conversation is sparring not kata.

[Tony Dismukes]

that Chris understands what a fact is and who has the burden of proof when he makes a statement.its important because I could say Santa clause is real. You cant prove he isn't.

So nothing related to the actual topic your being confrontational just to be confrontational

I think what drop bear is trying to say, in a not entirely articulate fashion, is something like the following:

"Chris makes statements. He presents these statements not as opinions, but as undeniable facts. He indicates that I should just accept these statements and not challenge them, because he is an authority who knows much more about everything than I do. However, I do not think that I need to take his word that he knows so much more than I do and I don't feel like he has provided evidence to back up his statements that he claims as facts."

Drop bear - if this is indeed an accurate summation of the point you were trying to make, then I might make a few suggestions (some of which go back to my first post in this thread) for more productively engaging with Chris without having to either accept him as an all-knowing authority or waste time with cryptic snark.

a) Make sure you understand what Chris (or anyone else you want to debate with) is trying to say in the first place. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him. That means you should be able to restate his position and when you ask "is this what you are trying to say", he will say "yes." Otherwise you are wasting your time arguing with a strawman you have constructed in your head.

b) If you feel that you need more evidence than he has provided before you accept his point, then be ready to spell out what sort of evidence you need and why you need it. In an earlier thread, there was discussion of what samurai training methods might have entailed, and as Chris and elder and others outlined the available evidence (historical records, oral traditions, etc) you kept saying "so you have no evidence." Honestly, I have no idea what you were asking for. Were you dismissing the idea of historical records and saying you would settle for nothing less than video footage from the 17th century? Were you asking for links to the original Japanese historical documents? Were you asking for details of which specific historical documents or other primary sources that Chris had personally examined? I have no clue.

c) If you actually want to test your ideas through debate in the manner you originally suggested, then take the time to organize and clearly express them in such a way that the people you are talking to can understand your point. No one can help expose the weaknesses in your argument if they can't understand your argument in the first place.

 

[Transk53]

Have to agree with Ballen drop bear. You being confrontational. I do believe you have mentioned keyboard warriors in another thread. I can only surmise that you are after the post count. You weren't this active before the software migration imho. Also when you first joined, you were pretty cool as far as I was concerned. Can't fathom what has changed you're mindset, but you are not being a cool member right now, you know what I am saying!!

 

[RTKDCMB]

Now who doesn't know what a fact is?

or we can repeat an adage untill it is perceived as fact.

An adage can contain a fact but does not become a fact no matter how many times you repeat it.

if you make the statement then it is up to you to support it. Sorry its a real rule. Otherwise it is not a real fact.

A statement is not a fact it is a statement, a statement can contain a fact but does not become one.

You strike me as someone who does not believe something unless you see it with your own eyes which makes it difficult to anyone to prove anything to your satisfaction.

If you directly observe something then you have observational evidence.

If you tell someone about it it becomes eyewitness testimony. to them but observational evidence.to you and they can chose to accept it or not based on your credibility and their knowledge of what is or isn't probable.

If they tell someone about what you told them then it becomes hearsay to them, eyewitness testimony to the person you told and observational evidence.to you. The person who is presented with the hearsay can choose to accept it or not based on the credibility of you and the person you told and their knowledge of what is or isn't probable.

Whether each subsequent person accepts what you observed or not does not change the facts of what you have observed.

 

[Chris Parker]

if you make the statement then it is up to you to support it. Sorry its a real rule. Otherwise it is not a real fact.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which is why i don't think you know what a fact is.

No.

If I make a statement that is presented as a fact, which is shown to be lacking in support, is not credible, is contradictory to previously established understanding and knowledge, then sure, question it, and ask for more evidence or support. But burden of proof doesn't apply to everything just because… if that was the case, then no-one could say anything.

And that brings us to the real issue here… I have supported my statements many times over. We have explained that you don't appear to understand kata training, and I have gone into a fair amount of depth as to what kata training is, how it's designed, how it's meant to be trained, and more… but you're still saying that you're not being given anything to support my statements. That, simply, is not the case. The sheer, simple fact is that you are refusing to accept pretty much any form of evidence that's presented… in other words, while burden of proof is on the person making the statement, you also have the burden of actually taking the evidence on board. And that is something you seem unwilling, or unable to do.

that Chris understands what a fact is and who has the burden of proof when he makes a statement.its important because I could say Santa clause is real. You cant prove he isn't.

