Surveying Diamonds in New York - Video

[kenny]

I noticed during the credits at the end that someone put in some scratchy stuff moving up the frame, as if it were done on film.

Very cute touch!!!

Who''s idea was that?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/26/2006 12:37:37 AM
Author: kenny
I noticed during the credits at the end that someone put in some scratchy stuff moving up the frame, as if it were done on film.

Very cute touch!!!

Who''s idea was that?

Bill Gates in Movie Maker - standard on Windows XP I think.

Hey Glitterata that is a great idea - have a great shot of Drena''s old Dutch cousins hand made one - but cant find it. It was sooo dark all diamonds would look black!!!

 

[pricescope]

Rhino: Firstly ... Leo I apologise if you feel I am twiting your words.

Apology accepted.

Rhino: Please understand that you are the one who has suggested there is nothing to learn from this.

Not accurate, Jonathan. You should read it more carefuly: I suggested not jumping to conclusions or using the video to support ANY theory. See the difference between my words and your interpretation? I didn't say there is nothing to learn from it. I learn quite a bit but I'm not jumping to conclusions.

Rhino: Secondly to associate my input as demogogy, you are insinuating that I am either
a. lying
b. using a form of deception to communicate

Quote from Wikipedia:

"Demagogy involves lying, some would say it doesn't, since it doesn't use false facts directly, but rather brings the uncritical listener to draw the desired conclusion himself. Demagogy often involves logical fallacies..."

I do not question yours or anybody's motivations - you can mean well but "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." By demagogy I meant seriously flowed logic especially when one's using such populist terms as "opinion of common New Yorkers"... (Are you running for a mayor?)

Opinions of the real consumers are very important for the real study no matter whether they are New Yorkers, Bostonians, Londoners, or from Tokyo. However, the way how you set up your experiment and arrive to your conclusions is no less of importance.

Let's forget about "demagogy" but focus on the problems caused by flawed logic.

In this post above you wrote:

Rhino: I would suggest to you that the science you are presenting is the best type of scientific input you could ever receive.

Although all of us agree that surveying people is the right way to go, the way how it is done, what diamonds are used, in what environment, how the results were analyzed, etc, is crucial. E.g. you can set up your lighting in a certain way so only certain diamonds will look good. Real people will tell you so. Would you declare that only this type of diamonds is the best cut because it would be "vox populi"?

Rhino: BTW ... why do you think I used the 2 stones in the experiment I conducted? I was trying to find a hole in the GIA system.

What are the parameters of the stones you used and in what lightning environment? What did you find out and what conclusions did you draw from it? Why only two? Is there a possibility that there is another combination of proportion that can prove oposite?

Rhino: Amen! I stand in full agreement with this and the entirety of the article on Scientific Method at Wiki. And I would add ... I am only one independant researcher. As I read this it is clear to me that I am not violating any aspect of the 'scientific method'. Nor was GIA for that matter. As an independant reseracher I am putting some of their claims to the test by performing similar observation studies.

Disagree: GIA didn't make their results open for peer reviews nor welcome open discussions on that matter.

If you just repeating GIA studies you will probably arrive to the same conclusions but if "controled environment" approach is flawed then what's the point of independently repeating them? Again, if "common New Yorkers" didn't see a difference between GIA Excelent and Very Good stones used in our exercise (in that particular settings and lighting). Does it mean that GIA is wrong with their Ex and VG grades?

I don't have an answer. Sergey is going to do a study on 15 stones but it will take time that's why I suggested not to jump to conclusions.

By having "controlled viewing environment" you restrict possibilities of predicting how a diamond will look in other conditions by different observers. It can make it favorable only for certain specific group of people in fixed lighting conditions... Such approach will not allow developing a system further and making prognosis on what different people prefer in different environment.

Can you predict using Diamond Dock observations only how ANY diamond will look like in a dim restaurant, grocery store, Wal-Mart, cocktail party, etc?...

"Controlled viewing environment" also falls short of using it for other but round shapes.

Rhino: Which is why I believe you are going to enjoy the video I will be editing over the next couple of days.

That is swell, but please don't do this suspense thing anymore - that's not how scientists present the results...