Slave to science ???? Obsession with centreline II

[stuartm]

Hi all,

The thread i posted on obsession with centreline recently got some really interesting responses, so this question seems like a natural follow-up.

As Wing Chun practitioners, are we slaves to science and theory? - ie centreline, triangulation, weight shifting etc etc

What is the aim of of our training? Do we forget that we are studying a martial art and that being able to defend yourself in a real live situation is the ultimate goal.

Example - two students drilling. Student 1 steps in with Jic Kuen and Biu Ma , student two defends with huen ma , tan and punch. Student 2's huen ma is not scientifically perfect but the punch and tan have landed sweetly on the opponent.

Do you :

a) Praise the student on a well landed punch
b) concentrate more on correcting the stance

I know the simple response will be to say 'both' , but i think you get my point.

So , are we training for science or survival given that most fights in the street last under 20 seconds, and usually in a very confined space.

Discuss !!

Regards, Stuart

[bougeac]

hi, youve got an interesting viewpoint there...

what i would say is, to get to the point where you can fight using wing chun in (what our sifu augustine fong calls "the non classical stage") you must have a good understanding AND be able to put into practice all of wing chuns underlying concepts (the triangle, centre line control, simultaneous attack and defence, sticking etc)...

these tools are what will give you the edge in a fight against someone who is unskilled (and you will definately need these tools against a skilled attacker).

without good structure and understanding of what you are doing , youre no better off than the average bloke in the street imo...

[OdderMensch]

I'd say we're studying a survivial science. As you said, most fights probably last only 20 seconds or so, do you have time to make sloppy movements? While perfect movements are not always combat aplicable (or as Sifu puts it, dead right) combat moves should strive towards perfection, even if they never get there.

In your example, it would depend on how "unscienificly perfect" the huen ma was. Did it leave them on the forward leg, did they rise up out of thier root, did they shift thier hips back? Any of these things could have serious repercusions in that 20 second time span, or might rob the hit of power, even it it were perfectly placed.

But you should never forget that WC is a fighting art.

[stuartm]

Good responses so far !!

In a confrontation you are bound to make mistakes, and to some extent the real skill is how to recover from and / or remedy those mistakes - I think this point is crucial.

Yes of course, we must train to put ourselves in the best possible position, but our minds as well as our bodies must be malleable and be open to interpretation and alternative options.

Science is a guide, not your master. This is something i stress to my beginners all the time - if they perform a techniques and get it wrong, i do not let them walk away, but instead ask them - 'how do you put the situation right?'. I think this way drilling becomes a more valuable experience.

Good stuff !! Stuart;)

[Mr Punch]

I'd just like to add that too many teachers seem to explain theory, rather than demonstrate it.

The best way to learn the science of wing chun is to strike and be struck: chi sao, sparring, step drilling (san sao or whatever your school calls it) or heaven forbid, fighting!

BTW, the aim of my training is not to be able to defend myself in a 'real life situation'... I have no aim. I have been in real life for some time now, and I don't aim... I strike! Or, quite often, I trip over. Fall asleep. Those kind of things. And no, I'm not being a smartarse, but you have to be act natural in your wing chun as in your life: to follow your reflex, which is hopefully trained well.

BTW 2: out of many altercations, only two I've been in have been in a confined space.

[foolinthedeck]

mat says:

The best way to learn the science of wing chun is to strike and be struck: chi sao, sparring, step drilling (san sao or whatever your school calls it) or heaven forbid, fighting

i agree, my point to add is this: what is this thing we call 'science' do we rely on it that much? some of us in the west do a lot that is sure, but would anyone argue that a pre pythagorean greek be unable to learn wing chun because there was no 'science' to explain it? i believe alot of the science element is a cultural bias of the predominant western world view. if wing chun was prevelant in the middle ages, would we be using church terminology to describe it? wing chun is not simply science, or else it would have been invented by science and not by a monk.

i learned alot from my first sifu, and he hardly ever even spoke, didnt answer questions and was very frustrating until now and i see that i know, or at least my hands know the answers without having to resort to traingulation etc... for some students this kind of talk is necessary. but not for all.

whats the aim of my training?, at the moment its consciousness.

