Science can be a religion too. Modern science would not have been possible without the world view of "priests". I don't think it really is human nature in this world anyway -to rely upon "authority". Modern science sees man and reason as "autonomous". Many have a science god and have sacrificed unto him the very reason they seek to promote. So let's not be to quick to trot out the old cult deal.
Hope you had a nice Christmas Mandrin
Err... No. Beg to differ. Religion has been the biggest impediment to science (maybe it still is). (Can you say dark ages) Galileo Galilei was imprisons for suggesting the Earth orbits the sun (He challenged the priests who's consensus was that Earth was the center of the Universe). Thankfully the French revolution ushered in the "enlightement" and the Age of Reason thereby demoting the priesthood.
Today many of us think we need another "enlightment". Today we have the Priests (man made global warming adherents for example) destroying real scientist's careers and even wanting to pass hate speach laws against the "deniers" because they dare question their politically expedient conclusion (which is that we must tax carbon).
Bucket... Never mistake pseudo-scientists and their ilk (the Al Gores of the world) with real honest hard working "yeoman" scientists. And never mistake Me for Mandrin. I don't agree with much of what he says and consider him one of the former (i.e. pseudo). Also, I don't write anything like his mostly childish mal-formed drivel.... Please. I AM NM not mandrin of la mancha (slayer of windmills)
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.
Brian Gay won . . . . Riegger got a win . . . . Elk was a Machine guy . . . . about every teacher has some back ground in the Machine . . . . Mac O'Grady gives credit to Homer . . . . Stack & Tilt gives credit to The Golfing Machine . . . winners in their stable. Ledbetter had his people reading the Machine supposedly.
Opinion is one thing but then to roll up to somebody's house and take a piss on the rug is another thing. The "cult" thing? Come on dude . . . .
Some of these flaws y'all come up with and say Homer was a doofus about are putting words in his mouth anyway.
Who would pay your own cash to take a lesson from?
Darius . . . . come on man. You're a good dude. I've seen you all over the various forums. You have much to contribute and have helped many. Everybody knows that this forum very much about Lynn Blake helping people to understand concepts in The Golfing Machine and doing it without peer. That's pretty much the haps here and what is expected.
How many people go to McDonald's and get pissed because they don't serve up chicken chow mein. Lynn has been more than generous by giving others voice here . . . Jeff has his own deal . . . even a doofus like me has a forum. But Lynn pays the bills and Homer Kelley is honored here. Most people wouldn't show up at somebody's house and talk about how their dead granny's award winning chicken pie tasted like dawg food. They may just get kilt or worse where I'm from. There's dissent . . . then there's disrespect.
Bucket, thanks, I know that you're a great dude as well, and you've helped much more guys than I have, but....I have only posted my opinion, that I will never ever leave, that was just a reaction from the depth of my heart. Even post-secret Hogan as a golfer was not flawless. My respect to Mr.Kelley's work is huge, and I have learnt a lot from TGM sites but he was a human and it is not possible that his work was flawless. Just this.
Cheers
Originally Posted by Yoda
No worries, Dariusz J., there are no such remarks on this site.
Check it out.
To the contrary, LynnBlakeGolf.com offers a flexible framework that accomodates and encourages a wide spectrum of opinion, dissent and debate. A glance at a few of our more than 6,000 threads and almost 60,000 posts will attest to that fact. We even have a dedicated forum, The Lab, whereby members can put forth new material, largely theoretical, without fear of retribution or ridicule. Finally, there's Jeff's stuff, most of which I perceive as Memorandums For Understanding written for his own edification, but which he offers to us for assessment and critique.
That said, I make no apology for the work we do in helping people understand The Golfing Machine and apply its concepts to their games. It's a large part of 'what we do'. Not the only part, to be sure, but a large part.
OK, perfectly clear, Yoda. Thanks for your response. My intentions were not evil-hearted - vide my words to Bucket above.
Brian Gay won . . . . Riegger got a win . . . . Elk was a Machine guy . . . . about every teacher has some back ground in the Machine . . . . Mac O'Grady gives credit to Homer . . . . Stack & Tilt gives credit to The Golfing Machine . . . winners in their stable. Ledbetter had his people reading the Machine supposedly.
Opinion is one thing but then to roll up to somebody's house and take a piss on the rug is another thing. The "cult" thing? Come on dude . . . .
Some of these flaws y'all come up with and say Homer was a doofus about are putting words in his mouth anyway.
Who would pay your own cash to take a lesson from?
I don't mean to be niggling about this.... but come on "dude" did you even visit the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality ? Its a legitimate term even in today's dumbed down politically correct world. Either the things Homer claims are open for question or they are not. Nobody is "pissing" on the rug Lynn has graciously given Jeff purportedly to explore these matters.
As for your question... I would have to think about that. Dead or alive? One thing is for certain though... arrogance is one trait that eliminates them from my consideration. Teachers might help (might hurt too) but ultimately I believe what Gurdjeiff said: A man can only learn by his own efforts.
Last edited by no_mind_golfer : 01-06-2009 at 04:19 PM.
Err... No. Beg to differ. Religion has been the biggest impediment to science (maybe it still is). (Can you say dark ages) Galileo Galilei was imprisons for suggesting the Earth orbits the sun (He challenged the priests who's consensus was that Earth was the center of the Universe). Thankfully the French revolution ushered in the "enlightement" and the Age of Reason thereby demoting the priesthood.
Today many of us think we need another "enlightment". Today we have the Priests (man made global warming adherents for example) destroying real scientist's careers and even wanting to pass hate speach laws against the "deniers" because they dare question their politically expedient conclusion (which is that we must tax carbon).
Bucket... Never mistake pseudo-scientists and their ilk (the Al Gores of the world) with real honest hard working "yeoman" scientists. And never mistake Me for Mandrin. I don't agree with much of what he says and consider him one of the former (i.e. pseudo). Also, I don't write anything like his mostly childish mal-formed drivel.... Please. I AM NM not mandrin of la mancha (slayer of windmills)
The French Revolution also ushered in humanism and moral relativism. Science and reason have become gods and man is reduced to a chemistry experiment. I ain't ready for another "enlightenment."
I don't mean to be niggling about this.... but come on "dude" did you even visit the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality ? Its a legitimate term even in today's dumbed down politically correct world. Either the things Homer claims are open for question or they are not. Nobody is "pissing" on the rug Lynn has graciously given Jeff purportedly to explore these matters.
As for your question... I would have to think about that. Dead or alive? One thing is for certain though... arrogance is one trait that eliminates them from my consideration. Teachers might help (might hurt too) but ultimately I believe what Gurdjeiff said: A man can only learn by his own efforts.
Looked at the link . . . a major reason for that was a result of the reason is god philosophy which set the ground work for it all to come to fruition . . . . determinism. Much has happened and is happening in the name of "science" that is destroying the foundations of society today. You say religion has caused problems . . . . "science" is just as guilty.
let's say dead and alive . . . . you figure out where to put Mclean in that scheme?
Much as I'd like to carry on this off topic discussion with you, I have been put on notice by our host who I learned also takes issue with the term "personality cult"...
Since I wish to continue reading this forum, and I cannot risk the umpire declaring a third strike against me, I must now go to lurk mode which I do regret because in so doing I become what he says I am (yet God knows I'm not): a taker not a giver.
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.
Much as I'd like to carry on this off topic discussion with you, I have been put on notice by our host who I learned also takes issue with the term "personality cult"...
Since I wish to continue reading this forum, and I cannot risk the umpire declaring a third strike against me, I must now go to lurk mode which I do regret because in so doing I become what he says I am (yet God knows I'm not): a taker not a giver.
Best to you bucket.
You're a smart dude. But to drop the cult bomb wasn't real smart if your intent is to stick around.
Best to you as well . . . . our off topic discussion would be interesting.
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.
Linear Mode
