Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37

Thread: Science Vs Pseudoscience {Can you prove it?}

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by GeneChing View Post
    I feel ya. My flippant response would be that Daoism is even less defined. Such is the nature of a shamanic tradition. But I'd also argue that it was the influence of Daoism upon Buddhism that spawned Zen (or Chan if we're being strictly Chinese). Buddhism doesn't quite definitively formalize until it leaves India and China. You might say the Tibetan is defined, but that's so dependent upon the influence of their local pantheon of gods which mated with Buddhism; it's a completely unique take on the tradition. Once Buddhism and Zen gets to Japan, it gets super formal. Such is Japan, right?
    Would you say that a lot of the complexities regarding Buddhism in China is rooted in the fact that, even before Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Chinese people were trying to wipe out their own traditional culture to make room for "progress" or "modernization", but now the country is scrambling to try and bring back and revitalize a religion they in some ways had forgotten.

  2. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Gweilo_Fist View Post
    That's the Bhagavad-Gita, correct?
    In the Gita, doesn't Krishna also say that, even though everyone who worships other deities/religions are indirectly worshipping Krishna, they're all still doomed to fail because they're not worshiping Krishna directly? I've always found that part to be confusing about the Gita. It professes all religions are legitimate while at the same time it claims exclusivity to truth.
    They claim exclusivity to truth. The thing for me is the Gita and srimad bhagavad work for me. I don't buy that it is the only way though,to each his own.

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by wiz cool c View Post
    They claim exclusivity to truth. The thing for me is the Gita and srimad bhagavad work for me. I don't buy that it is the only way though,to each his own.
    Fair enough. We can leave it at that. Having said that, I always love engaging in these kinds of discussions (respectfully, of course) so if you're ever down for it, Id love to dive further into it.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    44,029

    Gweilo_Fist & wiz cool c

    Quote Originally Posted by Gweilo_Fist View Post
    Would you say that a lot of the complexities regarding Buddhism in China is rooted in the fact that, even before Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Chinese people were trying to wipe out their own traditional culture to make room for "progress" or "modernization", but now the country is scrambling to try and bring back and revitalize a religion they in some ways had forgotten.
    No, I think you would say that.
    Okay, fine, sure. Each dynasty, including the Cult Rev, sought to tear down the previous establishment by its cultural roots. And then they realize that one of China's greatest treasures are those roots. China has one of the longest well-recorded histories of any nation. Only India is on par with China. But I do think the CR is a significant factor. Buddhism under the Chicoms is a tricky thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiz cool c View Post
    They claim exclusivity to truth. The thing for me is the Gita and srimad bhagavad work for me. I don't buy that it is the only way though,to each his own.
    Almost every ancient scripture boasts truth exclusivity. What I've always respected about the Gita is its context within the Mahabharata. That is such an amazing epic, so rich with metaphor, and then here's this one chapter of it that becomes a major religious text.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gweilo_Fist View Post
    Fair enough. We can leave it at that. Having said that, I always love engaging in these kinds of discussions (respectfully, of course) so if you're ever down for it, Id love to dive further into it.
    Ah, go for it guys. It's not like we get nearly that many posts here like back a decade ago, so it's nice to see some posts that aren't mine just copying&pasting news or the random spam we've been getting recently (those get re-hyperlinked to MartialArtsMart, if you haven't noticed).

    Maybe start another thread somewhere as this one has gone wildly off topic (nothing wrong with that - off topic is fun too). We provide this forum so you can discuss stuff (respectfully, like you say) and it's a different quality of discussion than social media. Facebook isn't an easily searchable database. Here we can summon up a post from 2001 if we like. So please, have at it.
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  5. #20
    Isn't Buddha one of Krishna's ten avatars?