[[Censored]]

Do you :

a) Praise the student on a well landed punch
b) concentrate more on correcting the stance

No. I call the student over to try the same on me, and I capitalize on their mistake. Then I teach the other student how to capitalize on the mistake. If I can't or won't do either of these, then:

a) The stance wasn't wrong after all, or
b) I am unqualified to teach Wing Chun!!!

[reneritchie]

Why do people insist on using the word "science" with MA, including WCK, in anything even remotely resembling a serious manner?

[foolinthedeck]

how do you mean rene?

[reneritchie]

WCK is not a science. No MA is a science. Of course, WCK obeys observable scientific laws, but so does sitting on a sofa and flipping channels, or a typical episode of Martha Stewart.

[PaulH]

If science is defined as an art, discipline, skill, or knowledge, it is really a proper word to apply to the study of martial art. If seriousness is characterized by much effort or devotion, again judging from the sheer quantity and quality of words trading back and forth on some prominent threads here, I dare say WCK is the closest thing to science.

Regards,

[reneritchie]

Hi Paul,

Within the vastness of English definition, I'll grant that you can easily place WCK, basket weaving, Martha Stewart shows, channel flipping, etc. in the "science" definition, but IMHO many people use it as a buzzword, much like "internal" or "Shaolin" as a way to make WCK sound better through adjectification rather than be better through training and application.

[PaulH]

Hi Rene,

Honestly I don't know why people are so hung up on terminology and theories when it comes to WCK. There will always be non WC barbarians who can humble any experienced WC fighters when it comes to real fighting. To beat them, you really have to train harder and better.

Regards,

[reneritchie]

Paul,

In China in the past, you could set up the Loi Toi, or tell a great story. Which one sounds easier? 8)

[canglong]

I think Censored answered the question pretty well.



WCK is not a science. No MA is a science. Of course, WCK obeys observable scientific laws, but so does sitting on a sofa and flipping channels, or a typical episode of Martha Stewart.


Rene, your analogy is incorrect because it places the emphasis on WHAT is done where science places that emphasis not on what is being done but HOW it is done. With that in mind of course WCK when applied correctly is a science.

[burnsypoo]

Originally posted by canglong
Rene, your analogy is incorrect because it places the emphasis on WHAT is done where science places that emphasis not on what is being done but HOW it is done. With that in mind of course WCK when applied correctly is a science.

This is what I don't understand, how can the ultimite application of wing chun be a science? IMO, there is no "how" in that sense. The "how" is for the training, the application is only the "what", and even then only in hindsight. In the moment, there is only you, only expression... and to express yourself is to find the art in anything.

Why would you want to be a couples notes on a page, when you can be the music in between?

[canglong]

burnsypoo,

The difference between art and science is application because there will always be more than one way to do anything but only one way to determine how to establish a path for doing something correctly and the most efficient way possible.
The two are distinct and seperate.

[reneritchie]

Rene, your analogy is incorrect because it places the emphasis on WHAT is done where science places that emphasis not on what is being done but HOW it is done. With that in mind of course WCK when applied correctly is a science.

Everyone will have an opinion, of course. It's like saying the moon is made of cheese (many people once had that opinion, showing the popularity of some misconceptions). Once I see an article, peer reviewed of course, in Nature, on the Science of WCK, I will humbly and profoundly admit the error of my ways.


but only one way to determine how to establish a path for doing something correctly and the most efficient way possible.

Unfortunately, modern (real) science has shown this to be false.


Why would you want to be a couples notes on a page, when you can be the music in between?

Makes me seem prescient 8)

[anerlich]

In a confrontation you are bound to make mistakes, and to some extent the real skill is how to recover from and / or remedy those mistakes - I think this point is crucial.

(Sound of nail being hit squarely on head)

This is indeed a crucial point. As one of my mentors says, "performance overrides precision". What makes the idfference is not how you perform when things are going well, but how well you perform when you're under pressure, at a disadvantage, in a bad position, on the back foot.

If you only train in the expectation that you will perform perfectly and make no mistakes, the real world will hit you like a runaway train.

[anerlich]

I think WCK and other MA's are neither art nor science, but more like a craft. It's about WORKING. Hands on.

To be a science, it would need to rely more on experimental method, and its continual employment. Precious little of that going on in WC, whereas in some (usually more sports oriented) arts (OK, crafts :)), there is continual experimentation and adaptation. Making analogies to concepts of hard science doesn't make it scientific - especially when claims are made like an analogy to Pauli's exclusion principle being developed in a Chinese monastery on the 16th century and similar.