Actually, you can. You can point to the fact that all evidence is fictionalised story-telling, you can use photos and surveillance of the North Pole to demonstrate that there is no habitable abode there, you can get expert witnesses in the form of parents to corroborate the story of Santa being an invention, you can look at how the character developed and evolved, all the way from the origins of "Saint Nicholas", through the various incarnations (such as "Black Pete"), each giving aspects to the eventual (current) image, including the colour scheme, which comes from Coca-Cola advertising earlier in the 20th Century (which is why "Santa" is dressed in red… it's Coke's colours… prior to that, he was commonly dressed in greens and browns…), and so on.

In other words, you're conflating a plausible story, no matter how well known to be false, with the idea of something presented as fact without evidence… I mean… if we're going to argue as to who understands what a fact is or not, you're not really getting them right on your end…

In the end, listen to what Tony says in post #141…

Speaking of Tony...

Interesting.

If I'm reading you correctly, your purpose for training is not to develop tools for addressing whatever your own personal needs in life are. Rather, it's to understand a given martial art for its own sake in its original context, much like a student of art history endeavoring to understand why Rembrandt used the techniques and made the choices he did while painting The Night Watch.

Hey, Tony.

This is where it gets tricky… the answer is yes, however that doesn't mean that one necessarily precludes the other… in order to understand and gain skill in a particular art, I need to gain an understanding and skill in the arena of combative abilities within the context of that system. So it's not quite the same as a more purely academic understanding… that's part of it, but if that's all you do, it's not really studying the art, it's studying the history of the art.

And, realistically, by training in a particular art, I am training to develop tools that can be taken elsewhere in my life… but those tools might not be as immediately transferable, or as instantly recognisable. But, really, you gotta remember mate, I'm Koryu… the context is a bit different to you guys, ha!

That said, realistically, whenever you choose to train in a particular art, no matter what it is, it's because you see the value in that art… whether it's a traditional system, modern combatives system, sport system, armed, unarmed, or whatever. So, you're primary aim has to be to learn the art… which means, well, you need to follow what the art is teaching, and put aside what you think things should be, at least until you have a real thorough grounding in the system. It doesn't matter if it's BJJ, MMA, Kyudo, or whatever… if you're not following the way the art is teaching you to behave, think, act etc, get out of the system… you're not there to learn.

I've discussed elsewhere that I have a fundamentally different viewpoint than you seem to regarding martial arts styles as having a unitary ideal Platonic nature, but I can appreciate the historical benefits of trying to understand what the creators of an art were up to on their own terms.

Yeah… to be honest, I don't think you've quite grasped what I was saying. For one thing, I have never said that anything is "static"… in fact, quite the opposite. I have always included the fact that, for some systems, the idea of constantly evolving, developing, adapting is very much part of what makes that art what it is… bluntly, you're ascribing a far too concrete application of what I was saying than I ever actually said myself.

I mean, I get what you're saying… but feel you're missing a lot of what I was saying in the first place. Of course, this is a discussion for a different place.

 

[ballen0351]

I think what drop bear is trying to say, in a not entirely articulate fashion, is something like the following:

"Chris makes statements. He presents these statements not as opinions, but as undeniable facts. He indicates that I should just accept these statements and not challenge them, because he is an authority who knows much more about everything than I do. However, I do not think that I need to take his word that he knows so much more than I do and I don't feel like he has provided evidence to back up his statements that he claims as facts."

Drop bear - if this is indeed an accurate summation of the point you were trying to make, then I might make a few suggestions (some of which go back to my first post in this thread) for more productively engaging with Chris without having to either accept him as an all-knowing authority or waste time with cryptic snark.

a) Make sure you understand what Chris (or anyone else you want to debate with) is trying to say in the first place. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him. That means you should be able to restate his position and when you ask "is this what you are trying to say", he will say "yes." Otherwise you are wasting your time arguing with a strawman you have constructed in your head.

b) If you feel that you need more evidence than he has provided before you accept his point, then be ready to spell out what sort of evidence you need and why you need it. In an earlier thread, there was discussion of what samurai training methods might have entailed, and as Chris and elder and others outlined the available evidence (historical records, oral traditions, etc) you kept saying "so you have no evidence." Honestly, I have no idea what you were asking for. Were you dismissing the idea of historical records and saying you would settle for nothing less than video footage from the 17th century? Were you asking for links to the original Japanese historical documents? Were you asking for details of which specific historical documents or other primary sources that Chris had personally examined? I have no clue.

c) If you actually want to test your ideas through debate in the manner you originally suggested, then take the time to organize and clearly express them in such a way that the people you are talking to can understand your point. No one can help expose the weaknesses in your argument if they can't understand your argument in the first place.

