old curve sabers

[Gustavo]

If this discussion follows as I think, I would try to get more evidence supporting my point of view (for example, that civil war soldiers were armed with guns, so were expected mostly to fight by shooting, even when man- to man encounters occurred -bayonet being one of the few devidces for that possibility-), and you perhaps would try to look for evidence that some regiments were expected to fight mostly hand- to hand and still lacked armor (for example, cavalry regiments were the main offensive weapon was a saber). And I do not know whou would be right, as i do not know if the possibilities above, in favor or agains my hypothesis, are certain by now...

We can't completely forget military tradition, as well, concerning clothes.

As for, bayonets, it's a way of making the already "long carabine" also a lance. And a lance is a very useful ... thing, in battlefield. We can see it even in the Vietnam war history, in certain combats. (Saw in a movie ...) No doubt it's last resource, but it's ... a last resource.

I most honestly hope I never have to make use of it. It must be a horrible and desperate thing.

Perhaps that "seeking of truth" thing is out of place here, although I think that all times we have different theories on how something is, that should be our goal. I am a scientist, that may be also the reason I use that principle as a guide (although I also have some doubts on what is the truth and objective reality, but that problem is even more out of place).

In science, I think it is applied very well something said in the debated triple-X movie "Fritz the cat" (1972): "you study to became an intellectual only interested in outsmart other intellectuals". I think it is difficult to avoid becoming a kind of lawyer: no one wants to sound like a fool.

For example, sometimes we can tend to embrace different viewpoints on what was the real explanation of an aspect of reality. I said cuirasses and helmets in Napoleon's cavalry may be due to the fact they would get more likely engaged in man- to man combat (where the armor is useful), as I admitted the armor does not ressist bullets. Then you put on doubt this idea as in the civil war there were body- to body fights but not armor.

...

But the problem I would have is that while looking for arguments to support my hypothesis, even if I am convinced of my position, I would tend to look mostly those favouring my hypothesis, and that may make me biased, what I try to avoid. Perhaps what one has to do is not try to defend an hypothesis, which may be correct, but take distance from defending the idea (emotional distance also) and look if there is not another hypothesis that can cope all the observations. But when one is in lawyer-mode, one defends his own point, one forgets to look for the hypothesis that better fits the data, and try to fit reality in one side of a dichotomy: what I propose is true or not.

I don't question truth or reality, in a way. On another way of seeing it, we experience truth, I think, by questioning it, and interacting with it.

I respect science as a good basis for me to reaching a parameter of truth. It can't be treated dogmatically as the tool to reach the truth, because scientific view evolves, so, the world was thought to be flat while the observers were in one hemisphere only, and, when new parameter of truth was needed, men used sciece to find out what to do, and find ... truth. (At least as we understand the truth of the matter generally in our time.)

That was only an already widely used and understandable example

I like the scientific way of talking about truth (& the truth), because it always begins from the basis that it can be wrong and will be accepted to be wrong whenever another better explaination arises ... "Every defended hypothesis is subject to be proved or refuted" once taught me a lawyer to whom I taught Latin.

And a scientist won't deny accepting coherently proven truth concerning one matter, no matter that it goes against his (your/my) own loved hypothesis ... Because it happens that we get inlove for our hypotheses as you glimpsed too, and it is so, because people who relly on science are very usually people of great faith, for very seldom do science lets us down.



I think only that I lost a bit of the fear I had of actually using the word truth, as long as life went on ... I believe in truth. It's true that I not always know it as I think I do . But I think I deal quite well with it (with not knowing the truth as I think I do). You must have realized that I tend to sound like I am always right ... And indeed I do! It's a great way to realize more easily that the truth isn't always at my side.

I think that scientists, in general, seek for the truth, in many ways ... (Don't you think so?)

However, I don't know if I'm a scientist. No, I actually think I am not. When they ask about my profession, I sometimes say that I am a humanist. I am not a philosopher either. In graduation I was taught Languages & Literature. As a matter of working, I've been trying to be in the book business but, by now, I'm "straying" into library service, for a few months ... I prefer commerce, it's odd

They say that Latin has a lot to do with Logic, and that it helps thinking.

They're right!

G.--
 

[Pyrrhus]

Hi Gus,

I agree that the cuirasses can perfectly not have been used by regiments whose main goal was engagin into man- to man combat, because of clothing tradition, misjudgement, lack of knowledge of its advantages (less likely), or using the available metal to make things considered more important. With respect to the bayonets, I wrote something on them in another forum, if you are interested (http://gardenwargaming.playclicks.com/forum/index.php?topic=1099.0).

With respect to the truth, I consider truth as the factual, the way things are. My problem with facts is that what we perceive can be not factual (e.g., allucinations). That's my belief put simple. Logic for me is the way to think in order to reflect the better how nature works (for me, thus, logic is not departed from experience, but derives from it, or was constructed from it by Ancient Greeks, unlike the relatively independentist rationality of Descartes). And yes, scientists would always try to look for truth (i.e., the factual), but sometimes they look to save their own pride (a trap).

No problem you think you are right or close to the truth. A greater moral problem is defending something you know is not truth by using fallacies that confuse the critics.

Well, good luck Gus, see you later. Did you recived something of what I send you??

[Gustavo]

With respect to the bayonets, I wrote something on them in another forum, if you are interested (http://gardenwargaming.playclicks.com/forum/index.php?topic=1099.0).

I took a look (not to say that I already read it all ). I'd like to talk about it, but weekend is coming to its end, and I still have to write stuff in my particular literatures ...

The only thing that I thought was that when European came to America, they found, in some cases, difficult moments, in fighting indians ... (It's funny ... uhm "funny", watching some battle scenes between indians and red-coats in "The Last of the Mohicans" (the version of the '90s, with Daniel Day-Lewis & Madeleine Stowe ...), because it shows moments when the English were shouting positions, it was useful to indians to hide, and wait them shoot, and, when they were reloading, the indians attacked, and killed them all.

It must have worked quite well for small troops. In the end, we know that firepower and European warrior discipline and battle style were enough to put end to indians, but it is interesting to see how different battle styles made some rules of battle to be completely disrespected, and it would cause some distress to European armies (...)

But all this, at least in my case, is very ... very, too much & only academic. I'm not enough curious in details of battles. It's very interesting reading, though


As for the weekend to be ending, it's very significant to all who already noticed that I write here more on weekends. In fact, I tend not to write at all during the week. This helps me because, as it can also be noted, ... I spend not little time, when I come in! ...

Maybe my signature should be "@ Your Service ... Mainly on Weekends!". I thought about changing it, but I decided not to do it ...

With respect to the truth, I consider truth as the factual, the way things are. My problem with facts is that what we perceive can be not factual (e.g., allucinations). That's my belief put simple. Logic for me is the way to think in order to reflect the better how nature works (for me, thus, logic is not departed from experience, but derives from it, or was constructed from it by Ancient Greeks, unlike the relatively independentist rationality of Descartes). And yes, scientists would always try to look for truth (i.e., the factual), but sometimes they look to save their own pride (a trap).

No problem you think you are right or close to the truth. A greater moral problem is defending something you know is not truth by using fallacies that confuse the critics.

I think we reached unquestionable agreement,
concerning these matters!

We should be proud ...

 

Well, good luck Gus, see you later. Did you recived something of what I send you??

I'll take a look in the Yahoo ... All my stuff have been redirected there. (I use 3 Bol & one Yahoo ... I'm trying to hold myself of using any Gmails!) When did you send it? I'll write you so as to let you know, but probably through messages--

See you next week

G.--