IMO some practitioners treat WC as something more like astrology, or Rene's "Appalacian Folk Pottery" than a science. Based on traditions, particular cultural mores, unfounded hypotheses, legend and folk tales, clinging to the old and shunning the new or different. Nothing essentially wrong with that as long as you realise what you are doing and its implications.

[canglong]

IMO some practitioners treat WC as something more like astrology, or Rene's "Appalacian Folk Pottery" than a science.

Sure no argument there, but once again you are refering to the variables of people and application not the science of wing chun itself.

[burnsypoo]

Originally posted by canglong
burnsypoo,

The difference between art and science is application because there will always be more than one way to do anything but only one way to determine how to establish a path for doing something correctly and the most efficient way possible.
The two are distinct and seperate.

Hypothetical:
If you get into an "application situation", and you lose.

Did the science fail? or did you?

[Alpha Dog]

Fight the centerline.

[EnterTheWhip]

Originally posted by stuartm
Do you :

a) Praise the student on a well landed punch
b) concentrate more on correcting the stance


B. Punching is the easy part. The targets are always there... It's not hard to do. Wing Chun is for the other stuff. So why waste your training with ego boosts.

[canglong]

Hypothetical:
If you get into an "application situation", and you lose.
Did the science fail? or did you?

The proper terminology I believe would be apply or attempt to apply through scientific method. Science can only show you the path it can't walk the path for you. Any failure on the part of an individual is not an indictment against the science or the individual it is only part of the process of validation or rejection for those individuals involved in the process.

[anerlich]

but once again you are refering to the variables of people and application not the science of wing chun itself.

Well, your opinion.

Mine is that "the science of wing chun itself" is an imaginary entity, i.e. no such thing exists.

[burnsypoo]

Originally posted by canglong
Science can only show you the path it can't walk the path for you.

Reading this, I ask again, then how is the application of Wing Chun scientific?

If there's a man, walking a path (the actual application), relying on his own strengths and weaknesses to get him along that path... where's the science?

Saying that the study of it is scientific is one thing. But fists do the talking, not formulas. At the end of the day it always comes down to one man, doing the best he can, just like everyone else.

[reneritchie]

Anerlich, as usual, is correct. Burnsypoo is as well.

Craft is spot on. For those who want to teach for a living, trade is good too.

You can say WCK is science, you can say its magic, you can say its a Matrix program (science that seems magical), you can *say* anything. Science, however, would demand proof, reproducible, repeatable proof.

AD,

Fight the center
Fight the center that be
(yeeeeeeeaaaaaahhh boooooyeeeeee!)
Fight the center
You got to fight the center that be

Bruce Lee...
Bruce Lee was a hero to most--

[Alpha Dog]

As the rhythm designed to bounce
What counts is that the rhymes
Designed to fill your mind
Now that you've realized the prides arrived
We got to pump the stuff to make us tough
from the heart
It's a start, a work of art
To revolutionize make a change nothin's strange
People, people we are the same
No we're not the same
Cause we don't know the game
What we need is awareness, we can't get careless
You say what is this?
My beloved lets get down to business
Mental self defensive fitness
(Yo) bum rush the show
You gotta go for what you know
Make everybody see, in order to fight the centers that be
Lemme hear you say...
Fight the Center

[reneritchie]

To all the critics that had WCK counted out
and to all the cynics who hadn't fought
but thought it all figured out
who opened tours on the Xijiang shores
From the latter day descendants
going back to the Red Junk halls
108 movements in the name of Siu Lien Tao
Bong Sao one now take a look
at Tan and Fook
Politics wins over practice
I know cause we lack this
seriousness in time of MMA demographics
Internal and ex
East to the West
North to the South
It don't matter
Long as your Chung Choi's got clout
To be judged effective
by some internet dyslexic
that's verbal diarhetics
cause our application's dynamic
And now we get our fight on
righteous and right on
relax and stay tight on
the center line and just carry on
Our hands speak for themselves
Can't never judge the quality
or the skill
by squiggles on the LCD
Good gawd!

If you don't know it
You can call it Mista WCK...

