a magazine, a magazine called Modern Jackass.
Modern Jackass. Of course, there is no Modern Jackass. But ever since I heard that story, I found myself referring to Modern Jackass all the time. It's incredibly useful, and it could be useful to you, to back out of all kinds of awkward conversational situations."
It seems that going forward it is going to be increasingly harder to filter out myths, half truths and just plain lies (in all areas of life) as AI is going to throw everything every put to into computer storage in our faces. We will need new tools to find truth and to navigate best practices. Good judgement will be valuable. Combining old knowledge and thoughtful consideration with small tests and observation such as Chris has done through his career will be a good place to start.
I remember in one of my first woodworking classes, one of my fellow students had brought his own hand plane from home to the class. I had never seen one before and asked if I could look at it. After picking it up and feeling its weight in my hands, I placed it back on his bench -- on its sole. He immediately turned it on its side and explained why hand planes must never rest on their soles, only their sides! I held onto that "fact" for quite a while.
I wonder if that "place it on its' side" mantra, is partly responsible for the planes with busted or missing cheeks found at flea and second hand tool sales.
I had to laugh about Megan's note because there is one chair type which is an exception. In quite a few states for many years the state penitentiary woodshops made furniture that was commonly found in schools and other public buildings. The standard teacher's chair design was this mortise and tenon frame with the seat being a cover to it. Unlike the situation in staked furniture, in that particular design, the stretchers do reduce the breaking forces on the eight glued joints just under the seat (2 joints per leg). Some variants of that design also have diagonal blocks to help relieve the stresses on those joints. Those were great old chairs if you can find one. I've seen some modern lighter weight copies of them recently.
Acknowledging (and genuinely living amidst ) uncertainty is fundamental to developing community and removing barriers to growth in skills and character for ourselves and those around us. How I wish I had loved my children better by more fully embracing this insight sooner. Better late than never
On the one hand, we do live in a very literal-minded time. And many of the online readers take things so literally that yeah, from a practical standpoint, this is probably pretty critical.
On the other hand, some of that kind of commentary hews so close to the long-standing American tradition of telling tall tales that it seems almost a shame to do away with it entirely.
Like when my planer broke down, and I had to use a stick-mounted cat to finish the job.
Or when I used photoshop to adjust the color of the finish on those chairs, so the client would finally take delivery.
And (with hat over heart)
I still mourn that long-forgotten infill plane maker, whose life was cut short by an exploding workbench. If only he understood how dangerous wood movement could be. May he rest in pieces.
Maybe it’s my exposure to other trades-folk, and their long-standing tradition of pulling the new guy’s leg. I don’t mind a little bit of misinformation, because teaching the new guy to think for themselves, and recognize BS when they hear it, can be really helpful.
All of this is true about horticulture and plants too. I waver between feeling responsible to correct misinformation and feeling like that’s a sure road to insanity.
I stopped obsessing over finishing both sides of tabletops after reading your advice. I stopped for a minute, and thought -- there are tons of pieces, 100s of years old, that have tops not finished on both sides.
It sure would make things easy if it was a simple as taking a poll of the literature to separate fact from myth but it isn't. If there aren't hard data available that were obtained with methods that are transparent, and within your area of expertise to evaluate, then it is just a myth/hypothesis. For example, did someone conduct an experiment to determine vapor penetration through table tops with both sides finished in different woods, with different finishes, under different usage and cleaning methods, in different climates through the life spans of the tables. And what are the outcome risks if you are wrong. Most of science doesn't publish retractions when later experiments indicate that the original myth/hypothesis is proved wrong.
Sometimes in day to day life certainty just doesn't matter and it is OK to do a table top any which way without a definitive data but with good enough data through observation of non-random table tops that you have inspected or heard about from others in the limited areas that you or they have visited.
Sometimes it isn't. A few months ago I posted that SawStop had determined that using blades with anti-kick back nubs, like the blades you suggested we buy at home centers when they are on sale, produce significantly higher levels of injury than those that don't because the SawStop device doesn't actuate as well. SawStop requests that all triggering events be reported to them and presumably they have a lot more data than one shop might. Your response to me was that in your shop, on the couple occasions that your SawStop saw had been triggered, it hadn't made a difference. You were creating a myth based on a very small sample size for an event that has serious consequences, unlike whether both sides of a table top are finished.
