RIN:93 Epilogue: Additional Observations

On a sunny day during this past July [1988], Dr. Julius Marcus, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Northwestern University (Evanston, Illinois), reviewed the letter you have just read (RIN:036). "After a life long career in physics," he said to me, "it is a rare day when I learn something truly new. Today I will remember as such a day!"

2. Dr. Marcus, of course, is a scientist. It is precisely because of this that I found his enthusiastic comment especially gratifying. For we live at a time when science is honored in a superstitious way, a time in which there is much talk about scientific literacy -- as well as computer literacy, cultural literacy, and so on. We tend to forget that old fashioned "literacy literacy" underlies all of these. And our praise of scientific literacy is considerably suspect, a kind of awe of science -- detached from any understanding of science. Hans Rödig's work actually superseded that of von Helmholtz. Yet Rödig's achievement sounds insignificant if we live with the illusion that his predecessors were simply ignorant.

3. Nothing could be more misleading. Unfortunately, however, we live at a moment when too many of us have forgotten the giants of nineteenth-century science: Ernst Mach, James Clerk Maxwell, Hermann von Helmholtz, etc. Granted, "literacy literacy" or the ability to read, is necessary to find out about them or to study their works. The same is required if one is to read Hans Rödig. And, even among those who can read and read well, there must be a willingness to set aside vested interests.

4. More of this later. The facts of our situation are chilling. A recent survey, conducted for the National Science Foundation, indicated that only 5% of adult Americans could be considered scientifically literate. "It is a fairly dire situation," according to Jon Miller, Director of Public Opinion Laboratory of Northern Illinois University (Chicago Tribune, 24 October 1988). Things are even worse when we narrow our focus, when we see that nearly the whole of a profession is without understanding of basic facts and scientific laws -- the very facts and laws which should animate its practice.

5. I speak of violin makers. Theirs is an ancient profession. It should also be honorable. And this is more than a matter of making correct change. For today, too many who call themselves violin makers will "restore" and adjust instruments without knowing their mechanics, without understanding how violins function. Is this a trivial point? Not at all. Imagine calling yourself an automobile mechanic, without having the slightest understanding of how cars are constructed or how they function -- and then advertising your ability to build and repair them!

6. I speak from personal experience. As co-founder and first secretary of the American Federation of Violin and Bow Makers, I came to know (as could no "outsider") the mind set of many of the federation's members. They were far more interested in dealing with violins than in making them. As a kind of window dressing, the majority -- and I do grant this -- ostensibly encouraged the making of violins. They even sponsored high-visibility violin makers' competitions. But in their businesses, their real interest was painfully obvious. They wanted to hire trained violin makers as repairmen -- not as makers. The same men, disguised as violin makers, willfully encouraged -- even promoted! -- the irrational, unscientific concepts which make up violin mythology. They did everything they could to popularize the pretended "mystery" of Stradivarius. And they certainly did their part in keeping established knowledge, tested principles of violin construction, from even being taught at the numerous violin-making schools.

7. Set aside the larger problems of an entire society's scientific illiteracy. Limit the discussion to violin makers only. We can identify the reasons for the high rate of scientific illiteracy among violin aficionados. That illiteracy is profitable, and it relieves them of the need to "believe in" the principle of entropy that is entailed in the second law of thermodynamics. Where mystery is king, the second law of thermodynamics simply does not apply -- emphatically not to violins! What does apply? Two things: greed and ignorance. Additionally, the ignorance is impressively propped up by the pseudo-discoveries of assorted pseudo-scientists, those who have for so long been seeking -- and now claim to have found -- the elusive Secret of Stradivarius.

8. Ms. Carleen Hutchins is hardly the only member of this club. It is not that exclusive! My readers may well have heard of the illustrious Dr. Joseph Nagyvary, a professor of biochemistry and biophysics at Texas A&M University. (He was most recently written up by William H. Honan of the New York Times News Service; see Chicago Tribune, 15 November 1988, Sec. 5, pp.1 and 3.) In the fertile field of violin lore, Professor Nagyvary -- the leading in-house guru of the Violin Society of America -- truly is outstanding. He is certifiable as an exponent of supposedly scientific erudition, a man who fails to understand the most basic laws of physics. He is a true believer. And he is without any understanding of the mechanics of violins. He, like almost everyone else in the Violin Society, endorses the myth that violins undergo functional improvement as they age. We are supposed to imagine that string instruments are a species of wine or cheese! That they are not machines which, like all other machines, wear out over a period of time!! For violins and violins only, so Nagyvary and his colleagues would have us think, the principle of entropy has been canceled.

9. In the simplest terms, this makes no sense. At best, it brings to mind the psychological blindness of which the renowned Stephen Jay Gould has written so eloquently. "Scientists like to believe that they are always as objective as possible in regard to their research," he reminds us, "but a look at recent history reveals that their cultural expectations and biases can cause them to become subjective without realizing it" (Subjectivity in Science, 1986 Yearbook of Science and the Future [Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1985], pp.236-48).

10. I know Professor Gould only through his writings. But our establishment's Günther Reuter is a recognized, honored, successful violin maker whose career continues to flourish because he is putting scientific insight to practical use. To say it the other way around, we at Fritz Reuter and Sons are proud that Günther is a maker whose craft is grounded in a body of theory, a body of knowledge, which is both tested and testable. It is not a "mystery"! Indeed, Professor Gould must have been thinking of practitioners like Meister Günther Reuter when he penned the conclusion to the article we've just cited. "Truth and honesty have undeniable ethical value. But their practical worth is also inestimable. The world is such a complex and confusing place. Accuracy represents our only hope for coping" (emphasis added).

11. In a world where fraud, finagling, and disabling bias (Gould's triad) are often applauded, we find encouragement in a genuine scientist's demonstration that scientific truth, ethical value, and practical worth are interdependent -- and, ultimately, inextricable. To this, our firm's daily practices bear continuous witness -- on a modest scale, perhaps, but steadily and without compromise.

RIN:093	homepage: www.fritz-reuter.com	.
REUTER'S FOCUS REPORT English Report Summaries-Available German Titles