[reneritchie]

(Apologies to Chuck D, a brotha who it turned out did briefly go solo, and to all of Public Enemy, except for Griff)

[kj]

From http://www.dictionary.com (just as a convenient sample)


sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

1.
__a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
__b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
__c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.


It appears to me that 5 is the only definition which clearly has no applicability.

Definitions 1a and 1b may be relevant more in a figurative way than a literal one, and depending on whether or not such things as Wing Chun, fighting, certain functionings and applications of the human body, or even learning itself (as examples) are considered as natural phenomena.

Number 4 is clearly relevant for anyone practicing Wing Chun in any flavor (one would hope!), and number 3 almost universally so, with those who attempt to learn through random acts alone (such as fighting) as possible exceptions.

On the other hand, there is the scientific method:


scientific method
n.
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.


Inasmuch as the definition does not specify or restrict to degrees of rigor, nor does it mention such things as repeatability or control of experiments or even the form of cognition, even this definition may loosely apply in the case of individual learning (and hopefully does in some fashion for most of us).

The joy and tyranny of words. Now, back to your regular programming.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[reneritchie]

Gotta love dictionary.com!

It's not the tyranny of words that worries me so much as the buzziness.

[kj]

Originally posted by burnsypoo
Saying that the study of it is scientific is one thing. But fists do the talking, not formulas. At the end of the day it always comes down to one man, doing the best he can, just like everyone else.

More evidence in favor of the argument that (Wing Chun != Fighting).

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[kj]

Originally posted by reneritchie
Gotta love dictionary.com!

It's not the tyranny of words that worries me so much as the buzziness.

Do you perhaps mean certain connotations, or frequency of use?

Regards,
- kj

P.S. & FWIW, I personally feel that descriptors other than "science" more accurately reflect the process, though I cannot say that the term science is wrong.

[burnsypoo]

Originally posted by kj
More evidence in favor of the argument that (Wing Chun != Fighting).

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

Oh come on now KJ, wing chun is the ultimate fight. The struggle for simplicity.
:)

[kj]

Originally posted by burnsypoo


Oh come on now KJ, wing chun is the ultimate fight. The struggle for simplicity.
:)

No less the battle within. Okay, you got me. :D

Regards,
- kj

[Alpha Dog]

You wake up late for class, man you don't wanna go
You ask you mom, "Please?", but she still says, "No!"
You missed two lessons, and no chi gerk
But your Sifu preaches class like you're some kind of jerk

You gotta fight for your right to chi sao

Your pop caught you rollin' and he said, "No way!"
That hypocrite chi sao's everyday
Man, living at home is such a drag
Now your mom threw away your best Kung Fu mag (Ma de!)

You gotta fight for your right to chi sao

Don't step out of this house if that's the sash you're gonna wear
I'll kick you out of my home if you keep punchin to the air
Your mom busted in and said, "What's that noise?"
Aw, mom you're just jealous it's the McNamera Boys!

You gotta fight for your right to chi sao
You gotta fight for your right to chi sao

[reneritchie]

Gawdam, another Chi Sao lesson with a twist
Punch from the sneeky little sidai missed
Am I done?
What'll be the outcome?
Can I ever get to be like Sum Nung?
Gotta train
Better train
Stay relaxed
While others tense a thousand times
Tense never tense never will
Deal with attacks
With a Tan or a Bil
<poke>
Wannabees try to do us
But we was training SLT
before they heard of Bruce Lee
Call us part of a conspiracy
but they're the ones making plans see?
NutherGuckers
Wushu is something I tried to study
But it made my legs all Gumby
Telling me to kick like a buttefly
Hurt my pelvis; thought I was gonna die
I knew they was buggin
Cause to us a kick
Is something with application
Callin us fast hands
Like that somehow reprimands
Hsit
You gotta gets yer facts right
We're WCK
WCK smooth, soft, and tight
Don't believe the hype was said in 88
by the great Chuck D
And he didn't even know Biu Jee
...
Chi Sao
Chi Sao in my Chinese Slippers
Just Chi Sao
Chi Sao in my Chinese Slippers...

[Tom Kagan]

The difference between art and science is application because there will always be more than one way to do anything but only one way to determine how to establish a path for doing something correctly and the most efficient way possible.
The two are distinct and seperate.


Uhh ... that doesn't sound very scientific.

There is a profound difference between using the scientific method to study a given subject versas whether the subject matter is, in fact, a science.

