R
rmcrobertson
Guest
All human languages and ways of understanding--science included, just like math--are abstractions, and therefore permanently divorced from reality. "The map is not the territory," in other words.
With the sciences, we get about as close as we can to actually describing the physical universe as it, "really," is. The question isn't whether the sciences offer a perfect way of understanding reality--it's whether they offer a better fit with reality, a more-powerful set of explanations, and better predictions of what happens next.
There are several consequences of applying scientific methodology to martial arts; some are good, some not so good.
1. A systematization of knowledge that is present, but scattered and relatively useless, throughout other martial arts systems and their histories.
2. A rationalization of training that derives from a better understanding of what martial arts are.
3. A tendency towards mystification--in the particular case of kenpo, a) the tendency to mystify by elevating pseudo-science (NLP, for example; the talk one reads about how the brain works, for another) to the level of science, or to b) mystify by claiming that one's particular method applies perfectly to a, "street," reality that doesn't exist (for example, the tendency to see the world as filled with threats that come from movies), or to c) mystify by claiming that endless training in this new! special! scientific! style will take care of all the, "ninjas in the parking lots." (Mr. Chap'el's excellent phrase.)
4. A tendency to separate the mechanical aspects of training from others that are equally important, in order to, "improve," or to, "rationalize," or to, "make more efficient," or to, "speed up," the process of learning. Here, for example, an instructor might quote Bruce Lee a lot, or eliminate techniques from the system that, "don't work," or throw out the forms because, "they don't help you fight," all in the service of pure, "efficiency." Here, it is important to remember not only that we train animals but we educate people--it is important to remember that the sciences depend on good theory and the development of knowledge, not merely the hyperefficient gathering of facts that don't mean anything without understanding.
5. A tendency to separate the mechanical aspects of training from everything else, grounded on a) an inadequate understanding of what, "martial science," is, and b) a refusal to understand that part of what is really going on is commodification (making something intangible into a solid, sellable object) in a capitalist economy.
6. A confusion of martial arts teaching and practice with what, say, a good physicist does. Should martial artists apply the lessons science has to teach about objectivity, information-gathering, the development of theory? Absolutely. Should martial artists pretend that what they're doing isn't an art, but a pure science? Absolutely not.
Oh well. I still say that one of the more-important things to learn from the history of science is how easy it is to lie to others and to yourself, with, "science."
Real science is slow, tedious, and prone to mistakes that have to be checked by others. That's not a bad practical lesson to learn for martial arts, either.
With the sciences, we get about as close as we can to actually describing the physical universe as it, "really," is. The question isn't whether the sciences offer a perfect way of understanding reality--it's whether they offer a better fit with reality, a more-powerful set of explanations, and better predictions of what happens next.
There are several consequences of applying scientific methodology to martial arts; some are good, some not so good.
1. A systematization of knowledge that is present, but scattered and relatively useless, throughout other martial arts systems and their histories.
2. A rationalization of training that derives from a better understanding of what martial arts are.
3. A tendency towards mystification--in the particular case of kenpo, a) the tendency to mystify by elevating pseudo-science (NLP, for example; the talk one reads about how the brain works, for another) to the level of science, or to b) mystify by claiming that one's particular method applies perfectly to a, "street," reality that doesn't exist (for example, the tendency to see the world as filled with threats that come from movies), or to c) mystify by claiming that endless training in this new! special! scientific! style will take care of all the, "ninjas in the parking lots." (Mr. Chap'el's excellent phrase.)
4. A tendency to separate the mechanical aspects of training from others that are equally important, in order to, "improve," or to, "rationalize," or to, "make more efficient," or to, "speed up," the process of learning. Here, for example, an instructor might quote Bruce Lee a lot, or eliminate techniques from the system that, "don't work," or throw out the forms because, "they don't help you fight," all in the service of pure, "efficiency." Here, it is important to remember not only that we train animals but we educate people--it is important to remember that the sciences depend on good theory and the development of knowledge, not merely the hyperefficient gathering of facts that don't mean anything without understanding.
5. A tendency to separate the mechanical aspects of training from everything else, grounded on a) an inadequate understanding of what, "martial science," is, and b) a refusal to understand that part of what is really going on is commodification (making something intangible into a solid, sellable object) in a capitalist economy.
6. A confusion of martial arts teaching and practice with what, say, a good physicist does. Should martial artists apply the lessons science has to teach about objectivity, information-gathering, the development of theory? Absolutely. Should martial artists pretend that what they're doing isn't an art, but a pure science? Absolutely not.
Oh well. I still say that one of the more-important things to learn from the history of science is how easy it is to lie to others and to yourself, with, "science."
Real science is slow, tedious, and prone to mistakes that have to be checked by others. That's not a bad practical lesson to learn for martial arts, either.
