EPAK Slapping from another Systems Viewpoint.

[eyebeams]

I have an Masters of Science in Computer Science. Does that mean I have very formal training in every aspect of the scientific method?

Uh, it does where I live. Having a philosophy degree does as well. Naturally, no discipline covers every form of experiment, but frankly, if you don't use the scientific method, you aren't using science. Similarlly, if you don't get a degree at an accredited college, it isn't a real degree by any reasonable standard.

Perhaps it comes as a shock to people that cherished buzzwords do, in fact, have actual meanings and standards.

What SL-4 advocates promote is that there is an interpretation to kenpo that was never written down that works in a certain way. It's "scientific," but which has no associated double-blind experiments or even videos of the concepts in action. It decries traditional approaches while describing elements in patently pseudoscientific terms ("circuits" that have no anatomical existence, for instance).

Here's an analogy.

The Ford motor company gets broken up into smaller companies. One of these companies claims that Ford secretly tested a 500 mpg car. If you qualify, you might be allowed to buy it. The car looks exactly like a 10 year old Escort, and every part looks like an Escort, but they claim it's been redesigned at fundamental levels (you can't see). Also, there is no proof the car goes 500 mpg aside from testimonials from folks still making their payments, and you are not allowed to look at the car in action or see the specs ahead of time.

I wouldn't buy the Ford SL-4 in a million years, plzkthx. It might work, but I already have a car that works.

About slapping, though:

In CMA, slapping usually helps to develop a little bit of explosiveness while setting up for a trap. The key is to realize that the distancing involved would, IRL, rarely allow the slap to continue. But the time palm meets bicep (for example), the forearm the bicep is attached to is already going through the opponent. The slapping hand also develops tactile response so it is a living guide instead of a static block. A hand should never be just positioned, but considered an actor in the technique. The sudden resistance trains you to momentarily apply force to that hand, but only in response to what you feel.

 

[Doc]

What SL-4 advocates promote is that there is an interpretation to kenpo that was never written down that works in a certain way. It's "scientific," but which has no associated double-blind experiments or even videos of the concepts in action. It decries traditional approaches while describing elements in patently pseudoscientific terms ("circuits" that have no anatomical existence, for instance).

While I thank you for your opinion, it would appear you've already made several judgements about the efficacy of something you have neither seen or felt and its practitioners, and are just on the road to semantical bickering and arguments. This, I don't do.

You actually don't know what experimentation has been done over the years, what codification if any, (and there is plenty), and you make an assumption that someone should supply you with a video for your personal examination when if it existed, (and it does), you wouldn't know what you were looking at anyway. We just don't happen to sell these things, so perhaps you'll find what you seek in the videos of those that do.

Your statement that, "It decries traditional approaches..." is also strange, unless you have decided your methodology is somehow "traditional" and therefore is different considering "traditional" hasn't been clearly defined by anyone in this thread. Perhaps you meant "conventional" as within the realm of your understanding. I happen to think it is very "traditional."

Either way I thank you for you comments and the exchange, but I am neither looking to "prove" something to you or anyone else in this universe, and your responses mirror others who sign up for a few posts here on MartialTalk and put nothing in their own profile for public view. Criticism comes easy anonymously from the sanctity and safety behind a keyboard.

You may take it with a grain of salt sir (or madam), however my highly educated advanced degree students who have taken the time to investigate, examine, feel, and even double blind test it themselves have reached a different conclusion and are satisfied with the results, as well as my "claims."

As a teacher, they are all that matter and neither I nor any of my students were soliciting your approval or your participation, and we will leave you to your premature, ill-formed, and unknowledgeable position on this subject.

KMA628 Clear.

 

[arnisador]

You actually don't know what experimentation has been done over the years, what codification if any, (and there is plenty), and you make an assumption that someone should supply you with a video for your personal examination when if it existed, (and it does), you wouldn't know what you were looking at anyway. We just don't happen to sell these things
[...]
we will leave you to your premature, ill-formed, and unknowledgeable position on this subject.

