Dogma in the martial arts

[swhitney222]

I had an old teacher that was crazy. Everyone treated him like a god. No one was allowed to question him or disagree with him. And he would scream and yell at you if you did disagree with him. No one knows anything about his lineage cause it is a "blood oath secret" not to tell anyone. But he is the expert and knows everything (Hahaha). The guy was nuts and the sad part is he still actively teaching. Thank God I got out of there a long time ago.

 

[Steve]

I had an old teacher that was crazy. Everyone treated him like a god. No one was allowed to question him or disagree with him. And he would scream and yell at you if you did disagree with him. No one knows anything about his lineage cause it is a "blood oath secret" not to tell anyone. But he is the expert and knows everything (Hahaha). The guy was nuts and the sad part is he still actively teaching. Thank God I got out of there a long time ago.

LOL. Nevermind. My joke was mean. I was flipping through the cast of characters on this forum, and I thought for a moment that one person could be exactly who you're talking about. But then I realized I've never heard him refer to a blood oath secret regarding his lineage.

 

[swhitney222]

LOL. Nevermind. My joke was mean. I was flipping through the cast of characters on this forum, and I thought for a moment that one person could be exactly who you're talking about. But then I realized I've never heard him refer to a blood oath secret regarding his lineage.

Nope he is in Massachusetts

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So is the consensus that a dogmatic society is a cult? If so you would have to include the scientific society into the cult category which is a pretty Major leap.

Science doesn't have incontrovertible truths, though. Many experiments are attempts to test (and possibly disprove) foundational tenets in new ways. The way it is taught at the gradeschool level often oversimplifies the process and approach.

 

[Buka]

Nope he is in Massachusetts

I spent most of my life in Massachusetts. And, yeah, there were some pips there in the MA world alright.

If you would, PM me his name, or at least his initials. If he's a long time lunatic I must have crossed paths somewhere.

 

[Buka]

Never mind, I know who you mean. He's maybe the most obnoxious human being any of us ever crossed paths with. Oh God, does he suck.

 

[dvcochran]

Science doesn't have incontrovertible truths, though. Many experiments are attempts to test (and possibly disprove) foundational tenets in new ways. The way it is taught at the gradeschool level often oversimplifies the process and approach.

But that is true of many things we (and science) hold as hard truths. The one that always comes to mind to me is electricity. It is purely a theory but literally runs the world.
I would call that incontrovertible, at least in the tangible sense, yet we cannot see it, smell it, hear it, touch it, or even prove it’s existence; only the effect it has.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But that is true of many things we (and science) hold as hard truths. The one that always comes to mind to me is electricity. It is purely a theory but literally runs the world.
I would call that incontrovertible, at least in the tangible sense, yet we cannot see it, smell it, hear it, touch it, or even prove it’s existence; only the effect it has.

There was nothing incontrovertible about that, though. You’ve only mentioned the name we give to something that obviously exists. The current explanations of it (theory) can be upset and replaced at any time.

 

[dvcochran]

There was nothing incontrovertible about that, though. You’ve only mentioned the name we give to something that obviously exists. The current explanations of it (theory) can be upset and replaced at any time.

That is a pretty hard stand on the definition when you argue against something that would stop the world as we know it.
in·con·tro·vert·i·ble
adjective
1. not able to be denied or disputed.
"incontrovertible proof"

That sounds a lot like electricity to me.

Sometimes, especially in programming, you have to solve for zero. But almost always zero is a 'good enough' placeholder because it cannot be solved for absolutely. There are times we need to locate 5 or even 6 places below the decimal. To the average layperson zero was already found 4 or 5 places to the left but that is simply not 'good enough'.

Cancellation is one of the best methods for proving logic works. Negative logic works very well at 'disproving' safeties in a circuit. What this means is Not going at a discrete condition directly to prove it's state.
This is the essence of how we have 'proven' the existence of electricity.

The more I write this the more I feel it could be trending off topic.
If the definition of dogma requires 'principles laid down by an authority' (singular) I am not certain my logic can be applied.

I think dogma may be more of a philosophical precept and not hard science.

Possibly the OP is asking about false dogma? Would this not be the same as a false doctrine?

 

[Steve]

But that is true of many things we (and science) hold as hard truths. The one that always comes to mind to me is electricity. It is purely a theory but literally runs the world.
I would call that incontrovertible, at least in the tangible sense, yet we cannot see it, smell it, hear it, touch it, or even prove it’s existence; only the effect it has.

There are theories and then there are scientific theories. What most people think of as a theory is really only the first step in the scientific process, an unsubstantiated, educated guess. A scientific theory is pretty much the opposite of that.

The various scientific theories that explain Ohm's law aren't "purely a theory." That's a gross understatement. Electricity is an observable, testable, measurable phenomenon. We can test for amperage, test for voltage, and test for resistance. I would agree with you that electricity is a very well established scientific theory. We know a lot about it, including how to make it and how to manage and control it. But that doesn't mean we know everything about it. Scientific theories remain theories because it leaves open the possibility that there is more to learn. And if we learn more, the theory is revised.

 

[dvcochran]

There are theories and then there are scientific theories. What most people think of as a theory is really only the first step in the scientific process, an unsubstantiated, educated guess. A scientific theory is pretty much the opposite of that.