Perhaps but when I asked what specifically he didn't agree with he wants to argue his definition of a "fact" Not specifically what Chris said just that its not a "fact"
I think he is just purposely fighting to fight or "spar" because he believes that's a "conversation" Its just not the case. I have conversations with my wife all the time and we don't "spar" Its not adversarial or confrontational is a conversation. We share ideas. He may be closer in saying a debate is like sparing if he insists on using the metaphor but I just think the entire topic is flawed

 

[Tony Dismukes]

This is where it gets tricky… the answer is yes, however that doesn't mean that one necessarily precludes the other… in order to understand and gain skill in a particular art, I need to gain an understanding and skill in the arena of combative abilities within the context of that system. So it's not quite the same as a more purely academic understanding… that's part of it, but if that's all you do, it's not really studying the art, it's studying the history of the art.

Right, I didn't mean that you were working for understanding strictly in an intellectual textbook fashion. That really would be missing out on most of what makes up the martial arts experience. To extend my original metaphor, you would be like a student who attempts to understand Rembrandt in part by learning to use the same techniques and tools that he did.

And, realistically, by training in a particular art, I am training to develop tools that can be taken elsewhere in my life… but those tools might not be as immediately transferable, or as instantly recognisable. But, really, you gotta remember mate, I'm Koryu… the context is a bit different to you guys, ha!

Right, the tools can be transferable to other contexts. However I get the impression that this is more of a fringe benefit for you than the main reason for study.

Yeah… to be honest, I don't think you've quite grasped what I was saying. For one thing, I have never said that anything is "static"… in fact, quite the opposite. I have always included the fact that, for some systems, the idea of constantly evolving, developing, adapting is very much part of what makes that art what it is… bluntly, you're ascribing a far too concrete application of what I was saying than I ever actually said myself.

I didn't say you viewed systems as static. Sorry if I gave that impression. You do speak as if a martial art is a single, unified thing that exists outside of the individuals who practice it. I have rather a different outlook.

I mean, I get what you're saying… but feel you're missing a lot of what I was saying in the first place. Of course, this is a discussion for a different place.

I'd love to get a thread started on the subject. I think some of our different outlooks on the matter is an unstated subtext in many different discussions we've had around here.

I probably won't have a chance to organize my thoughts for starting such a thread tonight. (I'm busy working on writing a book review.) If you feel up for starting one, feel free. Otherwise maybe I'll be able to get to it tomorrow.

 

[drop bear]

If I make a statement that is presented as a fact, which is shown to be lacking in support, is not credible, is contradictory to previously established understanding and knowledge, then sure, question it, and ask for more evidence or support. But burden of proof doesn't apply to everything just because… if that was the case, then no-one could say anything.

And that brings us to the real issue here… I have supported my statements many times over. We have explained that you don't appear to understand kata training, and I have gone into a fair amount of depth as to what kata training is, how it's designed, how it's meant to be trained, and more… but you're still saying that you're not being given anything to support my statements. That, simply, is not the case. The sheer, simple fact is that you are refusing to accept pretty much any form of evidence that's presented… in other words, while burden of proof is on the person making the statement, you also have the burden of actually taking the evidence on board. And that is something you seem unwilling, or unable to do.

no.

you are repeating your statements. Not supporting them.

 

[drop bear]

Perhaps but when I asked what specifically he didn't agree with he wants to argue his definition of a "fact" Not specifically what Chris said just that its not a "fact"
I think he is just purposely fighting to fight or "spar" because he believes that's a "conversation" Its just not the case. I have conversations with my wife all the time and we don't "spar" Its not adversarial or confrontational is a conversation. We share ideas. He may be closer in saying a debate is like sparing if he insists on using the metaphor but I just think the entire topic is flawed

that was the simplest to find rather than having to grind though threads and find all the inconsistencies. Which is impossible to argue due to this idea that every thing he says is fact. And it is fact because he says it.

i mean if you wanted confrontation then all you would need is two people doing that.

it would wind up like an argument with a three year old.

