Science, Pseudoscience and Lutherie

Introduction

In the world of lutherie, where the resonance of wood meets the artistry of design, critical thinking is an essential tool, often underutilized. The realm of guitar making and playing is rich with traditions, tales, and testimonies that shape the perceptions of both craftsmen and musicians. However, not all that resonates is rooted in reality, and here lies the importance of critical thinking - it is the discerning ear that separates myth from material, quality from quackery.

Cognitive biases, those systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, play a substantial role in our perception, especially in areas as subjective as the sound and feel of a guitar. From confirmation bias, where we seek information that confirms our preconceptions, to the placebo effect, where belief itself can alter our experience, these biases can lead us down a path of misinterpretation and misconception.

For instance, the anchoring effect can cause a guitarist to overvalue the first information they encounter about an instrument, such as its brand or the wood it's made from. This can overshadow subsequent information and lead to a skewed appraisal of the guitar's true tonal qualities. Similarly, the halo effect can make us assume that a guitar made by a renowned luthier sounds superior, without a critical assessment of its individual merits.

The empirical approach to lutherie, which is based on observation and experience, is valuable and has historically been the backbone of guitar making. Empirical knowledge has allowed luthiers to craft instruments that enchant and inspire, and yet, it is also prone to the distortions of subjective bias and lacks the robustness of verifiable data. Thus, it's not uncommon for guitar enthusiasts to rely on anecdotal evidence or personal testimonials when appraising the virtues of a particular guitar design, construction method, or material.

In contrast, the scientific method, with its systematic pursuit of knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation, and observation, offers a way to challenge our assumptions and build on our empirical foundations with quantifiable evidence. Applying these principles to lutherie doesn’t diminish the art; rather, it enriches our understanding and appreciation of the craft. It pushes us to ask critical questions: Does a specific wood choice affect tone? How does the construction of a guitar contribute to its sound? Can the quality of an instrument be quantified beyond personal preference?

It's here that cognitive biases and empirical observations converge with scientific scrutiny. By understanding the former, we can identify why we might be drawn to certain beliefs about guitars. By embracing the latter, we can delve deeper into the acoustic mysteries of wood and wire, separating folklore from physics. The amalgamation of artistry and analysis in guitar making not only broadens the horizons of luthiers but also empowers players with a more profound knowledge of their instruments.

As we venture through the nuanced landscape of guitar making, this article aims to illuminate the path with the light of critical thinking. We will explore how the interplay of human psychology, empirical observations, and scientific methodology shapes our understanding of lutherie. We invite you on this journey to question, to challenge, and to discover the resonating truth behind the craft of creating instruments that not only sound good but are the embodiment of sound reason.

Still with me ? Buckle up, because this is a long one !

Human brain vs reality

The human brain, a marvel of evolution, is nonetheless fraught with inherent biases that affect our perception and reasoning. These biases are not faults in our cognition but rather byproducts of an evolutionary process that prioritized survival over analytical precision. Our ancestors relied on rapid assessments and pattern recognition to navigate the perils of their environment; today, these same instincts manifest as cognitive biases which can skew our understanding of complex systems, including the intricate interplay of factors that determine the tone and quality of a guitar.

For instance, the brain's tendency to favor information that confirms pre-existing beliefs – known as confirmation bias – can lead us to overestimate the impact of specific woods or construction techniques on a guitar's sound, without critically considering contrary evidence. Similarly, the brain's search for patterns can result in apophenia, where we perceive meaningful connections between unrelated phenomena, such as attributing mystical qualities to a particular instrument based on anecdotal experiences.

These biases are not malfunctions but are instead intrinsic to the way our brains are wired. They served our ancestors well when making quick, life-or-death decisions, but they are less helpful in the nuanced realm of lutherie, where objective analysis and detailed understanding are required. Overcoming these biases requires conscious effort and the application of critical thinking tools. This involves recognizing and questioning our automatic responses, seeking out and evaluating evidence with a systematic approach, and acknowledging the limits of anecdotal knowledge in favor of repeatable, empirical data.

By accepting that our brains are predisposed to certain biases, we can take deliberate steps to counteract them, especially in areas where precision and accuracy are paramount, such as the scientific assessment of guitar quality and tone. Through this awareness, we can strive for a more rational and informed approach to understanding the art and science of guitar making, enabling us to appreciate the craft not only with our senses but with the clarity of reason.

Cognitive Biases 101

Here below is a list of the most common cognitive biases that we experience, and how they can be at play when discussing guitars, sound and lutherie. These are not only important in our discussion, but they also alter greatly our perception of reality on a daily basis, and can affect our views on politics, education, science, religion and many intellectual subjects.

Confirmation Bias

General : The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.

Guitar Specific : A guitarist might believe that a certain brand or type of guitar is superior and thus may only acknowledge the positive aspects that confirm this belief, overlooking any evidence to the contrary.

Anchoring Bias

General : The common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the "anchor") when making decisions.

Guitar Specific : The first guitar a person plays or hears often sets an anchor for what they expect a guitar to sound like, which can influence their perception of all subsequent guitars.

Expectancy Bias

General : When we expect a certain result, our expectations can subtly influence our perceptions to make the outcome more likely.

Guitar Specific : If a guitarist expects a custom, handcrafted guitar to sound better than a factory-made one, their perception of the sound may be influenced by this expectation, regardless of the actual sound quality.

Dunning-Kruger Effect

General : The phenomenon where people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.

Guitar Specific : A beginner guitarist, or a seasoned player that has no understanding of physics or guitar building may overestimate their ability to discern quality of tone and sound due to their limited experience.

Brand Loyalty/In-group Bias

General : The tendency to favor products or information from a preferred brand or group.