The hardest myths to eradicate are the stories we tell ourselves based on our own experiences and cognitive biases. Bias in this usage is a neutral term to describe predictable and proven thought processes which we all share.
I would argue that the scientific approach isn't necessary in most things in woodworking. We know that vapor passes through most finishes. It is an observable fact – like the fact that water passes through a T-shirt. We knew this long before we had scientific experiments.
Plus, in addition to the literature, we have the furniture record. This tells us massive amounts of information that a lab never could.
Plus, there is fact, and there is what is significant. The SawStop example is one of these things.
The problem is people making leaps without observations and experience.
Well heck, you rely on science for so much in woodworking that you take it for granted. Take specific density, hardness, stability, kiln drying, and on an on. All done by scientists in the US and UK forest product testing labs so long ago and conducted on old growth woods that don't exist anymore.
I for one have no sense that allows me to observe water vapor passing through finishes or through a tee shirt. I used to make devices in a lab that measured relatively humidity differences and they are finnicky things. Are you talking about a sweat soaked cotton tee shirt where water vapor can't possibly pass through but water evaporates from the liquid saturated outside surface or one of those new fangled materials developed by scientists that pass water so fast that they never feel wet?
You have a n=3 replication in your shop. Presumably, SawStop has a n=hundreds replication in its records, it would be a good article, have the journalist in you ask them.
SawStop says that on average, over presumably lots of accidents that using the blade that you recommend can result in significant injury, primarily your needing stitches instead of just a nick. Deeper cuts requiring stiches have other risks such as cutting a nerve or infection. SawStop has essentially flipped a coin hundreds of times and they have found that it is a biased coin that favors increased injury. How you use that information to inform your personally risk assessment over a few dollars saved on a blade is up to you. You as a user of a SawStop saw have flipped a coin but three times and have gotten heads each time. That is not a remarkable result.
Thank you ! It would be interesting for me to have a look on a short list of debunked myths, as I learned today that there's no need to finish the both sides of a tabletop for example. I read everywhere that otherwise wood will warp indeed. Most of the time, my answer to myself is for sure "I don't know"...
Wood moves regardless of finish, but in response to how it was sawn, plain, rift quarter. Its movement is controlled by moisture, notably humidity where the piece resides. Tables taken from back east, 40 pct to Arizona at 1pct shrink and the joints will simply fall apart.
Hi Chris. You mentioned sanding raw wood with a very fine sandpaper. I tend to do that because I figure smoother is better. However you suggested there are downsides. What might they be? Thank you.
If you are using a film finish (such as shellac or varnish), there is no benefit to sanding above #220 (or so). The film will look and feel the same. So it's wasted effort.
If you are applying oil, then finer grits are fine.
My understanding.. is that over-fine sanding creates wood dust of such fineness that it clogs the pores of the wood and inhibits absorption of stain or finish. So stop at 180 or 240.
Or is THAT a wives tale? And what about sanding sealer? Isn’t that expressly intended to clog the pores…?
I think that once the grit becomes finer than the structural fibers of the wood, you aren’t really changing the surface texture anymore. You are just pulverizing the fibers, which creates a sort of dust film over the natural surface texture. But that’s me doing the exact BS myth building this post is talking about.
Megan wrote; "this is why I (Megan) argue with the people ... who (say) chairs without stretchers will fall apart. ... …but I’ll never win."
I think you win every time you try (just try!) to correct someone's mistaken idea.
Because just speaking/standing up for 'the facts' (the truth) is a win IMO.
"The truth will set you free."
This reminds me of an episode of This American Life, A little bit of knowledge. Making up something that sounds logical but is total bullshit is to "quote Modern Jackass".
to quote:
"A couple years ago, friends of hers were traveling in Europe, and they are walking through these old buildings. And these people do not know anything special about architecture. But you know how it is when you're a tourist. They're walking through these buildings, and they're looking at the doorways and the tiles. And they decide that they think that this one building has a very Moorish influence. And they're pointing out details, and saying the Moors this, and the Moors that. And finally, one of them turns to the other and says, you know what? We sound like we're in a magazine, a magazine called Modern Jackass.