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by mengfei View Post
    Isn't Buddha one of Krishna's ten avatars?
    If I am correct (which I rarely am, lol), some in the Hindu religion view Buddha as one of Krishna's avatars, while Buddhists themselves seem to reject this claim. What I find interesting about claiming Buddha to be one of Krishna's avatars, is that in the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna calls for devotees to achieve absolute Krishna consciousness and devotion in order to reach enlightenment/salvation/etc. Why that is interesting is because, Buddhism was created in part as a rejection to the Vedas (which the Bhagavad-Gita is part of) and is therefore a rejection of Krishna consciousness. So to say that Buddha is one of Krishna's avatars and that all religions were created to indirectly worship Krishna is to say that Krishna created Buddhism as a means for his creation (humans) to reject him, which completely goes against his call for humans to reach total Krishna consciousness. So the logical conclusion is that either, Buddha is not a Krishna avatar or Krishna is intentionally misleading others away.

    And just for clarity, I am not speaking as a follower of Hinduism or Buddhism. This is just my personal observation.
    Last edited by Gweilo_Fist; 02-01-2019 at 07:44 AM.

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Gweilo_Fist View Post
    Fair enough. We can leave it at that. Having said that, I always love engaging in these kinds of discussions (respectfully, of course) so if you're ever down for it, Id love to dive further into it.
    Sure Gweilo_Fist

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by wiz cool c View Post
    Sure Gweilo_Fist
    I can't tell if that's a sarcastic "sure" based on my response to Mengfei or a sincere "sure". Oh, how we lose so much nuance with text. Why isn't there a sarcastic font for these situations! haha

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Gweilo_Fist View Post
    If I am correct (which I rarely am, lol), some in the Hindu religion view Buddha as one of Krishna's avatars, while Buddhists themselves seem to reject this claim. What I find interesting about claiming Buddha to be one of Krishna's avatars, is that in the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna calls for devotees to achieve absolute Krishna consciousness and devotion in order to reach enlightenment/salvation/etc. Why that is interesting is because, Buddhism was created in part as a rejection to the Vedas (which the Bhagavad-Gita is part of) and is therefore a rejection of Krishna consciousness. So to say that Buddha is one of Krishna's avatars and that all religions were created to indirectly worship Krishna is to say that Krishna created Buddhism as a means for his creation (humans) to reject him, which completely goes against his call for humans to reach total Krishna consciousness. So the logical conclusion is that either, Buddha is not a Krishna avatar or Krishna is intentionally misleading others away.

    And just for clarity, I am not speaking as a follower of Hinduism or Buddhism. This is just my personal observation.

    Thank you for your reply! Happy to read your thoughts! Well, my wife is Hindu and I was brought up with loose Buddha teachings mixed in with some Taoist. I think in Japan the Shinto is heavily mixed in with Buddhism although that is way off topic! My wife the other night had mentioned after we watched some movie, I believe I have watched more Indian films than Chinese lol. Love Akshay Kumar films, now way way off! She had mentioned about Buddha being one of Krishna's avatars. I feel like you are thinking though as to me that really does not make sense.

    I believe at one time, many Hindu's born in a lower caste, started converting to Buddha. I have not read the Gita but I agree that being one avatar and Buddha's teachings do not seem to go together! I cannot think that Krishna would intentionally mislead others away. Might be some Hindu's decided to grab Buddha and throw him in the mix. I am sure my wife would disagree, ha!

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by GeneChing View Post
    While I generally agree with this discussion, I do have a bone to pick with it. I've always had issues with any martial arts claim to being 'scientific'. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method and a misuse of the term. You can't make predictions in the martial arts, which is a cornerstone of science. If you could, you might make a tidy fortune betting on MMA fights nowadays. While there are certainly some scientific experiments involving the martial arts (heck, my PhD thesis was martial, even though I never finished it ), to bandy about the term 'science' in the context of martial arts betrays a pop culture notion of what science really is.
    Yeah, "scientific" martial arts even gets used as a selling point, but by definition they aren't science. As someone that trains Gong Fu and Muay Thai, it irritates me when MT fans call it the "science of 8 limbs," instead of the art, or claim that is scientific, unlike other styles....it demonstrates zero understanding of traditional, (and modern) culture of the art. Some practitioners are more pragmatic than others, some systems have higher ratios of pragmatic practitioners than others...I think that's more accurate terminology than scientific/psuedoscientific.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    This is 100% TCMA principle. It may be used in non-TCMA also. Since I did learn it from TCMA, I have to say it's TCMA principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    We should not use "TCMA is more than combat" as excuse for not "evolving".