Guitar Specific : Players may exhibit a preference for guitars from a favorite brand, regardless of the objective qualities of instruments from other manufacturers.

Post-Purchase Rationalization

General : The tendency to justify a purchase one has made even if it has flaws, to reduce cognitive dissonance.

Guitar Specific : After investing in a high-end guitar, a player might overlook its shortcomings and overemphasize its positive aspects to justify the expense.

Survivorship Bias

General : Concentrating on things or people that have "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not due to their lack of visibility.

Guitar Specific : Players may believe vintage guitars are inherently superior, because the ones that have survived are often well-made, neglecting the fact that poorly made guitars from the same era have not stood the test of time.

Halo Effect

General : The tendency for an impression created in one area to influence opinion in another area.

Guitar Specific : A guitarist might assume that because a guitar is aesthetically pleasing, it also produces superior sound.

Endowment Effect

General : The theory that people value a thing more highly if they own it.

Guitar Specific : Guitarists often value their own instrument more highly than others simply because it is theirs, not necessarily because it is of better quality.

Understanding these biases can help individuals recognize their own subjective viewpoints and potentially approach the evaluation of guitars and their sounds with more objectivity. It can encourage critical thinking and open-mindedness, qualities that are invaluable in the nuanced discussions about guitar construction, tone, and playability.

Peer pressure

Human beings are social creatures, and our thought processes are often influenced by the desire to conform to social and conventional norms. This inherent inclination can significantly impede critical thinking, especially when it comes to challenging established ideas or popular opinions within communities such as those centered around guitar craftsmanship.

Peer pressure can act as a powerful force that stifles individual critical analysis. In the context of lutherie, for instance, new methods or materials might be dismissed not due to empirical evidence, but because they do not fit within the traditional framework that has been socially accepted. This creates an environment where innovative concepts or unconventional wisdom may struggle to gain traction, not necessarily because they lack merit, but because they fall outside of what is deemed "acceptable" by the majority.

Embracing true critical thinking requires the courage to question popular beliefs and the willingness to stand apart from the group to follow where the evidence leads. It involves being open to new ideas, even if they challenge the status quo, and being prepared to advocate for a perspective that may not be widely accepted. This commitment to intellectual independence is essential for the advancement of knowledge and the fostering of a dynamic and progressive guitar-building community.

The Scientific Method

The scientific method is a rigorous, systematic way of seeking knowledge that involves not just observation but also experimentation and the verification of results. Here’s how it applies to lutherie:

Hypothesis Formation - The process starts with a hypothesis, a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon. In lutherie, a hypothesis might be that a certain type of wood imparts a brighter tone to a guitar.

Testing through Experimentation - Experiments are then conducted to test this hypothesis. These experiments need to be carefully designed to isolate the variables in question — in our example, ensuring that the wood type is the only changing factor between two otherwise identical guitars.

Reproducibility - The results must be reproducible; that is, if other luthiers follow the same process, they should arrive at the same results. This is where peer review comes into play. Sharing methodologies and findings allows other professionals to test the hypothesis independently.

Peer Review - Peer review is crucial as it subjects research to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. For lutherie, this might mean having other builders or acousticians review the methodology and results of a tonewood study.

Publication and Debate - Findings are then published, allowing the wider community to examine and debate the results. This discourse is essential for validating the findings and fostering advancements in the field.

Parameter Targeting and Isolation - Proper scientific tests in lutherie must isolate single variables to ascertain their impact on the final instrument. This could involve creating multiple guitars that are identical in every aspect except for the variable being tested, such as the finish type or the bracing pattern.

Analysis and Conclusion - After rigorous testing, the data is analyzed, and conclusions are drawn. These conclusions may confirm the original hypothesis or refute it, leading to new hypotheses.

In the context of lutherie, the scientific method can help separate fact from anecdote and lead to a more nuanced understanding of how different elements contribute to the sound and playability of an instrument. It is a tool that, if used correctly, can elevate the craftsmanship and the field as a whole.

Empiric vs Methodic observations

Empiric observations are based on individual experience and perception. They are the raw inputs we gather from our senses or from the direct experience of phenomena. For example, a guitar player may notice that a certain string brand lasts longer before losing its tone or that a particular wood seems to resonate more with their style of playing. These are empirical observations — they are subjective and may not be systematically tested.

Scientific observations, on the other hand, go a step further by applying systematic and controlled methods to empirical observations. They aim to be objective, reproducible, and quantifiable. Scientific observations about guitars would involve controlled experiments to test how different materials affect sound, the impact of construction techniques on durability, or how the shape of a guitar influences its resonance.

Empirical observations are valuable as a starting point — they can guide us towards hypotheses and prompt further investigation. However, they can be limited by cognitive biases, lack of control variables, and small sample sizes. They do not provide the deep understanding that comes from rigorous scientific analysis. For example, if a guitarist claims that a guitar has better sustain without actually measuring sustain in a controlled, repeatable manner, they are relying on a subjective, empirical observation rather than a scientific one.

In contrast, scientific observations seek to minimize biases and personal perceptions. They rely on measurements, comparisons, and statistical analysis. In the context of guitars, scientific research would help in understanding the material properties and how they contribute to sound transmission, or the physics of string vibration and its interaction with the guitar body. By doing so, science can provide insights that are not immediately apparent to the senses and can challenge widely held beliefs that may be based on anecdote rather than fact.

In sum, while empirical observations are rooted in personal experience and perception, scientific observations strive for objectivity through systematic study. In complex fields like lutherie, relying solely on empirical observations can lead to misconceptions and oversimplifications, whereas scientific approaches can uncover the underlying principles and mechanisms that govern the behavior of guitars.