Modern Jackass. Of course, there is no Modern Jackass. But ever since I heard that story, I found myself referring to Modern Jackass all the time. It's incredibly useful, and it could be useful to you, to back out of all kinds of awkward conversational situations."
Hahahaha. Some days I feel like I edit that magazine.
While you folks debate this I'm going to grab a bottle of Formby's and go feed my wood.
Would that be considered "nourishing" your wood?
You guys gave a Facebook page?
It seems that going forward it is going to be increasingly harder to filter out myths, half truths and just plain lies (in all areas of life) as AI is going to throw everything every put to into computer storage in our faces. We will need new tools to find truth and to navigate best practices. Good judgement will be valuable. Combining old knowledge and thoughtful consideration with small tests and observation such as Chris has done through his career will be a good place to start.
I remember in one of my first woodworking classes, one of my fellow students had brought his own hand plane from home to the class. I had never seen one before and asked if I could look at it. After picking it up and feeling its weight in my hands, I placed it back on his bench -- on its sole. He immediately turned it on its side and explained why hand planes must never rest on their soles, only their sides! I held onto that "fact" for quite a while.
I wonder if that "place it on its' side" mantra, is partly responsible for the planes with busted or missing cheeks found at flea and second hand tool sales.
I had to laugh about Megan's note because there is one chair type which is an exception. In quite a few states for many years the state penitentiary woodshops made furniture that was commonly found in schools and other public buildings. The standard teacher's chair design was this mortise and tenon frame with the seat being a cover to it. Unlike the situation in staked furniture, in that particular design, the stretchers do reduce the breaking forces on the eight glued joints just under the seat (2 joints per leg). Some variants of that design also have diagonal blocks to help relieve the stresses on those joints. Those were great old chairs if you can find one. I've seen some modern lighter weight copies of them recently.
I support calling BS too. And I've pissed off no end of people for doing it, even when I've done my best to be respectful and kind.
Oh well. People get their knickers in a knot all too easily.
The truth will always set woodworkers free.
Acknowledging (and genuinely living amidst ) uncertainty is fundamental to developing community and removing barriers to growth in skills and character for ourselves and those around us. How I wish I had loved my children better by more fully embracing this insight sooner. Better late than never
On the one hand, we do live in a very literal-minded time. And many of the online readers take things so literally that yeah, from a practical standpoint, this is probably pretty critical.
On the other hand, some of that kind of commentary hews so close to the long-standing American tradition of telling tall tales that it seems almost a shame to do away with it entirely.
Like when my planer broke down, and I had to use a stick-mounted cat to finish the job.
Or when I used photoshop to adjust the color of the finish on those chairs, so the client would finally take delivery.
And (with hat over heart)
I still mourn that long-forgotten infill plane maker, whose life was cut short by an exploding workbench. If only he understood how dangerous wood movement could be. May he rest in pieces.
Maybe it’s my exposure to other trades-folk, and their long-standing tradition of pulling the new guy’s leg. I don’t mind a little bit of misinformation, because teaching the new guy to think for themselves, and recognize BS when they hear it, can be really helpful.
But maybe not online.
All of this is true about horticulture and plants too. I waver between feeling responsible to correct misinformation and feeling like that’s a sure road to insanity.
Why am I suddenly thinking about IPAs?
Me too
I stopped obsessing over finishing both sides of tabletops after reading your advice. I stopped for a minute, and thought -- there are tons of pieces, 100s of years old, that have tops not finished on both sides.
And they're fine. Duh.
It sure would make things easy if it was a simple as taking a poll of the literature to separate fact from myth but it isn't. If there aren't hard data available that were obtained with methods that are transparent, and within your area of expertise to evaluate, then it is just a myth/hypothesis. For example, did someone conduct an experiment to determine vapor penetration through table tops with both sides finished in different woods, with different finishes, under different usage and cleaning methods, in different climates through the life spans of the tables. And what are the outcome risks if you are wrong. Most of science doesn't publish retractions when later experiments indicate that the original myth/hypothesis is proved wrong.