Empirical proof that Ving Tsun is not a science is that, no matter how much is written on any portion the subject matter, even the most highly educated and motivated person cannot use the written papers to consistently and independently perform experiments that can be objectively repeated and verified, then in turn, subjected to peer reviews using the scientific method.

More empirical proof that Ving Tsun is not a science is that it can be studied quite effectively without using the scientific method. Science, on the other hand, cannot be studied effectively without using the scientific method. Only people of intellect (different than education) have the ability to effectively study science. Art can be effectively studied, practiced, and taught by a commoner. Still, nothing is stopping a intellectual Ving Tsun practitioner from using the scientific method to study their art, even if they learn their art from a commoner.

The very nature of science and the scientific method is its constant begging to be proven wrong, not vehement defense that it is the best/only way. The nature of religion is its constant condemnation for those who try to prove it wrong because of its constant insistence that it alone is the best/only way. And while it is possible to strike a balance between the two extremes on occasion, doing it sucessfully is an artform. :) .

The nature of art doesn't particularly care if you prove it right or wrong. It exists for the utterly primal pleasure of expression.

To enter the highest levels of any art requires one to eventually discard and transcend any and all methods used to become reasonably proficient in its subject matter. And while scientists throughout the ages have used art and a measure of luck as tools to advance science, until the new wisdom passes peer reviews and scrutiny which uses the scientific method, it cannot be reasonably labeled a science. That doesn't hold true for an art because the end result is just more art.

Society certainly considers treating the martial attributes as an art form to be a perverse point of view (and why, I think, so many people try to make the ability to hurt, maim, and kill into something else, such as a type of science). But, anyone who has actually witnessed and/or experienced firsthand the mindset of a true warrior at the moment where he/she is expressing their art understands completely how right/wrong, living/dying, fear/bravery, dominance/submission etc. just fades away for what is hopefully (for society's sake) a fleeting instant.


"KungFu without a system is not KungFu. KungFu dependant on a system is not good KungFu." -- Moy Yat.

[reneritchie]

Excellent post! Cheers Tom!

[PaulH]

Hi Tom and Rene,

Just want to say that I could care less whether people call WC -the science or art of in-fighting. I'm content to learn the skills of the system. The power and demonstration of such skills on their tested and tattered body will be verificable and duplicable proof to satisfy any of their sceptical inquiries into the scientific nature of my WC. Will this do? Ha!Ha!

Regards,

[yuanfen]

Very good post Tom.

[canglong]

Tom, Kagan,

Empirical proof that Ving Tsun is not a science is that, no matter how much is written on any portion the subject matter, even the most highly educated and motivated person cannot use the written papers to consistently and independently perform experiments that can be objectively repeated and verified, then in turn, subjected to peer reviews using the scientific method.


When dealing with human physiology I believe it is much easier for different humans to be able to reproduce with repetative consistancy the same punch than the same paint brush stroke through scientific method and study.


"KungFu without a system is not KungFu. KungFu dependant on a system is not good KungFu." -- Moy Yat.
Now, that sounds like science to me.

[Tom Kagan]

When dealing with human physiology I believe it is much easier for different humans to be able to reproduce with repetative consistancy the same punch than the same paint brush stroke through scientific method and study.

Perhaps, perhaps not. (Still, I see it as very telling and quite encouraging you chose to say "I believe" instead of "It's a reproducible fact.")

Either way, the mechanics of that particular punch for that one single person who is able to reproduce it with repetitive consistency can be reasonably called science when that person then writes a paper on the subject, then at least ten independent people the author has never met use the scientific method to consistently reproduce the exact same punch on their own, solely from the information contained within the paper, with no other input other than their adherence to the scientific method, without a large number of false starts, and subjecting the results to peer review. (Even if you believe that were possible, it still reveals nothing of the punch's effectiveness in other scenarios - alas, it's too large of a "multi-variable equation," a real scientist might conclude) Until then, that single person's punch does not come close to approaching science no matter what method he or she employed to approach its study.