    You can have Kung Fu in cooking, it really has nothing to do with fighting!

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    CA, USA
    Posts
    4,881
    There are definite parallels between religions and martial arts, or at least how they are approached by many of their followers. At some point for many people, the "-ism" or the -anity" and the rituals, politics and exclusivity around them become more important than what the original purpose was intended to be. With MA, the sect is the style/system/lineage. "My style(s) {or lineage} is the only path to the truth, and everyone outside of it is ignorant." The MA, or at least the school and/or the organization it belongs to if any, becomes a type of cult.

    This can happen in ALL MAs, including MMA and the base systems that comprise it. Which is why I rarely discuss MA at all anymore, and I never discuss religion. I long ago ceased following any organized religion, anyway, and only classify myself now as 'spiritual but not religious'. Some religious people roll their eyes at that, but IMO, true spirituality must be a deeply personal thing based on personal experience. What is 'best' is what's best for you personally, and that will be different for each individual. I'm pretty much in the same place with my MA. It is VERY difficult for people who are fully indoctrinated and emotionally invested in a particular belief system to see beyond it.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 02-02-2019 at 11:06 PM.

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    At some point for many people, the "-ism" or the -anity" and the rituals, politics and exclusivity around them become more important than what the original purpose was intended to be. With MA, the sect is the style/system/lineage. "My style(s) {or lineage} is the only path to the truth, and everyone outside of it is ignorant." The MA, or at least the school and/or the organization it belongs to if any, becomes a type of cult.
    I've been playing with building a Matrix, or categorical system to describe this phenomena and how it happens. It goes something like this; There are 4 types of combat. 1) The first being the "bully fight". This is what most people believe is da' streets, but really it's just a couple of egos huffing, puffing and posturing. Maybe punches are thrown. Most people grow out of this crap. 2) Sports fighting. This is fighting based on a specific rule set. Good fighters understand and utilize the rules to their advantage. 3) Sudden violence. This is the real da' streets. It's rare, and there are relatively few ways to prepare for it - but the military uses realistic scenarios. I think there are some martial artists coming close to this, for example the Spear System, or maybe Fit to Fight. But you can only do so much preparation. Key attributes would be good protective gear because in order to train this correctly, you'd have to make the scenarios as realistic as possible like blind-side a person, shove them into a wall and hit them with a baseball bat. See if any style can defend against that scenario and the final 4) ritualized combat which is pretty much any traditional martial art. It's similar to sport based in that there are rules and etiquette.

    A person can be really good in number 4) but be terrible at 2) and 3).

    I think a key to success is understanding which category you are training in. So if you're training 4) and want to participate in something that falls in 2), then you should minimize 4) and train 2). If you're training 4) and want to include 3), then invest in high quality protective gear so you can really go at it and see what works in different scenarios.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    44,029