Well, unknowledgeable seems to be the only option left, unless one wants to join the group and is accepted into it. This seems like playing "I've got a secret" which, though I'm sure you do have secrets, doesn't lead to useful discussions. And, MartialTalk is for discussion of the arts. You may not wish to discuss certain things, but I don't think others should be discouraged from speculating and wondering. No one can judge the efficacy of the system from here. However, one can judge the rhetoric and the consistency. As this is a discussion board on the web, discussion of that is surely appropriate on it.

Universities are generally associated with open experimentation and wide dissemination of their results. Some classified or propietary research is often done, but it's always looked at skeptically by the school. Once again, I feel it's the name "Martial Science University" that seems to be leading to expectations different from what your intent seems to be. It's a mixed message.

I assume by "highly educated advanced degree students" you mean those receiving degrees from Martial Science University, who have done research as part of their degree programs? Or do you mean that they have degrees froma different source?

 

[Shortay]

Well, unknowledgeable seems to be the only option left, unless one wants to join the group and is accepted into it. This seems like playing "I've got a secret" which, though I'm sure you do have secrets, doesn't lead to useful discussions.

I personally have tried to openly describe my SL4 experiences, share 'the secret', on these boards before and been confronted with "That simply cannot be true" in response. If we do start chatting about SL4, we are told by those with no direct experience of the techniques that it can't happen like that and if we don't elaborate on what we mean, then we are accused of keeping secrets.

Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

 

[arnisador]

I personally have tried to openly describe my SL4 experiences, share 'the secret', on these boards before and been confronted with "That simply cannot be true" in response. If we do start chatting about SL4, we are told by those with no direct experience of the techniques that it can't happen like that and if we don't elaborate on what we mean, then we are accused of keeping secrets.

I believe you. Yet, other people describe their experiences with various arts across this board every day. I'm not a Kenpoist...is the problem a historical rivalry, or something else?

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. I tend to agree that as an "outsider," the SL4 stuff actually looks extremely traditional.

2. I have a lot of problems with groups that aren't colleges and aren't universities awarding advanced degrees. This is partly pettily personal: I worked extremely hard and gave up a lot for my degrees, and I tend to resent organizations that just make this stuff up. It is also partly reflective of a class bias--colleges and universities just made this stuff up, too, but they did so starting about a thousand years ago. It is also partly reflective of a suspicion that such awards have a lot more to do with marketing than they do with anything else.

3. I should very much like to read an experimental design for a, "double blind," test of a basic SL4 principle, inasmuch as, "double blind," means that neither the researcher nor their experimental subjects knows whether what they are doing is the real thing or a placebo.

4. Self-slapping may be linked to some of the Polynesian arts, which also have practitioners whacking themselves to build fighting spirit.

5. I agree--if you slap yourself in the fashion described in Delayed Sword, you will bounce a hammer-fist, ridge-hand or hand-sword off your own neck. This seems like an inherently bad idea, though it may save your life when your attacker falls down laughing and hits his head on a fire hydrant.

 

[Bode]

My understanding is that your school offers college degrees.

I suspected this was the problem after re-reading some posts. What you are looking for is a nationally accredited program in Martial Arts. Now, I am not the owner or even on the board of MSU, so I could be speaking without knowledge, but I will attempt to clarify. Accreditation is difficult and often contentious. Accreditation has nothing to do with disseminating results of studies, but rather, of some larger body which decrees that a college has the appropriate teaching standards and policies. It forces the school to stay up to date and offers people the ability to transfer credits. Can you imagine some larger body being formed and actually agreeing upon how to teach the martial arts? Much less Kenpo! The ATAMA tried to do this and is still forging forward, but I find it unlikely that you will ever see a thriving institution.
There are great accredited schools as well as crappy ones. Each one can turn out good students or bad students. One of the best and brightest at my work (major Aerospace corp) does not even have a degree, yet people look to him for answers. So, do I trust a college degree... not always. Do I believe they at least offer some clue as to determination, yes. The end result is dependent upon the individual. Accreditatioin or otherwise.