Sometimes in day to day life certainty just doesn't matter and it is OK to do a table top any which way without a definitive data but with good enough data through observation of non-random table tops that you have inspected or heard about from others in the limited areas that you or they have visited.
Sometimes it isn't. A few months ago I posted that SawStop had determined that using blades with anti-kick back nubs, like the blades you suggested we buy at home centers when they are on sale, produce significantly higher levels of injury than those that don't because the SawStop device doesn't actuate as well. SawStop requests that all triggering events be reported to them and presumably they have a lot more data than one shop might. Your response to me was that in your shop, on the couple occasions that your SawStop saw had been triggered, it hadn't made a difference. You were creating a myth based on a very small sample size for an event that has serious consequences, unlike whether both sides of a table top are finished.
The hardest myths to eradicate are the stories we tell ourselves based on our own experiences and cognitive biases. Bias in this usage is a neutral term to describe predictable and proven thought processes which we all share.
I would argue that the scientific approach isn't necessary in most things in woodworking. We know that vapor passes through most finishes. It is an observable fact – like the fact that water passes through a T-shirt. We knew this long before we had scientific experiments.
Plus, in addition to the literature, we have the furniture record. This tells us massive amounts of information that a lab never could.
Plus, there is fact, and there is what is significant. The SawStop example is one of these things.
The problem is people making leaps without observations and experience.
Well heck, you rely on science for so much in woodworking that you take it for granted. Take specific density, hardness, stability, kiln drying, and on an on. All done by scientists in the US and UK forest product testing labs so long ago and conducted on old growth woods that don't exist anymore.
I for one have no sense that allows me to observe water vapor passing through finishes or through a tee shirt. I used to make devices in a lab that measured relatively humidity differences and they are finnicky things. Are you talking about a sweat soaked cotton tee shirt where water vapor can't possibly pass through but water evaporates from the liquid saturated outside surface or one of those new fangled materials developed by scientists that pass water so fast that they never feel wet?
You have a n=3 replication in your shop. Presumably, SawStop has a n=hundreds replication in its records, it would be a good article, have the journalist in you ask them.
SawStop says that on average, over presumably lots of accidents that using the blade that you recommend can result in significant injury, primarily your needing stitches instead of just a nick. Deeper cuts requiring stiches have other risks such as cutting a nerve or infection. SawStop has essentially flipped a coin hundreds of times and they have found that it is a biased coin that favors increased injury. How you use that information to inform your personally risk assessment over a few dollars saved on a blade is up to you. You as a user of a SawStop saw have flipped a coin but three times and have gotten heads each time. That is not a remarkable result.
Thank you ! It would be interesting for me to have a look on a short list of debunked myths, as I learned today that there's no need to finish the both sides of a tabletop for example. I read everywhere that otherwise wood will warp indeed. Most of the time, my answer to myself is for sure "I don't know"...
Sounds like the next LAP pocket book.....
Wood moves regardless of finish, but in response to how it was sawn, plain, rift quarter. Its movement is controlled by moisture, notably humidity where the piece resides. Tables taken from back east, 40 pct to Arizona at 1pct shrink and the joints will simply fall apart.
I’m particularly interested in this one because I’ve experienced it firsthand.
Hi Chris. You mentioned sanding raw wood with a very fine sandpaper. I tend to do that because I figure smoother is better. However you suggested there are downsides. What might they be? Thank you.
If you are using a film finish (such as shellac or varnish), there is no benefit to sanding above #220 (or so). The film will look and feel the same. So it's wasted effort.
If you are applying oil, then finer grits are fine.
My understanding.. is that over-fine sanding creates wood dust of such fineness that it clogs the pores of the wood and inhibits absorption of stain or finish. So stop at 180 or 240.
Or is THAT a wives tale? And what about sanding sealer? Isn’t that expressly intended to clog the pores…?
I think that once the grit becomes finer than the structural fibers of the wood, you aren’t really changing the surface texture anymore. You are just pulverizing the fibers, which creates a sort of dust film over the natural surface texture. But that’s me doing the exact BS myth building this post is talking about.