    Thanks Kellen

    Quote Originally Posted by Kellen Bassette View Post
    Yeah, "scientific" martial arts even gets used as a selling point, but by definition they aren't science. As someone that trains Gong Fu and Muay Thai, it irritates me when MT fans call it the "science of 8 limbs," instead of the art, or claim that is scientific, unlike other styles....it demonstrates zero understanding of traditional, (and modern) culture of the art. Some practitioners are more pragmatic than others, some systems have higher ratios of pragmatic practitioners than others...I think that's more accurate terminology than scientific/psuedoscientific.
    It's reaffirming to hear someone else on the same page with me on this. It's been a sticking point for me for years. I was trained as a scientist in grad school and TAed courses like Experimental Psych on the university level, so I had to be very conversant in the scientific method. It's taken me decades to unlearn APA format. When martial artists make 'scientific' claims, it really just demonstrates their illiteracy. But then again, in today's world, ironically, so many dispute science, predominantly as some sort of foe to religion. Clearly pop culture, and reciprocally martial arts culture, really don't understand what science is.
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    CA, USA
    Posts
    4,881
    Quote Originally Posted by MightyB View Post
    I've been playing with building a Matrix, or categorical system to describe this phenomena and how it happens. It goes something like this; There are 4 types of combat. 1) The first being the "bully fight". This is what most people believe is da' streets, but really it's just a couple of egos huffing, puffing and posturing. Maybe punches are thrown. Most people grow out of this crap. 2) Sports fighting. This is fighting based on a specific rule set. Good fighters understand and utilize the rules to their advantage. 3) Sudden violence. This is the real da' streets. It's rare, and there are relatively few ways to prepare for it - but the military uses realistic scenarios. I think there are some martial artists coming close to this, for example the Spear System, or maybe Fit to Fight. But you can only do so much preparation. Key attributes would be good protective gear because in order to train this correctly, you'd have to make the scenarios as realistic as possible like blind-side a person, shove them into a wall and hit them with a baseball bat. See if any style can defend against that scenario and the final 4) ritualized combat which is pretty much any traditional martial art. It's similar to sport based in that there are rules and etiquette.

    A person can be really good in number 4) but be terrible at 2) and 3).

    I think a key to success is understanding which category you are training in. So if you're training 4) and want to participate in something that falls in 2), then you should minimize 4) and train 2). If you're training 4) and want to include 3), then invest in high quality protective gear so you can really go at it and see what works in different scenarios.
    Nice post.

    Your categories 1 & 3 are often referred to as 'social violence' and 'asocial violence'. Social violence is like a bullying situation, or most commonly, (usually male) jockeying for status/dominance within a social circle. And of course, asocial violence is criminal/predatory, and far more serious, although serious injury or death can potentially result in a scenario in either category. Many MAists and MA sport fighters fail to distinguish between social and asocial violence situations.

    The big problem with the "MA style/lineage elitist" mentality is that it's completely divorced from reality. One's style/system/lineage is not what will save you, but how you've trained what you have, and that you've modified and made it, or aspects of it, work under pressure. I needn't go into details on that, as it's pretty self-explanatory. Most MA elitists (in CMA and in any other MA category) seem unaware that the outside world doesn't care about their styles, except perhaps MMA/BJJ/MT, and most of the elitist attitudes for the latter category seem to come from 'nut riders'.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 02-04-2019 at 03:12 PM.

  15. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Your categories 1 & 3 are often referred to as 'social violence' and 'asocial violence'. Social violence is like a bullying situation, or most commonly, (usually male) jockeying for status/dominance within a social circle. And of course, asocial violence is criminal/predatory, and far more serious, although serious injury or death can potentially result in a scenario in either category. Many MAists and MA sport fighters fail to distinguish between social and asocial violence situations.
    Now I know what I should call categories 1 & 3

    I think when you see people modify their training to accommodate different types of pressure it's because they're more aware of different types of fighting and they are adjusting to where they want to be effective.

    I'm not sure I'm going to say that anyone's being elitist, I just think they're overspecializing. What I mean is someone could be really great at push hands and when they display their form, everyone watching would agree that they have great fa-jing. But then they decide they want to fight a kick boxer under kick boxing rules and then they get beat up. That same kick boxer then decides he wants to fight a MMA fighter under MMA rules and gets beat up. That MMA guy fights a Judo guy under Judo rules and gets beat up. That Judo guy fights a BJJ guy under BJJ rules and gets beat up. That BJJ guy picks a fight at a bar and gets beat up. And then that bar fighter picks a fight with the push-hands guy and gets beat up. And on and on it goes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •