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."
I disagree - especially with your last statement which is a tautology.
I have a different approach to the idea of a scientific endeavor.
I think that science starts with a theory that has informative content/predictive content. Then, the second step, is experimental testing to see if the theory can be verified and also not falsified. A theory only acquires scientific validity not only in proportion to its ability to be verified, but also according to its ability to withstand attempts at falsification.
Most scientists realize that a low falsifiability factor is an essential element of the term "scientific conclusiveness", and that's why I mainly concentrate my efforts on falsification rather than verification. Most reasonable scientific theories have a high verifiability factor, but not necessarily a low falsifiability quotient. That's why many wise scientists set up their scientific experiment to rigorously test their theory for its falsifiability quotient. In other words, they deliberately try to falsify their own theory - knowing that a failure to falsify their theory may make it the "best" present-day theory. A wise scientist knows that he has not conclusively proven his theory that "all swans are white" by observing more-and-more white swans because he knows that his theory is not necessarily more true after having observed 1,000 white swans than it was after having observed 100 white swans. It is easier, and more fruitful, to "test" his own theory by looking for one black swan (non-white swan) because it only takes one black swan to disprove his theory.
That's how I approach golf swing theories. I look for a golf swing theory that is likely to have a low falsifiability factor, and I then try to disprove the theory via a rigorous attack. If I cannot falsify the theory, then my respect for the theory increases - because, in my mind, it obviously has a low falsifiability factor. I think that any golf swing theory, which is not only verifiable, but that can also best withstand rigorous falsification challenges represents the "best" present-day theory. There are no "true" golf swing theories in terms of absolute truth. There are only "degrees of truth" in terms of the theory having a high verifiability factor and a low falsifiability factor.
Using that intellectual approach as to what represents a "scientific endeavour", I think that TGM theory regarding the golf swing is a "scientific endeavour" in the sense that TGM theory can be tested for its verifiability and falsifiability quotients.
Using that intellectual approach as to what represents a "scientific endeavour", I think that TGM theory regarding the golf swing is a "scientific endeavour" in the sense that TGM theory can be tested for its verifiability and falsifiability quotients.
Jeff.
Therein lies the rub... "CAN BE" as in have not yet which is conjecture. It implies 'thesis' an not yet worthy of the term 'theory'. Then there are those thesis' in the book, the very premises can be dismissed. The Centrifugal force bit for instance.... physicists all agree... in the real world CF doesn't exist... its a mental construct, a fudge factor that is useful in the analysis of non-inertal i.e. rotating systems. Golf is played on terra-firma... not inside a centrifuge.
I stand by my assertion its starts with problem statement or at-least conjecture. Then assemblage of all known facts... then development of the thesis'
Anyway... I'm going under for fear of being purged... PM if you wish to discuss work (as in the physics sense) or anything else for that matter.
The two words "can be" was just my grammatical method of stating that a theory that can be tested can be deemed to be a scientific theory, and thereby implying that a theory that cannot be tested cannot be deemed to be a scientific theory.
Homer Kelley's TGM theories regarding the golf swing are testable, and have been tested. In fact, he probably spent endless hours testing his theories, and he probably then used his test results to refine his theories. In that sense, he was quintessentially a scientist working according to the fundamental tenets of "good scientific practice". By contrast, most golf instructors have "opinions" that are not even coherent enough from a cognitive perspective to represent a testable theory.
I regard the term "thesis" and 'theory' to be interchangeable.
I also don't like using the term "centrifugal", but that doesn't automatically disqualify Homer Kelley's golf swing theories. That's only one "word" used to express a concept, which is still conceptually relevant!
The two words "can be" was just my grammatical method of stating that a theory that can be tested can be deemed to be a scientific theory, and thereby implying that a theory that cannot be tested cannot be deemed to be a scientific theory.
Homer Kelley's TGM theories regarding the golf swing are testable, and have been tested. In fact, he probably spent endless hours testing his theories, and he probably then used his test results to refine his theories. In that sense, he was quintessentially a scientist working according to the fundamental tenets of "good scientific practice". By contrast, most golf instructors have "opinions" that are not even coherent enough from a cognitive perspective to represent a testable theory.
I regard the term "thesis" and 'theory' to be interchangeable.
I also don't like using the term "centrifugal", but that doesn't automatically disqualify Homer Kelley's golf swing theories. That's only one "word" used to express a concept, which is still conceptually relevant!
Jeff.
Jeff,
I'd be "pleased as punch" if you could site just one example from the book that was tested Homer and has verifiable data trail supporting the stated conclusions. That would imply he at least knew what the term scientific stands for. Most of these guys (book believers) do (know what scientific stands for).
Take Clampett for instance. In his book he talks of a "study" he did wherein he measured how far in front of the ball the divot is for hackers and pro's alike. He did it to support is hypothesis that pros hit down and hackers don't. The data supported the hypothesis he elevated it his hypothesis to a theory or thesis and now scientifically claims we should hit down (damit)... Then he stretched the theory to the driver.... but failed to support that stretch with data... (thats called extrapolation.. a no-no) Oh well.. at least bobby c was on the right (scientific) track.
We take a guess at the solution to the problem (or veracity of the conjecture). That is the "hypo"thesis. Hypo meaning "insufficient" (as in hypothermia meaning not enough heat) by definition it means not "good enough" (not yet proven) to be a thesis or theory. I shortened hypothesis (step 3) to thesis in my previous posts and should not have done that. Yes thesis or theory are the same, (a hypothesis) that has not been falsified, fits the data and conforms with the known facts. When I said thesis I meant hypothesis. my bad.
I'm not knocking Homer's effort. Lots of logic and useful conjecture in there. But there are parts he got flat out wrong and CF is one of them. The question is it useful or detrimental to learning the game (CF concept that is). I argue its the latter but then I'm a "root cause seeking" sort of person.
I can give you a number of examples where Homer used the "scientific technique" - which starts with a theory that is subsequently verified, and non-falsified, by the experimental facts. The experimental facts in a golf swing comes from observing the effects (ball flight) in response to executing a theory.
Example theory 1:
Homer's flat left wrist and bent right wrist at impact theory - which requires forward shaft lean, and the clubhead lagging behind the hands.
This theory has been proven every day by millions of golfers who can hit the ball further and straighter when following this theory - instead of allowing the clubhead to flip past the hands (clubhead throwaway).
Example theory 2:
Homer's stationary pivot stabilising point (eg. head or base of neck) theory.
Again, there is no doubt in my mind that a golfer who has a stabilised pivot action is going to hit the ball better than a golfer who allows the pivoting skeletal structure to wobble, sway or slide (allowing the spine/head to slide forward in the direction of the target).
Example theory 3:
Homer's theory on how to hit the ball straight based on the idea of keeping the clubshaft on-plane through the impact zone.
Again, evidence form good golfers shows that having the clubshaft on-plane through the impact zone as the clubhead moves from in-to-square-to-in through the impact zone is much better than a clubshaft that moves off-plane and produces an out-to-in or in-to-out clubhead path.
Example theory 4:
Homer's theory of how best to manage clubface control through the impact zone.
Homer teaches hinging actions where the left hand controls the clubface - via a hinging action operating at the level of the left shoulder socket, and where the left arm/left hand/clubshaft rotate at the same rpm in the followthrough.
I think that there is substantial evidence from watching professional golfers that his theory works much better with respect to consistent clubface control through impact than alternative theories eg. AJ Bonar's "Magic Move" theory of an active hand crossover release action through the impact zone.
Homer Kelley's power accumulator loading/release concepts with respect to swinging versus hitting.
This is Homer's "best" theory in my estimation. I don't know of a better (scientifically more valid) golf swing theory regarding the issue of "how best to power the golf swing" in a mechanically efficient manner.
Jeff.
Yoda - note that I didn't abbreviate Homer's name.
I can give you a number of examples where Homer used the "scientific technique" - which starts with a theory that is subsequently verified, and non-falsified, by the experimental facts. The experimental facts in a golf swing comes from observing the effects (ball flight) in response to executing a theory.
Example theory 1:
Homer's flat left wrist and bent right wrist at impact theory - which requires forward shaft lean, and the clubhead lagging behind the hands.
This theory has been proven every day by millions of golfers who can hit the ball further and straighter when following this theory - instead of allowing the clubhead to flip past the hands (clubhead throwaway).
Example theory 2:
Homer's stationary pivot stabilising point (eg. head or base of neck) theory.
Again, there is no doubt in my mind that a golfer who has a stabilised pivot action is going to hit the ball better than a golfer who allows the pivoting skeletal structure to wobble, sway or slide (allowing the spine/head to slide forward in the direction of the target).
Example theory 3:
Homer's theory on how to hit the ball straight based on the idea of keeping the clubshaft on-plane through the impact zone.
Again, evidence form good golfers shows that having the clubshaft on-plane through the impact zone as the clubhead moves from in-to-square-to-in through the impact zone is much better than a clubshaft that moves off-plane and produces an out-to-in or in-to-out clubhead path.
Example theory 4:
Homer's theory of how best to manage clubface control through the impact zone.
Homer teaches hinging actions where the left hand controls the clubface - via a hinging action operating at the level of the left shoulder socket, and where the left arm/left hand/clubshaft rotate at the same rpm in the followthrough.
I think that there is substantial evidence from watching professional golfers that his theory works much better with respect to consistent clubface control through impact than alternative theories eg. AJ Bonar's "Magic Move" theory of an active hand crossover release action through the impact zone.
Homer Kelley's power accumulator loading/release concepts with respect to swinging versus hitting.
This is Homer's "best" theory in my estimation. I don't know of a better (scientifically more valid) golf swing theory regarding the issue of "how best to power the golf swing" in a mechanically efficient manner.
Jeff.
Yoda - note that I didn't abbreviate Homer's name.
I'd be "pleased as punch" if you could site just one example from the book that was tested Homer and has verifiable data trail supporting the stated conclusions. That would imply he at least knew what the term scientific stands for. Most of these guys (book believers) do (know what scientific stands for).
Take Clampett for instance. In his book he talks of a "study" he did wherein he measured how far in front of the ball the divot is for hackers and pro's alike. He did it to support is hypothesis that pros hit down and hackers don't. The data supported the hypothesis he elevated it his hypothesis to a theory or thesis and now scientifically claims we should hit down (damit)... Then he stretched the theory to the driver.... but failed to support that stretch with data... (thats called extrapolation.. a no-no) Oh well.. at least bobby c was on the right (scientific) track.
We take a guess at the solution to the problem (or veracity of the conjecture). That is the "hypo"thesis. Hypo meaning "insufficient" (as in hypothermia meaning not enough heat) by definition it means not "good enough" (not yet proven) to be a thesis or theory. I shortened hypothesis (step 3) to thesis in my previous posts and should not have done that. Yes thesis or theory are the same, (a hypothesis) that has not been falsified, fits the data and conforms with the known facts. When I said thesis I meant hypothesis. my bad.
I'm not knocking Homer's effort. Lots of logic and useful conjecture in there. But there are parts he got flat out wrong and CF is one of them. The question is it useful or detrimental to learning the game (CF concept that is). I argue its the latter but then I'm a "root cause seeking" sort of person.
Come on man . . . how many times are we going to rehash the cf debate . . . . fictional force blah blah blah. So Homer said CF. I'm by no means a scientist but from what I see there are scientist that don't adhere to the cf fiction deal. There's some force there or something going on when the levers extend . . .
It took Homer 40 years to write the book . . . no computers no video . . . . I mean it's almost unreadable now and you want a bunch of data and equations in there?
That Jorgenson dude comes up with the d-plane . . . Homer had that licked 40 years before he did without any computer modeling.
If there were a website for Isaac Newton would y'all be over there pissing on the floor too? Meanwhile people are getting better, learning and winning tour events while others, even the owners of the Machine, are invested in making Homer look like a doofus.
You still haven't told us who you'd take a lesson from?
Hybrid Mode