The various scientific theories that explain Ohm's law aren't "purely a theory." That's a gross understatement. Electricity is an observable, testable, measurable phenomenon. We can test for amperage, test for voltage, and test for resistance. I would agree with you that electricity is a very well established scientific theory. We know a lot about it, including how to make it and how to manage and control it. But that doesn't mean we know everything about it. Scientific theories remain theories because it leaves open the possibility that there is more to learn. And if we learn more, the theory is revised.

To be sure. I never implied to say give up on the theory.
How many things can you think of that we (humans) accepted as fact only to find we were incorrect?
Change is the only constant.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is a pretty hard stand on the definition when you argue against something that would stop the world as we know it.
in·con·tro·vert·i·ble
adjective
1. not able to be denied or disputed.
"incontrovertible proof"

That sounds a lot like electricity to me.

But what about electricity are you saying is not able to be denied? That the thing we call “electricity” exists? The current (no pun intended) explanation for it?

That it exists is kind of incontrovertible, I suppose. I mean something is there. But that’s not really the spirit of the definition.

 

[Xue Sheng]

But that is true of many things we (and science) hold as hard truths. The one that always comes to mind to me is electricity. It is purely a theory but literally runs the world.
I would call that incontrovertible, at least in the tangible sense, yet we cannot see it, smell it, hear it, touch it, or even prove it’s existence; only the effect it has.

But we can measure it, see it, and you can touch it, I just recommend you don't

https://imgur.com/9os5DKc

 

[Steve]

But what about electricity are you saying is not able to be denied? That the thing we call “electricity” exists? The current (no pun intended) explanation for it?

That it exists is kind of incontrovertible, I suppose. I mean something is there. But that’s not really the spirit of the definition.

In related news, the law of probability (the idea that we live in a world of probability not determinism) is kind of the basis for the Foundation tv series I'm watching now. Harry Selden, in the show, says something along the lines of, "The empire will fall within the next 500 years. That is unavoidable. But if you're asking me if I can tell you what you will eat for breakfast tomorrow, I cannot." That show so far is amazing.

But we can measure it, see it, and you can touch it, I just recommend you don't

https://imgur.com/9os5DKc

Who hasn't licked their finger and touched the car battery terminal? Or stuck a screwdriver in the wall socket? Or was that just my childhood?

Seriously, sometimes I think I survived childhood on accident, and that most modern child safety measures were because of me and others like me.

 

[Xue Sheng]

In related news, the law of probability (the idea that we live in a world of probability not determinism) is kind of the basis for the Foundation tv series I'm watching now. Harry Selden, in the show, says something along the lines of, "The empire will fall within the next 500 years. That is unavoidable. But if you're asking me if I can tell you what you will eat for breakfast tomorrow, I cannot." That show so far is amazing.


Who hasn't licked their finger and touched the car battery terminal? Or stuck a screwdriver in the wall socket? Or was that just my childhood?

Seriously, sometimes I think I survived childhood on accident, and that most modern child safety measures were because of me and others like me.

Battery no....screwdriver in wall socket no....reached under a dishwasher from the 60s....yes....it was a shocking experience to say the least

 

[Steve]

Battery no....screwdriver in wall socket no....reached under a dishwasher from the 60s....yes....it was a shocking experience to say the least

When I was about 5 or so, and discovered the miracle of screwdrivers, I went around the house and unscrewed literally every screw I could find. Big ones in tables, chairs, and other pieces of furniture. Little ones on the back of the TV, the stereo, the ones that held the outlet plates on the wall. I put them all in a big bucket and proudly showed that bucket to my dad... who then had to figure out where they all went. I was what is called an active child these days.

 

[J. Pickard]

It should be clarified; Dogma is something seen as incontrovertible truth as laid out by an Authority. i.e. I say it so it's true. There is no dogma in the scientific method, this is not to say that there are no dogmatic scientists. Nothing in science is completely incontrovertible. In martial arts the idea of dogma is essentially "master says so, therefore all else is wrong". There is no room for growth in this case.

 

[dvcochran]

But we can measure it, see it, and you can touch it, I just recommend you don't

https://imgur.com/9os5DKc

You cannot measure, see, or feel the effects of electricity. You cannot not touch it (aware), see it directly (nothing to see) or touch it (you feel/become the path to ground).

 

[dvcochran]

But what about electricity are you saying is not able to be denied? That the thing we call “electricity” exists? The current (no pun intended) explanation for it?

That it exists is kind of incontrovertible, I suppose. I mean something is there. But that’s not really the spirit of the definition.

It is incontrovertible that we have proven the presence of the atoms and their component parts (protons, neutrons, & electrons), through cancellation and magnetics, which on it's own is pretty freaking cool IMHO. The movement of electrons (negative charge) is what the theory of electricity is based on. In simplest terms current is always trying to make it's way back to ground. This is the 'flow' of electricity.
Ohm's law is brilliantly simple but still weird to me sometimes. Effectively, the higher the voltage (applied), the lower the current (in alternating current). Direct current does its own thing.

 

[Xue Sheng]

You cannot measure, see, or feel the effects of electricity. You cannot not touch it (aware), see it directly (nothing to see) or touch it (you feel/become the path to ground).

Volts, ohms, amps