A good paper on a subject might be considered a recipe (art), but that does not interpolate the recipe into a formula (science). I doubt a formula can be devised for a punch (or a brush stroke) within the next century. Prove me wrong, I beg you - the United States Military begs you, too. :)

If you think that the scientific method is the only/best method available for everyone to learn effective KungFu, then I might suggest you use the scientific method to study the history of warfare. Perhaps around the time you get the part about the children's crusades, you might be sufficiently convinced otherwise. If not at that point, then perhaps where you learn about the methods ("systems" as it were, from my SiFu's quote) that herds of wild animals use to teach warfare to their young.

Or, maybe using the the scientific method to try and disprove the scientific method is the best/only way to learn martial attributes is not one's cup of tea. Luckily, because we are talking about an art, a person can do the same using another way, too: Watch the result of what David Abbott learned. No one can reasonably say that "the pit fighting method" (dating back to the reign of Ceasar and Genghis Khan) is an ineffective way to learn good martial attributes. Is the method risky? Sure, absolutely. (Woe is the price we artists pay ... :p )

But, is "the pit fighting method" ineffective? Is it not the best way? For some, perhaps. But, to answer with more than that (e.g. a resounding "Sure, absolutely") is way too easy to say while shielding oneself with a keyboard. It would also be a snobbish answer, regardless. To not be a snobbish answer you would, at a minimum, be required to convince ten people currently employing "the pit fighting method" effectively that you have, at the least, a better way to learn than they have currently. And, even though I haven't read it yet, I'll go out on a limb and guarantee 100% there isn't a single thing you are going to find anywhere whatsoever in the Heaven and Earth Society's secret scientific methods and training formulae that will make your point to ten effective "pit fighter style" martial artists. You'll have to find a way on your own to transcend your methods. Prove me wrong, I beg you. :D

[canglong]

The economy of motion and most efficient use of energy governing principles of wing chun can not be employed at a practitioners discretion and still be called wing chun. When these principles truly govern the practitioners wing chun then they are using a method tried and true through scientific method. If the parctitioners are not expressing these principles in their wing chun they may at that point be expressing an art form somewhat similiar to wing chun, which carries a little less the probability of being as effective as the scientific principles of wing chun, perhaps, perhaps not.


If you think that the scientific method is the only/best method available for everyone to learn effective KungFu, then I might suggest you use the scientific method to study the history of warfare.

I never said only or best. I merely stated my opinion of what works for me.

[desertwingchun2]

Excellent post, Tony

[reneritchie]

One area in which WCK is definately like science is in the disgreements (and sometimes bickering) of experts. Unfortunately, science says we can't observe something without altering it, and thus "most efficient" is inextricably bound into our own observation, processing, determination, and execution, and different individuals will have different opinions as to what "most efficient" may be, just as different scientists may argue about ozone depletion or the formation of black holes (sometimes terribly politically).

Perhaps then its not so bad a buzzword, as if we remember what science truly is, stiving, seeking, finding, not yielding (to quote artistically ;) ), proposing, facing disproof, accepting and trying again, then we know its not an easy, lazy cop out of parotted "one correct answer" requiring no thought, no work, no personal insight or achievement.

Then if someone says "this is the one best way, look, it's science, I'll prove it to you", you can laugh, have one of the Jamaican brothers put them under lazy arrest, and go back to the more rigorous demands of true learning.

[Tom Kagan]

The economy of motion and most efficient use of energy governing principles of wing chun can not be employed at a practitioners discretion and still be called wing chun. When these principles truly govern the practitioners wing chun then they are using a method tried and true through scientific method. If the parctitioners are not expressing these principles in their wing chun they may at that point be expressing an art form somewhat similiar to wing chun, which carries a little less the probability of being as effective as the scientific principles of wing chun, perhaps, perhaps not.

Did you use the scientific method to come to this conclusion, then use the scientific method to show that it cannot be reached just as effectively another way? Or, are you just trusting what you've been told? ;) I don't think science is your religion anymore than you think my art is science.

I will state unequivocally I believe any great fighter (whether it would be: Frank Shamrock, David Abbott, Royce Gracie, Lou Neglia, Muhammed Ali, Frank Gotch, Nez Perce Indian Tribal Chief Joseph, U.S. Cavalry General William Sherman, Genghis Khan, the alpha male of a wild herd, etc. etc. etc.) understands and uses the attributes and principles of Ving Tsun far more faithfully, correctly, and effectively than most people who actually pretend to study it. Yet, most of them didn't learn it using the scientific method and most of them don't appear superfically to express our art in the same way. :eek: How is that possible? Because it's an art.