 

[ballen0351]

that was the simplest to find rather than having to grind though threads and find all the inconsistencies. Which is impossible to argue due to this idea that every thing he says is fact. And it is fact because he says it.

nonsense

i mean if you wanted confrontation then all you would need is two people doing that.

kinda like your doing now?

it would wind up like an argument with a three year old.

I know the feeling

 

[drop bear]

b) If you feel that you need more evidence than he has provided before you accept his point, then be ready to spell out what sort of evidence you need and why you need it. In an earlier thread, there was discussion of what samurai training methods might have entailed, and as Chris and elder and others outlined the available evidence (historical records, oral traditions, etc) you kept saying "so you have no evidence." Honestly, I have no idea what you were asking for. Were you dismissing the idea of historical records and saying you would settle for nothing less than video footage from the 17th century? Were you asking for links to the original Japanese historical documents? Were you asking for details of which specific historical documents or other primary sources that Chris had personally examined? I have no clue.

they said samurai didn't engage in life or death duels or something. I said i don't know i wasn't around then. Ballen went for some idea that he saw a demo. And Chris backed him up because he trains as a samurai.

i find that either of them living an actual samurai existence pretty slim. So yes some sort of document on how they trained would have been nice.

 

[drop bear]

nonsense

kinda like your doing now?


I know the feeling

these sort of posts are an example of what i am getting at. This is how you get a confrontational conversation.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

they said samurai didn't engage in life or death duels or something. I said i don't know i wasn't around then. Ballen went for some idea that he saw a demo. And Chris backed him up because he trains as a samurai.

i find that either of them living an actual samurai existence pretty slim. So yes some sort of document on how they trained would have been nice.

Here we get back to a) in my previous comment, understanding what the other person is saying. I can 100% guarantee that Chris is not claiming to be a samurai, live a samurai existence, or even train to be a samurai. He also did not claim that samurai didn't engage in life-or-death duels, because we have historical records that many of them did so.

The claim was that the samurai were not killing each other as part of normal training, which is very different from killing each other in duels or warfare. As one line of evidence, Chris offered his familiarity with classical ryu which have preserved training methods of the time period via unbroken teacher-to-student transmission and written documentation. (Note, training in such a ryu does not make someone a samurai and no one I know who trains in such an art claims that it does.)

You could ask to see the written documentation, but unless you read Japanese I don't know how much good it would do you.

You can still be skeptical if you want, but it might be helpful to clarify where exactly your skepticism lies.

Do you doubt that Chris actually trains in a classical ryu and has collected information from others who train in other koryu systems?

Do you doubt that the koryu systems have accurately preserved the training methods of their founders?

Do you doubt that any historical records exist concerning how the samurai lived and trained?

If you clarify where your skepticism lies, then others have a chance of addressing it if they choose to do so.

 

[ballen0351]

these sort of posts are an example of what i am getting at. This is how you get a confrontational conversation.

When you post nonsense you get nonsense back

 

[ballen0351]

they said samurai didn't engage in life or death duels or something. I said i don't know i wasn't around then. Ballen went for some idea that he saw a demo. And Chris backed him up because he trains as a samurai.

i find that either of them living an actual samurai existence pretty slim. So yes some sort of document on how they trained would have been nice.

Where did I post about Samurai duels? I don't remember

 

[drop bear]

Here we get back to a) in my previous comment, understanding what the other person is saying. I can 100% guarantee that Chris is not claiming to be a samurai, live a samurai existence, or even train to be a samurai. He also did not claim that samurai didn't engage in life-or-death duels, because we have historical records that many of them did so.

The claim was that the samurai were not killing each other as part of normal training, which is very different from killing each other in duels or warfare. As one line of evidence, Chris offered his familiarity with classical ryu which have preserved training methods of the time period via unbroken teacher-to-student transmission and written documentation. (Note, training in such a ryu does not make someone a samurai and no one I know who trains in such an art claims that it does.)

You could ask to see the written documentation, but unless you read Japanese I don't know how much good it would do you.

You can still be skeptical if you want, but it might be helpful to clarify where exactly your skepticism lies.

Do you doubt that Chris actually trains in a classical ryu and has collected information from others who train in other koryu systems?

Do you doubt that the koryu systems have accurately preserved the training methods of their founders?

Do you doubt that any historical records exist concerning how the samurai lived and trained?

If you clarify where your skepticism lies, then others have a chance of addressing it if they choose to do so.

except what would be the point? He claimed he does address it by making the statement in the first place. That is his proof.

not once have i seen him back a statement with a source. If i back a statement with a source he just says that isn't the case and we are back to square one.

i have never known an authority on any topic that operates that way.

 

[drop bear]

When you post nonsense you get nonsense back

because..................


conversation is sparring.

 

[drop bear]

except what would be the point? He claimed he does address it by making the statement in the first place. That is his proof.

not once have i seen him back a statement with a source. If i back a statement with a source he just says that isn't the case and we are back to square one.

i have never known an authority on any topic that operates that way.

as far as my doubts. I don't think Chris has much practical knowledge in areas like self defence.

so in the texts there are portions telling me what a fight is like. Even a fun portion on why bouncers lift weights.

it is a style thing rather than a specific thing. He is absolutely sure he is correct every time he makes a point. That is why i compared it to kata. Because of that backwards thought process.

eg. Kata is correct. Now we have to find out why it is correct.

 

[ballen0351]

because..................


conversation is sparring.

Nope your still wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[Gnarlie]

because..................


conversation is sparring.

IMO there would be elements analogous to both kata and sparring in language and conversation.

Kata would be analogous to the vocabulary (techniques) and grammar (accepted conventions for use and structure of vocabulary / technique - this would equate to tactics). Kata could also be compared to the principles of logic - expressions of general principles that would hold true for particular contexts.

Sparring would be analogous to practising the use of vocabulary (techniques), grammar (convention /tactics) and rules of logic, say in the context of writing a paper or formulating a rebuttal in a court room - situations where one party tries to impose his will and view on another. But a friendly conversation it is not.

Maybe conversation here in this friendly martial arts forum should not be like that. Maybe conversation here should be more like a trade - one person gives another something in exchange for something else, to mutual benefit.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Tony,

Right, I didn't mean that you were working for understanding strictly in an intellectual textbook fashion. That really would be missing out on most of what makes up the martial arts experience. To extend my original metaphor, you would be like a student who attempts to understand Rembrandt in part by learning to use the same techniques and tools that he did.

Hmm… yeah, that's closer… still not quite it, though, but it's certainly closer.

Right, the tools can be transferable to other contexts. However I get the impression that this is more of a fringe benefit for you than the main reason for study.

Again, that's kind of a "yes and no" situation… yes, it's a fringe benefit, but by the same token, it's a primary drive as well… if there's no "connection" to the outside life, it's rather pointless.

I didn't say you viewed systems as static. Sorry if I gave that impression. You do speak as if a martial art is a single, unified thing that exists outside of the individuals who practice it. I have rather a different outlook.

Okay… I was taking your phrasing from your blog there. Of course, yeah, I do talk about a martial art (specific system) as being a single unified "thing"… what that is changes from system to system, of course, but I also hold that my belief is correct. Honestly, it's held up by every observation I've ever made, as well as any and all systems I've come across. The idea of a system (say, BJJ) continuing to evolve, adapt, and add to itself through it's developmental model doesn't deny that… it's simply part of what makes BJJ "BJJ"… but it's still within it's own defined parameters. BJJ is hardly about to add Lichtenhauer and Fiore methods and claim it's still BJJ in that area, to take an extreme example.

And, as far as it existing "outside of the people who practice it", well again, yeah. The art is an addition to the person… it is transmitted through the persons practicing it, and if there are no longer any practitioners, it will also cease to exist… but that doesn't change the idea that the art is separate and external to the practitioners.

I'd love to get a thread started on the subject. I think some of our different outlooks on the matter is an unstated subtext in many different discussions we've had around here.

Yeah, possibly.

I probably won't have a chance to organize my thoughts for starting such a thread tonight. (I'm busy working on writing a book review.) If you feel up for starting one, feel free. Otherwise maybe I'll be able to get to it tomorrow.

Cool. I'll leave it to you. Might be best if we continue it there, then.