"Theories" vs. science

"Theories" vs. science

Joined: August 5th, 2002, 5:38 pm

November 4th, 2011, 6:36 pm #1

I don't visit the SA forum very often,but when I do it's good to see that Peter (and others) are still quick to challenge people who post claiming to have science-based swing theories. For those who do post just opinions,you'd better have a thick skin,because you're not going to go unchallenged..


Cheers,Bob

KLEX - USA

,
Regards,
Bob
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 30th, 2011, 11:52 pm

November 4th, 2011, 9:52 pm #2

because some science is just consensus...doesn't
make it true.

Hoby
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 5th, 2011, 4:20 am #3

is NEVER just consensus. Science is a process of hypothesize, challenge and proof. Even when the process arrives at a single result for centuries (thus the appearance of 'consensus' to some) the process continues and that result is always liable to being overturned as happened with Newton's theories.

Peter
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 25th, 2000, 7:17 pm

November 6th, 2011, 3:49 pm #4

Absolute scientific proof is dependent on the consensus that certain assumptions are true.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 6th, 2011, 4:39 pm #5

There is no such thing as an 'absolute' in science. EVERYTHING is open to challenge. That is a difference between science and religion. There are also no assumptions that are not also subject to challenge. However challenges to prior science have to be data, not opinion, driven.

Peter
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 22nd, 2011, 1:46 am

November 6th, 2011, 5:22 pm #6

because some science is just consensus...doesn't
make it true.

Hoby
One persons science is another person's voodoo. The scientific method is an ideal, it sounds nice, it sounds nice to champion it, it seldome exists in the real world. Anyone that says otherwise is either lying or naive.

Because everyone has their own science, and the science that wins is not based on raw data or proven outcomes, but by lying, corrpution, distortion...you get the drift. Statisitcs are easily modified to make a certain point bear out, you can say the bucket is half empty or half flull, that is often what it comes to. When we are dealing with money, it is amazing how often scientific reality is ignored or adjusted. With milllions or bilions invested in a project or technology, you will very quickly modify measurements or perceptions when you are leaned on, because it is all about return on investment. How many bad medicines have come to market with terrible side effects, or the medicines were proved not to ever really work at all? How many cars have been recalled, for engineering defects that a first year engineering student would have found? And with golf, how many clubs come out each year, with claims of being the longest or straightest? How many training aids make these incredible claims and so many selling the concept of "muscle memory".

The scientific method is an ideal. What comes to market is seldom the result of the scientific method, but an absolute perverson of science. Final decisions are made based on who is the most persuasive, who has the most to lose or gain, and dollars and cents in the end is what makes or breaks anything. When people are afraid for their jobs or their reputations, is is often easier to abandon your science, and embrace someone elses. What happens to people who stand up and call bull for what it is. Sometimes they are heroes, more likely they are screwed at some point and sometimes they even show up with a bullet in their head or some mysterious car wreck due to a break malfunction. It is much easier to see what the group wants you to see, rugged indiviudalism does not fare well among most "scientific" people. Agendas rule, not science.

People want to be better at golf. Some are desperate for it. Marketing sells products, not scientific data. Because science supposidly tells us that there are limits to club performance, yet everyone says their club is longer or straighter. Balls are subject also to USGA parameters, so how can each new generation of ball be so much better as the marketeers claim. Hope sells with golf, not science. Everyone has their own science, and what becomes the accepted science in golf is like the fashion of the day. Competing factions, interests, and economic decisions, very little true application of science. People want to be duped, they want false hope. They want to be so good, to have their friends be in awe of their long drives, and newly found prowess. It seldom happens, and most epiphanies in golf are very short lived. In light of all reason, golfers will make purchases or adopt a particular mechanical approach to the game based on emotion, rather than reality. The business end of golf knows this. Sure, there is science out there and genuine good research, but in the end it is all about marketing and salemanship. And substitutiong one science for another, or ignoring scientific reality, if in the short run a buck can be made.

When someone invokes the name of science when teaching golf, or uses scientific words, and uses biomechanical concepts that are abstract and hard to conceptualize, buyer beware. Most who use scientific concepts to teach golf are just trying to build themselves up, make themselves seem smart, and impress those who are easily placed in awe of those that spew out this nonsense. Some of it good, we can't be all that negative, most of it garbage in, garbage out.

Sally
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 6th, 2011, 8:20 pm #7

People who say things like One persons science is another person's voodoo clearly do not understand one or both.

You also clearly have a soapbox you want to stand on but this is not the place for it. While people here want to have fun like anyone, if they've been here any length of time their fun is clearly not in just having a pleasant walk but in more specific swing improvement based on objective evidence.

Also no one here (other than McIrishman and now Kiran) is selling or marketing anything. So you should be applying your buyer beware to Kiran who is the only one here who uses biomechanical concepts and scientific words to sell something in this forum.

Peter
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 22nd, 2011, 1:46 am

November 6th, 2011, 9:52 pm #8

And believe me, that is being nice.

This is a forum, that means give and take. You interject yourself in seeminlgly every thread. One could make an argument that this is a soapbox for you, just as much for anyone else. Where you get the time for all this, God only knows, but good for you if you find it meaningful, fun, and a good use of time.

I speak in general terms, I am not here to give a buyer beware for anyone or anything. There is good and bad out there. That is up to indiviudals to decide. I disagree abut what you say about Kiran. Her user oriented material is simple and concise. Very few abstract biomechanical concepts and words desgined to impress. It is as down to earth as down to earth gets. Anyone could understand and employ her method. Have you taken the time to view her ebook or watch her videos? Does not get more simpler than this, so I really have to scratch my head as to what you are talking about. Buyer beware, I would never say that about Kiran, that is wrong for you to say I should. Speak for yourself please dude! I would say "Buyer please buy" as it related to Kiran. It works, great stuff. I do not teach this way, but I have always said that there are more than one way to play this game, just keep it simple and relevant for the 99% of golfers out there.

Can't win with you, no soapbox here, some of your conclusions you draw about me are wrong, but so be it. You are the head cheese here here it seems, I cannot compete with you. So I will say adios, very little time to debate with you, I defer to you, and say you are right 100% of the time, I stand corrected, I have a lot to learn it seems.

God bless you Pete dear, a very happy holiday. Many thanks to all who have been civil and receptive in their discussion. Special Kudos to McIrishman and Kiran, I have learned a great deal from both of them, they clearly are passionate about our game and the time they spend here and the information they share so freely clealry has my admiration. Any golfer looking to become better would be so privaleged to spend an hour or day with either of them.

Sally
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 11th, 2001, 7:22 pm

November 6th, 2011, 11:52 pm #9

People who say things like One persons science is another person's voodoo clearly do not understand one or both.

You also clearly have a soapbox you want to stand on but this is not the place for it. While people here want to have fun like anyone, if they've been here any length of time their fun is clearly not in just having a pleasant walk but in more specific swing improvement based on objective evidence.

Also no one here (other than McIrishman and now Kiran) is selling or marketing anything. So you should be applying your buyer beware to Kiran who is the only one here who uses biomechanical concepts and scientific words to sell something in this forum.

Peter

Never quit til you have a swing you'll never forget!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 7th, 2011, 12:38 am #10

has never been what I'd call a 'participant'. He will comment from time to time and typically only when asked. There has never been a complete conversation with Doug here.

BTW - The same for Harry Mapp from the Bertholy School in VA.

Peter
Last edited by sagf_moderator on November 7th, 2011, 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share