A friend of mine used the scientific method (Pavlov's theories) to train his cat to use the toilet (known as a water closet for those in British colonies, or WC for short) instead of a cat box. Science? No, not at all. A few years later, that same cat taught a kitten to do the same thing without using my friend's scientific method. (But I wouldn't claim it to be an art, either :D ).

I am glad you recognize that what works for you (the scientific method) may not work well for others to learn the same subject matter. But, that's exactly my point: Ving Tsun is not a science. Anyone sufficiently motivated can learn it.

Ving Tsun is a martial art. It has to be an art if the common man or woman can learn it and pass it on. It is not a science for the elite. If a practitioner cannot accomplish that feat using the scientific method, then that method is limited. Ving Tsun is not limited by its methods used to learn it and must eventually transcend its methods if it is to live on. (What do you think the "Weng" in the "Weng Kiu" you like to repeat actually means, anyway?)

Science can never transcend the scientific method; that would be magic. Or, perhaps you'd prefer a more scientifically sounding word: insight - that's another art form in itself, and not required (but an occasionally useful tool) to advance science. But when the art of insight is used, that's not science yet.

The voice of Ving Tsun whispers softly: "Keun Yau Saam Faht." She doesn't drill us by repeating loudly: "Yeung Lei Ga Loh" (even when she has to remind us to stop being a "Muk Yan Jong" every once in a while). :cool:

[canglong]

I will state unequivocally I believe any great fighter (whether it would be: Frank Shamrock, David Abbott, Royce Gracie, Lou Neglia, Muhammed Ali, Frank Gotch, Nez Perce Indian Tribal Chief Joseph, U.S. Cavalry General William Sherman, Genghis Khan, the alpha male of a wild herd, etc. etc. etc.) understands and uses the attributes and principles of Ving Tsun far more faithfully, correctly, and effectively than most people who actually pretend to study it. Yet, most of them didn't learn it using the scientific method and most of them don't appear superfically to express our art in the same way. How is that possible? Because it's an art.


The principles are the key issue and the other possibility is that it is a science no matter who, how or where it is these principles are employed but once employed they become part of the scientific method of study. How that knowledge is acquired may or may not be relevant the study of focus in this case would be the end result of the continued employment of those same principles in different settings over time.

At any rate I see it as very telling and quite encouraging you chose to say "I believe" instead of "It's a known fact."

[burnsypoo]

Originally posted by canglong

At any rate I see it as very telling and quite encouraging you chose to say "I believe" instead of "It's a known fact."

put together a few "i believes" and you got yourself a "known fact".

aparently.

[Tom Kagan]

At any rate I see it as very telling and quite encouraging you chose to say "I believe" instead of "It's a known fact."

And I see it as very telling and quite encouraging that your choice to repeat my own words back to me to make your point - whether it is an attempt to express the the art of humor or the art of insult - cannot be learned via the scientific method.

Of course, which art (or both) you might trying to express is not particularly important to me, but I did find it funny. :p

[canglong]

yeah, thats me Tom I much rather prefer to make people laugh than to have to hit them over the head with my bong.

[canglong]

sau

[crimsonghost]

Scientific method.
If you take a principle, idea, or theory and wish to prove it as true,
you test it.
you analyze what happens when outside influences interact with your idea.
i.e. if an opponent jabs and I use tan sau will that keep me from being hit.
hypothesis: Yes, I think tan san will keep me from being hit by a jab punch.
test it.
Do you get hit? or is the punch deflected?
If it is deflected your theory/hypothesis is right. now, figure out why.
Can you explain why?
This is very basic scientific thought, action, and theory.
Now, do you do this when you study WC?
That is up to you. Some follow blindly and some do not. As a Si-Je I am supposed to be able to question, answer students questions, analyze WC, and its principles and theories. This is something I will have to study, test, and analyze for the next 2-3 years.
Not everyone chooses to become an instructor, but you learn more indepth when you take that road.
Now, are you a slave to science? this very question is unfortunate. By its nature, science should liberate one through knowledge. It enables you to NOT follow blindly, taking on faith and such that technique works. It gives you the opportunity to test and prove your techniques against many variables, and to change technique if it is found to be inefficient. WC like science constantly changes, if it does not it becomes stale and ineffective to the changing styles and methods of fighters today.