Is it that simple? Two pitchers throw the ball in different ways. Each achieves good effects.

If good effects are what you want then fine. I agree. But if you want to achieve the best possible effects, human anatomy must be considered. Why has the upper limit on fastballs not been improving since the 50's? Because no one can exceed the confines of human anatomy. All fastball pitching that exceeds the upper limit of about 100MPH I bet throw identically. Curve balls are thrown differently because they need to achieve a different effect.
So, if there is not a correct anatomical way to perform complex sports moves, why is this guy a record holder? And why do NBA stars seek him out to teach them how to shoot? Because human anatomy dictates fundamentals of movement!

The link is interesting, but I think you're confusing 'logical' and 'scientific' with 'pedantic' and 'detailed'. It's argued like a humanist taking a position, not like a scientist supporting one.

The article was written by someone who is a chiropracter for a bulletin board full of novices. It was his attempt to disseminate information to the general public. Logical? I call describing the synergist/antagonist muscles involved logical. Perhaps you don't. Were Dr. Crouch to explain in every minute detail he would lose everyone. He is that knowledgable. If you really want that information, ask him, he will share. Does that get you anywhere? No, knowledge without application is useless. We learn application first.

In any event, Martial Science University seems an inflated name for a group that has no physical school, a free web site, lacks a cohort of academically trained staff (correct me if I am mistaken here--it's not clear from the web pages), doesn't grant degrees or if it does they have "no indication of skill, knowledge, or ...ability" (from the web page cited above), and so on.

We have space that is leased from other schools. We don't own property. Big difference than having no "physical school." Changing my words doesn't make your case. Cohort of academically trained staff? Trained in what? What do you want from MSU? Apparently you want people who have accreditation from some university you have never heard of and are unlikely you find. I assume that would make a difference for you. That's like arguing that someone knows about the martial arts simply because they have a blackbelt.
The people in MSU are trained in Martial Arts (Science). Are they academically trained, absolutely.

Or do you mean that they have degrees froma different source?

Every single person that I know that trains with us either has a bachelors degree or MS. A few have PhD's? does that change anything now that you know this? Likely not. You seem to be looking for ways to discredit our people. In hopes of humoring you here are some of the degrees I know of: Chiropractic, Kineseology, Computer Science, Engineering (Electrical, Aerospace, and perhaps others), Poly Sci, Business adiminstration, and others.
When someone is looking to go to college what do they do? They go to the college and check them out! You are evaluating us without even setting foot on campus.

I find the certainty inspired by the pseudo-philosophical tracts as on the link you gave to be grossly unsupported

Perhaps you should ask Dr. Crouch. He would gladly explain the science behind what he does.

The Ford motor company gets broken up into smaller companies. One of these companies claims that Ford secretly tested a 500 mpg car. If you qualify, you might be allowed to buy it. The car looks exactly like a 10 year old Escort, and every part looks like an Escort, but they claim it's been redesigned at fundamental levels (you can't see). Also, there is no proof the car goes 500 mpg aside from testimonials from folks still making their payments, and you are not allowed to look at the car in action or see the specs ahead of time.

This anaology fails. Our students look different than every other Kenpo school out there. Guaranteed. Whether or not we look better or worse is your decision, but we are not trying to hide the secrets in any way. Doc just gave seminars in England and Ireland with the sole purpose of disseminating these "secrets." And as the board has been showing, many came and learned a lot of these "Secrets." Did Doc even charge an arm and a leg? No, because for Doc it's about the knowledge. If you want to argue, learn your facts and find a good analogy. Have you seen us move? Likely not. As such the anaology is unfair.

It decries traditional approaches while describing elements in patently pseudoscientific terms ("circuits" that have no anatomical existence, for instance).

Explaining the science of something online is difficult. Terms are often used that create visual representations of compled processes. The term CHI is used often when in fact it is simply a physical process. Chi is just a well understood term to communicate and idea. If you want terms and extremetly detailed explanation I suggest you seek them directly, instead of in this public forum where the exchange would be long winded and misinterpreted easily.

And, MartialTalk is for discussion of the arts. You may not wish to discuss certain things, but I don't think others should be discouraged from speculating and wondering. No one can judge the efficacy of the system from here. However, one can judge the rhetoric and the consistency.

I agree. Rhetoric and consistency can be judged and I think the rhetoric has been very consistent. Speculation is great, I encourage it. But there comes a point when you have to experience. We could talk for hours about the biomechanics behind movement, but would that teach you how to improve your punches? Probably not. Would it make you wiser, yes, but the physticallity is needed.
Doc has given many examples of how to test our practices, such as the slap check. Some have chosen not to try them and others have. I haven't heard one person say it was useless and didn't work.
The slap check is complicated. Do I know all the biomechanics behind it? No. Can I teach it, yes. The basics of why it works involves activation of synergist muscles and de-activation of antogonist muscles. In addition, humans seek symetry. When walking your right arm moves in time with your left leg. Symetry.
Perhaps an experiment for you is in order. Something simple that can be wriiten. Right now I have other things to attend to.

 

[Bode]

I have a lot of problems with groups that aren't colleges and aren't universities awarding advanced degrees.

Having earned my degrees from accredited institutioins I agree. However, I don't think MSU ever declared themselves an accredited institution. I could be wrong. Equating belt levels to degrees is simply saying that you have learned a lot. It's a way of communicating concepts.
Perhaps some rhetoric change is in order to better communicate the ideas.

. I should very much like to read an experimental design for a, "double blind," test of a basic SL4 principle, inasmuch as, "double blind," means that neither the researcher nor their experimental subjects knows whether what they are doing is the real thing or a placebo.

I was wondering the same thing. How would you design and experiment? If someone can design an experiment perhaps I can see if, given time, it is possible for me to perform it.

 

[arnisador]

Explaining the science of something online is difficult.

Nonsense. Scientific journals have been around for centuries. Some of the other points that you make are well taken, however.

I do understand that you're not an official of the school. I'm not trying to hold you accountable for its name. I'm trying to understand why it's so named, what it does, and why that's attractive to people.

Equating belt levels to degrees is simply saying that you have learned a lot.

Equating it to a B.S. degree says a lot more. It says, as a rule, that you took the equivalent of 120 semester hours of graded courses from a variety of instructors, with minimum requirements to be met in mathematics through college algebra, English through rhetoric and composition, and if it's in an Arts and Sciences discipline (as opposed to, e.g., engineering), a foreign language (at least one year), plus distribution requirements including at the least 2 years each of natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities; met certain minimum GPA requirements; and completed a course of study in a particular discipline.

Equating it to a Ph.D. says rather more yet.

By the way, I outlined a simple idea for an experiment above:

But even a single blind testing protocol is a step up. Grab 20 people off the street. Do a (safe) technique on them. Do it the SL-4 way half of the time and the "classical" way half of the time, randomized. Have unbiased observers rate the effectiveness of the technique. Not perfect, but it starts to approach a scientific method. Better would be to train 10 volunteers in the SL-4 way of doing one technique, 10 the classical way, and have them perform the technique on other volunteers, and have the results rated.

It's not perfect, and 20 may not be the magic number--one should consult a statistician prior to an experiment, not just afterward!--but it's a start.

 

[howardr]

Note: this is my own opinion. I don't speak for MSU.

