PK,
Quote:
This doesn't discredit Jeff for his workmanship, or his personal experience. But making scientific claims without the evidence to back them up is just blowing smoke.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but where are the scientific claims that Jeff's making? There was no formal science used in developing the paddle, instead the paddle evolved more or less naturally through craftsmanship, and trial and error, and the subjective qualities are described in that context.
As for the Grok duel that Komatiq suggests (and I know you're only kidding, K), it'd be all too easy for me to argue for the quantitative approach to evaluating paddle design. As an environmental scientist, presenting quantitative field data is standard procedure and in the case of the paddle, the argument to reduce qualities down to a few key variables is easily understood. But I'm not going to - the statements that will be made are all too predictable and resolve nothing.
I was going to drop this subject long ago, since it's trivial and people will buy whatever paddle they damn well feel like buying based on subjective feel and fit, but there is something in the undercurrent here that's important in the larger scheme of things as it relates to paddling and wilderness canoeing.
Jeff Solway seems to be a writer that tends towards the artistic side of life - I didn't know that, but PK was good enough to point that out. I can't tell you the number of times, as an environmental scientist, I've had to argue for protecting some lake or landscape feature in front of a hard-nosed group of planners and engineers, and seen how the complexity and diversity of nature isn't seen or recognized by those outside the science. And how they fail to appreciate natural qualities recognized by wilderness-oriented individuals because hard numbers aren't there to back up the value of some threatened, wild spot on the surface of the earth.
Qualities like sublime landscapes, the magical moments described by some spending time in the wild, the song of the paddle described by Bill Mason while canoeing long distances, and all the rest running so often through the outdoors literature, all these things are real on a human, subjective level... and yet can be shot down and discredited so easily by scientists and engineers who claim there are no hard numbers that can relate to and validate these abstractions.
It's so easy to dismiss these qualities if electronic instruments and computers are the only way of verifying their value. But most would agree that these are real on a human basis, and they exist in human subjective experience. The enjoyment of nature and wilderness is subjective - some will deny those values and others will be accepting, and take pleasure from the quality that still exists n the wilds today.
I think this is the type of quality that Jeff is trying to bring through in paddling, and in the development of his individual design. Making scientific statements isn't necessary to bring that quality out, quality will exist in the use of the paddle for some and not for others.
Humans, like nature, are all too variable in their behaviour and response while paddling anyway. I'm sure he recognizes this and doesn't see the need for rigorous, quantitative evaluations when the quality is obvious to those who have tried and liked his paddles. If the approach seems mysterious to the hard noses that need the numbers, well, that's part of human experience as well.
All my canoe trips have some element of mystery in them - I don't know what I'll find when I finally get to the feature I'm paddling towards, sometimes the result is disappointing and at other times it's more than sublime, and that makes it all worthwhile. If Jeff Solway wants to add to the mystery of things by creating a paddle that isn't defined by data, but by quality, it's fine by me. It adds to the greater enjoyment that we have in the bigger picture, while spending time on the water.
Rick
FAQ
Search
