[no_mind_golfer]

nm golfer

I think that "science" as it applies to the golf swing is the idea of seeking to produce testable theories regarding the mechanics/biomechanics/geometry of the golf swing, and if those testable theories have a high verifiability factor and a low falsifiability factor when experimentally tested (using "objective reality" as the gold standard), then those testable theories could represent the "best" theories. The theory, among all existing theories, that has the highest verifiability factor and the lowest falsifiability factor is the "best" theory - from my perspective. That's why I hold Homer Kelley's golf swing theories in such high regard - his theories regarding the golf swing could be accurately regarded as being the "best" (in the present-day world of existent golf swing theories) - in the sense that they have the highest verifiability factor and the lowest fasifiability factor. It doesn't mean that one cannot theoretically develop another swing theory that will be better - by having a higher verifiability factor and lower falsifiability factor - it simply means that if Homer Kelley's theories are presently regarded as representing the "best" theories then it sets the bar very high - and for that accomplishment he deserves an enormous amount of respect. Yoda also deserves an enormous amount of respect as an "authority" - as a person who most clearly understands Homer Kelley's theories and can defend them from being misunderstood and misrepresented. I am an example of a person who has unintentionally misunderstood and/or misrepresented Homer Kelley's theories, and I am always appreciative when Yoda "corrects" me regarding the "correct" understanding of Homer Kelley's golf swing theories. I may disagree with Yoda regarding certain golf swing issues, but I am very willing to regard him as being an "authority" regarding Homer Kelley's body of work. I do not believe that Yoda equates being an "authority" on Homer Kelley's body of work as being equivalent to being the "ultimate authority" that determines the level of verifiability/falsifiability of any proposed golf swing theory.
Jeff.

Jeff

I don't intend to take you any further off topic so this is the last I will say on this matter. I'm not questioning R-E-S-P-E-C-T or anybody's self-proclaimed (or earned) 'authority' . Everyone deserves it (at least at the outset) and some undoubtedly are (authorities). I'm questioning the science (rather lack there-of) in the book. I'm questioning what are acceptable subjects for discourse in the pursuit of knowledge if that is indeed the mission of Golf by Jeff.

Research.... Science... has arguably five steps or identifiable traits.

1) Identification of the problem (statement)
2) Collection of all of the essential facts (indisputable basic assumptions...i.e. the premises)
3) Selection of one or more tentative solutions (thesis)
4) Evaluate choosen solutions to determine if they are in accord with the facts (data collection/analysis... perhaps some theoretical modeling too)
5) Select the final solution (theory)

Science is a processes whereby thesis gets elevated to theory, but even theories aren't "cast in stone". The scientist is epitomized by: accurate observation, objectivity, willingness to consider all evidence, recognition of causal relationships and demonstration of originality and independence of thought. Anything conclusions arrived at by any means other than the above given framework are not 'scientific'. TGM is not scientific (there's no data... many of the premises have been debunked). TGM is not a scholarly report; TGM is an essay that is full of the author's conjecture.

Syllogism is not science either... here's a common examples of a syllogisms:

-Some Good golfer's hands are seen to slow down
-Joe is a good golfer
therefore Joe's hand's slow down..... NO

or

-Some Good golfers maximize the angle between hips and shoulders (X factor)
-Joe turns his hips almost as much as his shoulders
therefore Joe is not a good golfer... NO

or

-Some Good Golfers hips face the target at impact.
-Joes hips are parallel to the target line at impact
therefore joe can't be a good golfer.... NO

Syllogisms do not lead to scientific conclusions... Infact they are probably not even accurate conclusions (particularly if Joe can play).

So its all about asking the right question.. (Problem statement... is it testable?) Defining the research study (possibly experimentation or perhaps mathematical soln.?).... all the while remaining objective towards the pursuit of knowledge. Predjudice and premature conclusions or discounting a possibility simply because an authority has rejected it has no place in scholarship. The Scientific method.... a scientific attitude implies basing generalizations not upon the authority of others or upon abstract logic or one's personal opinions but on carefully observed facts.

(Emphasis should be on CAREFULLY OBSERVED) Merely hitting the range with a trackman in hand does not constitute science or scientific method. Conclusions drawn from such haphazard research are likely as fallacious as those drawn from the "lessor" truth-seeking methods.

Ultimately the value of any theory is its efficacy.. at explaining possible outcomes or in the case of golf instruction producing winners. On that account, at least in my mind, the jury is still out on TGM. How many winners has it produced? Yes I know... Bobby Clampett had a run of luck but given the time its been around and the number of adherents, one would think, simply by the law of large numbers, more winners would have been produced... that is if it is as good as "they" say.

P.S. I hope I don't get banned like Mandrin says I will for simply stating my opinions. I respect Homer... really I do.