Several participants have questioned the science behind MSU. For instance, we've seen the claim that "double-blind" studies must be produced in order to demonstrate the efficacy of the MSU material. If such studies (and the like) are not brought forth, it is said, then whatever is taking place at the MSU can't be science. Well, I don't think that's an accurate depiction of what the MSU is about, nor are such formal studies necessary or advisable within the context of the martial arts.

I'd like to first say that double-blind studies, as has already been noted, seem inapplicable and unrealistic when applied to the material of the martial arts (from what I've seen of SL4). What I've seen suggested by skeptics, so far, is wholly unworkable and wouldn't prove a thing. Is there some other possible means of implementing a double-blind study as suggested? Perhaps, but I'm skeptical of such an undertaking. One reason, off the top of my head, is that I don't think a "blinded" (non-biased) researcher would be able to adequately explain the material without being instructed in its proper employment, thus "unblinding" him, so to speak. (At least that's my impression after exposure to the material.) Does that mean that what MSU is doing is somehow unscientific? I don't think so. Let me offer an abbreviated indication why.

Double-blind studies are the gold standard within a certain realm of scientific inquiry. For example, they may be especially useful in isolating causal factors when investigating the effects of chemical elements on the human body. There a researcher can easily provide exact dosages of chemical combinations and measure physical results against a control group. However, the metaphysical and epistemological base of the experimental method in science is also found in other methods not limited to double-blind experimentation. In fact, the double-blind study itself is simply one implementation of a particular scientific method out of several valid methods of identifying causal factors.

The fundamental methods themselves were first codified explicitly by John Stuate Mill in his System of Logic. These methods are the base of the scientific experimental method. However, it's my impression as a philosopher rather than a scientist (but one who converses with scientists and has an amateur interest in science) that scientists themselves aren't typically versed in the philosophical origin and basis of the scientific method, and its corresponding experimental methods. They are intimately knowledgeable of the details of how to perform the methods but aren't typically interested in their underlying justification or genesis.

Now, several of Mill's methods aren't particularly useful in the context of the martial arts, and so I won't mention them. However, two methods can be utilized and are at the MSU. The first (and foremost) of Mill's "experimental methods" used at the MSU in validating the efficacy of a particular physical action is the Positive Method of Difference. This is what is often called the "laboratory method" or method of "controlled experiment." (Ruby, Logic, 1960). Again, to quote Ruby (quoting Mill), "If a case in which an effect occurs, and one in which it does not occur, are exactly alike except for the presence or absence of a single factor, the effect occurring when that factor is present, and not occurring when it is absent, then that factor is probably the cause." That is Mill's definition of the Positive Method of Difference.

How is this applied in the martial context? I'll offer a very brief and broad sketch of how this may work (much more detailed examples have been offered on this board a number of times). Suppose one executes an extended outward block as commonly done in Kenpo from point origin. Once executed, the block is tested against resistence from the angle which the block is intended to resist. The block as normally executed (non-SL4) will yield to mild pressure quite easily. However, the same block, i.e., the same block in its resultant position, executed via SL4 mechanisms will not yield when tested against the same pressure. It will not yield when tested against much greater pressure. The variables are (roughly) the same. Same practitioner in the same environment executing what ends up being the same block (at least in outward appearance). The difference is in each instance the block's terminal position was arrived at in a different manner (this is the factor being isolated: the SL4 mechanism). So, the only difference is that in one case when executing the block in a particular manner, we observe the result of a significantly weaker block as compared to a stronger block achieved by means of the SL4 manner of execution.

Further, the Method of Concomitant Variation (both direct and inverse) is employed quite routinely to demonstrate that a variation of degree in applying the various SL4 mechanisms will either increase or decrease the solidity and strength of the various blocks, strikes and stances.

For the above reasons (among others, such as the crucial and fundamental fact that the grounding of the entire MSU enterprise is human anatomy, physiology and kinesiology rather than abstract "motion"), I would argue that the MSU approaches the martial arts scientifically. I think I've at least offered some reasonable and plausible arguments for my position.

 

[kenpoworks]

I like the the way arnisador is challenging what is posted it gives a "healthy feel" to this thread.
But, proving "stuff" in the MA is a "mine field", what does and does not work "is specific as well as random", which anyone who has been in more than one actual situation will tell you.
Does it work for real... yes it does.... and .....sorry no it don't....for real.
Richard

 

[Bode]

Nonsense. Scientific journals have been around for centuries.

I conceed. You are correct. However, I am not certain the forum is the place to post such a document. Perhaps a link to the document and mention to what it describes would suffice. Most people on the board probably would not care how biomechanics make a more effective punch. My experience is that people just want to be shown so they can perform it effectively. I'll see what I can do in terms of such papers. Though I find it unlikely there are many. You see, researching takes time, which means time away from practicing, which is of greater importance. Our classes are 4 hours long at the very least. Combined with my day job and other hobbies, I have little spare time.

Another part of the problem is the economics of researching martial art biomechanics. There really isn't any money to be made doing it... if there were I am certain more scientists would choose to research proper martial mechanics. The choice has to be made... do I spend time practicing or writing papers? The moment the market decides that money can be made in this research is the moment you get people with the sole focus of paper writing and not practicing.

Equating it to a B.S. degree says a lot more. It says, as a rule, that you took the equivalent of 120 semester hours of graded courses from a variety of instructors, with minimum requirements to be met in mathematics through college algebra, English through rhetoric and composition, and if it's in an Arts and Sciences discipline (as opposed to, e.g., engineering), a foreign language (at least one year), plus distribution requirements including at the least 2 years each of natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities; met certain minimum GPA requirements; and completed a course of study in a particular discipline.

It does say a lot. Which is exactly what we want. We (more like me, since I don't necessarily represent the school) believe that the rank of black belt is a very important and distinguished position. At this point the person should have learned a great deal. Each Course (which is what we call them instead of belt levels) requires a minimum number of hours of study. In addition there are academic's required. Each course requires a final exam. Question and answer, essay, etc...
By equating them to Courses we have made it clear, no matter how good you are, that you must have taken the pre-requisites.
In terms of GPA. Our GPA is essentially the evaluation of movement and the ability to explain a technique, form, etc... If someone cannot perform the basics well (equivalent to having a low GPA) then they will NOT be moved upward. It is a requirement. If they cannot answer, with clarity, certain questions, they fail. If we promoted people solely out of respect and time spent in class then we wouldn't deserve peoples respect.

Regarding the test.
I think their might need to be some modifications to the test in order to actually do it. It would be very difficult to control all the variables. For instance, if we only considered on strike and had 10 practitioners of SL4 and 10 non-SL4 perform the strike on 20 people then had them rate the effectiveness it would be unfair. You cannot control all of the variables. What if some people hit a little harder than others? What about size advantages? We would have to make sure that we had equivalent body sizes on both sides. It's really impossible to do that test, but at least it is an attempt.
I have a hard time, and believe me, I am trying, coming up with a fair test. Often I find the simplest one is to show a martial artist how their technique, Kenpo or otherwise, can be improved through a few simple changes. (You see, most of what we do can be applied across all arts. Human anatomy dictates movement, which is the foundation we adhere to)
I do this all the time and people thank me. I am not trying to get them to switch to SL4. I just want people to consider some possibilities. I am not saying that other instructors couldn't do the same (improve someones movement). As a matter of fact I could name a few.

There are various other tests which illustrate how body mechanics can assist in structural integrity, which I have performed on countless people. Each and every one is amazed. There are people I have known for five minutes that have no inherent bias either way. As a result I have come to believe that we do in fact test our theories before utilizing them. Were I to meet you I could run you through twenty of them in the course of an hour. We would both learn something.
Writing them down would probably take a year. That is where it becomes difficult to give you what you want. Time. All of us at MSU need more! And you probably wish you had more as well.

I hope I clarified some things.

