Levels of Proof

I have been scratching my head over the fact that I felt I had provided irrefutable logic that the truth has been revealed about the Merkur34HD razor being more aggressive, less face friendly than its cousin the 33 Classic.

Levels -- of proof?  ;-)

As a nod to the skeptics, I have taken some steps to strengthen the evidence that I provided. I confirmed with my friend that his 34HD has been checked for defects and none exist. He has also confirmed that not only does he follow Merkur's recommended process for inserting a blade (with the razor inverted), but he has also confirmed that he checks the blade for proper seating and alignment.

He further confirmed that he liked the closeness of the shave of the 34HD. Like me, apparently, he highly values a close shave, even when it means some blood may be shed. He told me on the phone yesterday that he still rotates through his small stable of razors (34HD, Lord L.6, and the last one I had sent to him, the Rimei RM2003), and he remarked, unprompted, how he continues to be surprised by how differently the razors shave; he had previously thought that a DE razor was a DE razor -- not much difference. He likes the closeness of the 34HD, but was frustrated that he couldn't get a wound-free shave. He likes the wound-free shaves of the L.6, but doesn't like the effort, the extra passes, required to get a close shave.

So what is requisite proof? Smoking gun? Video evidence of the crime? Circumstantial evidence?

I thought OJ Simpson should have been convicted, was totally guilty -- still do. Yet some were unconvinced and remain so. At what level of proof will most be convinced?

Long ago, Copernicus argued that the Sun is the center of the solar system, yet many were unconvinced. It wasn't until Galileo provided observational evidence that the issue became more clear. Yet Galileo was placed under house arrest because it was thought by those with a bit of conflict of interest and a lot of power that Galileo was subverting their point of view and their authority. At what level of proof would most be convinced? Who is objective?

There are still to this day those who think U.S. astronauts never landed on the moon in 1969. All done on a Hollywood-type sound stage, they cry. As evidence of the alleged conspiracy, they cite the film of the flags on the moon moving in the "breeze". And don't try to convince them with reason and logic about esoteric facts like spring-like behavior and momentum completely explaining the apparent effect of the "breeze". They need more proof. But at what level of proof would most be convinced?

There are even those who still maintain that Hitler's genocide, the Nazi persecution of Jews, is untrue, a conspiracy. They deny the Holocaust ever happened. Are they objective? Do they have a self-serving bias? What level of proof do they need?

Today astronomers know the distance of stars through the process of ratiocination, inference, circumstantial evidence. No one can put a tape measure on those spans, yet we know the lengths. The evidence is logical, but indirect. Yet I'm sure there is somebody who will assert that the stars are twinkling lights on transparent spheres in the sky as was once theorized by some ancients.

And then there are razor-shaving characteristics. I would further submit that those experienced DE users with sensitive skin might be the best (not the only, just the best) judge of shaving character because their instrument (their skin) is the most sensitive.  I think this accounts for some of the ridiculous (yes, I mean silly, unfounded, WRONG) relative ratings of razors on in some shaving forums on the Internet.

Everyone has an opinion, but the truth, the fact, is that some opinions are just more valuable than others; that's not a politcally-correct statement, I know -- but it's true.  Rightness, truth isn't subject to a vote. The framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized this when they did NOT make our government a democracy. It is a constitutional republic in which a minority of ONE can (via the Supreme Court) override a law passed by Congress or voted on by the masses.

I, personally, encourage skepticism. Hey, I'm the guy who said "question everything." But my requirements for levels of proof are reasonable. I wasn't saying to demand overkill before your skepticism is extinguished. But, we are different; we think differently. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

However, as a result, I'm not holding my breath for the hope of peace in the middle east.

Happy shaving -- and question everything (within reason)!