Braid fishing line lubricant.

[Benni3]

Aristotle was about what is real,,,and over the years I have found out that mixing chemicals no matter how good they say it is,,,,   probably shorting the life of most stuff you've trying to protect,,,,,

[Flat Top]

I ask a simple question and I get biased answers. That was the whole point of this discussion.

Some folks on here use line conditioners and some dont. Those that do have EXPERIENCE with them and those that dont come up with all sorts of reasons for its use...or not. Maybe those that have tried the product are sold on the benefits and were not swayed by marketing hype...maybe they were. Those that have not tried the product may have been swayed by negative reports, or bias from those that for one reason or another dont think the product is worthwhile....and thats OK too! Tens of thousands of professional and non-professional fisherman use line conditioners world wide, so there must be something to that....they could not all be sold on marketing hype.

I am sold on food grade silicone line conditioner. It has worked for me and I have about ten years of EXPERIENCE using it. Am I biased because of that...I guess I am. One thing: I am not irresponsible. hostile, and have no dog in this hunt.

Many, many years ago I used to watch my grandpa wax his braided Dacron fishing line...liquid beeswax melted into the line with a candle flame and hand rubbed into the line. I thought that was a lot of trouble to go through when he could just go out and buy new line. He would use that line for years and it always performed for him. I guess he was just biased.   

[wfjord]

I think Jurelometer, without coming right out and saying it, is trying to explain the difference between inductive and deductive thinking. Scientific method is based on the latter -- as opposed to anecdotal evidence.

Interesting. Actually I was just pounding away ungracefully on the illogic of exclusively wanting anecdotal evidence, but I think that you might have a better structure here.  Correct me if I get this wrong (it has been more than a few years), but I thought that (pure) inductive reasoning was based on observation without understanding, and deductive reasoning was based on understanding without observation.  Anecdotal evidence feeds inductive reasoning, but has limited utility, as it is generally not well controlled observation.

Ideally you want to do both inductive and deductive - they both have value and they feed each other, but you can go a long way with just one if it is done properly.  And I thought that both were part of the scientific method.

Relying on a single or small set of lightly controlled observations is not doing inductive reasoning properly.  But it often doesn't matter to many folk. We humans are wired to favor inductive reasoning at any level of accuracy.

Deductive reasoning is often more abstract, so many folk undervalue or even disregard it.  Hostility is not entirely uncommon.

And so here we are...

-J

One can make it more complicated, but I think the simplest basic definition of inductive reasoning is reaching a general conclusion based on limited amounts of data or anecdotal evidence, whereas deductive reasoning reaches specific conclusions based on large amounts of data.

[Flat Top]

I think Jurelometer, without coming right out and saying it, is trying to explain the difference between inductive and deductive thinking. Scientific method is based on the latter -- as opposed to anecdotal evidence.

Interesting. Actually I was just pounding away ungracefully on the illogic of exclusively wanting anecdotal evidence, but I think that you might have a better structure here.  Correct me if I get this wrong (it has been more than a few years), but I thought that (pure) inductive reasoning was based on observation without understanding, and deductive reasoning was based on understanding without observation.  Anecdotal evidence feeds inductive reasoning, but has limited utility, as it is generally not well controlled observation.

Ideally you want to do both inductive and deductive - they both have value and they feed each other, but you can go a long way with just one if it is done properly.  And I thought that both were part of the scientific method.

Relying on a single or small set of lightly controlled observations is not doing inductive reasoning properly.  But it often doesn't matter to many folk. We humans are wired to favor inductive reasoning at any level of accuracy.

Deductive reasoning is often more abstract, so many folk undervalue or even disregard it.  Hostility is not entirely uncommon.

And so here we are...

-J

One can make it more complicated, but I think the simplest basic definition of inductive reasoning is reaching a general conclusion based on limited amounts of data or anecdotal evidence, whereas deductive reasoning reaches specific conclusions based on large amounts of data.

Precisely!!!