PS> Seminar in San Diego on May 28th... Doc will be there sharing his "secrets"

 

[Bode]

Note: this is my own opinion. I don't speak for MSU.
For the above reasons (among others, such as the crucial and fundamental fact that the grounding of the entire MSU enterprise is human anatomy, physiology and kinesiology rather than abstract "motion"), I would argue that the MSU approaches the martial arts scientifically. I think I've at least offered some reasonable and plausible arguments for my position.

Thank you. You said it much better than I.

 

[arnisador]

Several participants have questioned the science behind MSU. For instance, we've seen the claim that "double-blind" studies must be produced in

This is common in medicine and psychology, which seem relevant here. However, other methods could certainly be viable. The current method seems to be "anecdotal evidence" which isn't terribly scientific--that might suggest an area of inquiry, not end it.

One reason, off the top of my head, is that I don't think a "blinded" (non-biased) researcher would be able to adequately explain the material without being instructed in its proper employment, thus "unblinding" him, so to speak. (At least that's my impression after exposure to the material.) Does that mean that what MSU is doing is somehow unscientific?

Yes, absolutely. If it can't be studied by a disinterested scientist, but only by someone taught to see it in a certain way, then we've left the realm of science and entered...what? Religion, where believers only are welcome?

Of course a double blind study is only one possible approach...but given the power people have to see what they want, it seems very appropriate here. But, I'm open-minded.

So, the only difference is that in one case when executing the block in a particular manner, we observe the result of a significantly weaker block as compared to a stronger block achieved by means of the SL4 manner of execution.

So, train 10 undergraduates the SL-4 way, 10 the classical way. Don't tell them what or why. Run your test. It's not perfectly blinded because the instructors know what they're teaching and may talk up one method over another, but it's a start.

For the above reasons (among others, such as the crucial and fundamental fact that the grounding of the entire MSU enterprise is human anatomy, physiology and kinesiology rather than abstract "motion"), I would argue that the MSU approaches the martial arts scientifically.

But, wouldn't you agree that many pseudo-scientists also start from a solid grounding in "normal science" (Kuhn)? Need I adduce examples to demonstrate that one can start with a true premise and reach a false conclusion, via faulty logic? Blinding helps with that.

I'm not sure why you quote Mills' outdated language. The scientific method is now well understood. I'd think Popper's criterion of falsifiability is the true issue here at this point--do the SL-4 practitioners agree that there could in principle be experiments that would falsify their claims of superiority? If so, and if they are scientists...the path is clear. Sports scientists, phsyiologists, kineseologists, etc., have developed ways to study these types of issues. If there's no science in martial science--if it's not in the sense of the natural sciences--fair enough.

 

[arnisador]

But, proving "stuff" in the MA is a "mine field", what does and does not work "is specific as well as random"

Yes, I'm not suggesting a scientific appraoach would be best. To the contrary, I see it as a matter of martial arts, not martial sciences. So, someone taking a scientific appraoch to the arts takes a different approach than the one I take, and that interests me! But, I'm unconvinced that this is a truly scientific approach, or even that the people at the MSU anticipated being taken so literally in this regard. I am receiving mixed messages on that, I think.

No offense is intended. Science means what it means...I'm asking about that.

 

[arnisador]

Bode, I agree with much of what you say, though not that it's fair to call it a B.S. degree. (Would you call every college graduate a black belt? It'd be absurd. Should every civilian professor at West Point be made a military officer? No, there's more to it than that. And so, there's more to a B.S. than being a good Kenpoist, even with exams.) Further, a Ph.D. is essentially a college's agreement that the person is capable of performing independent research. I'm not seeing evidence that a MSU "degree" would serve that purpose.

Wow, 4 hour classes! That's hard-core. I respect that!

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. The multiplication of terminologies in response to challenge is, I am afraid, characteristic of all pseudo-sciences.

2. In the absence of ANY outside, independent study of, "SL-4," there can be no legitimate claim of scientific status for such a methodology and/or theoretics.

3. Mr. Parker, too, claimed to be building a science, not merely an art. I remain skeptical about that; among other things, I cannot see how a serious study might be constructed.

4. It has been my experience that, in the martial arts, feeling is very often not believing.

 

[Fastmover]

I have to say I have really enjoyed reading this discussion. I have learned a lot!!!!!

 

[eyebeams]

Ah, Doc.

While I thank you for your opinion, it would appear you've already made several judgements about the efficacy of something you have neither seen or felt and its practitioners, and are just on the road to semantical bickering and arguments. This, I don't do.

Actually, I have no idea whether or not they work. Your stuff might work like a charm and I said as much in my last post. From a scientific standpoint, one should doubt that it works, though.

You actually don't know what experimentation has been done over the years, what codification if any, (and there is plenty), and you make an assumption that someone should supply you with a video for your personal examination when if it existed, (and it does), you wouldn't know what you were looking at anyway. We just don't happen to sell these things, so perhaps you'll find what you seek in the videos of those that do.

Y'see, in science, sharing experimental results for critique is a part of the process. If the counter-statement you just made were to be applied to any recognized scientific discipline, it would be rejected as categorically invalid.

Yes, it's quite unfortunate that at times objective research does not lend itself to hoarding knowledge so that it can be sold on the seminar circuit. That's a cross folks who claim a scientific underpinning for something have to bear.

Your statement that, "It decries traditional approaches..." is also strange, unless you have decided your methodology is somehow "traditional" and therefore is different considering "traditional" hasn't been clearly defined by anyone in this thread. Perhaps you meant "conventional" as within the realm of your understanding. I happen to think it is very "traditional."

By traditional, I refer to numerous statements by yourself and other SL-4 folks differentiating what you do from similar-seeming techniques that are used by other arts. In the link provided SL-4's pressure point approach is specificaly distanced from the approach used by George Dillman. I don't like Dillman's stuff either, but to be honest, neologisms do not suddenly make what you do different from what he does.

Either way I thank you for you comments and the exchange, but I am neither looking to "prove" something to you or anyone else in this universe, and your responses mirror others who sign up for a few posts here on MartialTalk and put nothing in their own profile for public view.

If you have no desire to prove anything, drop the pretense of science.

Criticism comes easy anonymously from the sanctity and safety behind a keyboard.

My real name is Malcolm Sheppard. I live just north of Toronto. Anyone who wants to know anything more about me is free to PM me. Actually, I'd be more forward here, but you never know when somebody's going to do something rash. If anybody wants to challenge my "safety," I'll be happy to use the 911 technique.

You may take it with a grain of salt sir (or madam), however my highly educated advanced degree students who have taken the time to investigate, examine, feel, and even double blind test it themselves have reached a different conclusion and are satisfied with the results, as well as my "claims."

Show me a double-blind test, then. I note you were remarkably silent when it came to me thread on protocols for PP experiments. One would think that as a man of "science" you would already have several such experiments worked out.

As a teacher, they are all that matter and neither I nor any of my students were soliciting your approval or your participation, and we will leave you to your premature, ill-formed, and unknowledgeable position on this subject.

What? My opinion that SL-4 may or may not be all it's cracked up to be, but nobody has any way of knowing? You have no widely disseminated, checkable proof, sir. You ony have anecdotes. You use the term "science" as if it's going out of style, but you do not reveal your results for public scrutiny.

I freely admit that I'm ill-informed about the scientific validity of your methods -- or mine, for that matter. Only one of us is making scientific claims and only one of us is claiming to have testable scientific knowledge. Consequently, only one of us has brought down the eminently scientific burden of proof upon themselves.

Hint: It ain't me.

 

[Kenpo Yahoo]

Doc
...............

Why do people call you Doc? Is it because you are a Ph.D. prof. at your university or are you a medical doctor?