Internal Power of Martial Arts (Breathing Technique)

[Gerry Seymour]

If you are only discussing entirely about demos you see on you tube then are only looking at half the evidence. There is also all the evidence you cant see on YouTube. Because only a small percentage of evidence is you tube.

You would also have to accept the OPs rirst hand evidence.

Which is Vibravision works.

I believed she even used science to support her claim.

No, I don't have to accept it. I won't say for certain it doesn't - that's not good science - but I will say the evidence they posted is not good evidence. I can also point out evidence that conflicts with their claim - again, good science.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

im pretty sure that, if asked, these guys would say they learned these skills in class, too.

yiu believe what you're leaning works because that is what you've been told. And your demos are only superficially different from any other.

Most people believe that they're learning works because it has worked in whatever context they've used it. That's not always a valid contextual test for what they believe they're training for, but the point is that few people would believe something worked only because they'd been told so, if it wasn't working in class.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I also believe seeing scientific proofs are useful in supporting beliefs. I think there are two problems with this approach in regard to the OP's belief and support as it has been expressed.

First, in order to get the study you wish, a professor or scientist would have to get funding. Just based on the reactions here in this thread, and other threads which speak of the use of Gi, where do you suppose the money for a study would come from? And how much control over the outcome would anyone providing the funding require.

Second, if the use of Gi is from a faith foundation, how do you scientifically study that? Then if you believe there are good and bad influences in the world, would you also wish to scientifically study from which influence that ability came, and how would you conduct such studies?

My personal belief is that the OP believes what she is posting (assuming that the OP is female from the avatar photo only). I am not prepared to believe what she posts until I can personally learn, or test the abilities of practitioners.



Scientific studies are indeed useful. One just needs to research the funding, methodology, and the statement at its beginning to see if any bias is detected.

And on the others side, one needs to be observant for attempts by charlatans to deny participation, or methodology as an excuse not to participate in a study or in an attempt to debunk a study.

I don't think it would be an easy thing for a scientific study by believers or detractors

Actually, a simple initial study wouldn't be expensive, and there are plenty of graduate students who could do those preliminary studies. A preliminary study would be far from conclusive, but if it showed a statistically significant effect, those results would lead to a larger study and so forth. Funding for that type of study on a controversial topic like this comes after promising results. The complete lack of such studies doesn't mean there's not a measurable effect, but it makes me more skeptical. Let's face it, this would be groundbreaking, changing rules of science as we know them. There are a ton of PhD candidates who would sacrifice much to put their name to a study that even remotely suggested that sort of upheaval.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

If you are only discussing entirely about demos you see on you tube then are only looking at half the evidence. There is also all the evidence you cant see on YouTube. Because only a small percentage of evidence is you tube.

You would also have to accept the OPs rirst hand evidence.

Which is Vibravision works.

I believed she even used science to support her claim.

~~|~~@Com~~ What is Fishy about Merpati Putih - Vibravision?

This is a report of a vibravision test done under scientific conditions, stating that vibravision is nothing more than guesswork. So who is right?

 

[RTKDCMB]

I don't think it would be an easy thing for a scientific study by believers or detractors

It would be much easier to do a PhD project on it though.

 

[RTKDCMB]

There are a ton of PhD candidates who would sacrifice much to put their name to a study that even remotely suggested that sort of upheaval.

There is a guy who received his PhD from one of the Universities where I live who did his study in support of the obsolete Expanding Earth hypothesis, so anything's possible.

 

[Steve]

Am I to infer from this that you believe that the only way to know what I am learning works is to use it in a competition?

We can know intellectually that some things work, but that doesn't mean you can Do them. And competition isn't the only way. Its just the most practical and effe rice for anyone who doesn't do these things professionally can hope for.

But this is all beside the point which is that demos are always unrealistic.

 

[Steve]

And in which of my comments exactly do you feel gives you that impression?



And where have I said or implied that I have trained in it or know enough about it to judge the system as a whole?

You clearly haven't. So why do you feel like its okay to deride it? Hanzou gets a lot of grief for doing what you're doing now.

 

[Steve]

Most people believe that they're learning works because it has worked in whatever context they've used it. That's not always a valid contextual test for what they believe they're training for, but the point is that few people would believe something worked only because they'd been told so, if it wasn't working in class.

Look at politics in this country and you can see how effective controlling the message and the context can make anything seem plausible.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Look at politics in this country and you can see how effective controlling the message and the context can make anything seem plausible.

I'm not sure that generalizable to MA training.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

What does that have to do with the statement I just made, which was entirely about demos?

Nothing. I believe drop bear was making an off-topic joking reference to arguments in other threads where one side claims that the really good stuff in their system isn't documented on YouTube.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Nothing. I believe drop bear was making an off-topic joking reference to arguments in other threads where one side claims that the really good stuff in their system isn't documented on YouTube.

I know his reference. I'm actually one of those, because I've never seen any actual classwork from any of school in our styles on the web. I've seen a couple of demos, and even portions of some tests, but never a class or even a seminar. He has actually challenged me on that, asking why I haven't rectified that by posting some of my own training. I don't actually see it as a problem that requires rectification, and still haven't gotten around to getting any decent video of any classes I teach.

And none of that has anything to do with my comment, since I was discussing the validity of the demo as evidence. He's just doing what he does when he feels so inclined.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Absolutely. Who are we to suggest it's not real? Sounds like a bunch of elitist nuthuggers around here.

Like what you're doing now? Have you ever trained in any Silat, much less this flavor of It? If you're not an expert in it, you just don't know.

I'm not sure about elitist. It's the approach that the op used. For example had the OP started with the blind student on the floor training then the responses would have been different.

 

[oaktree]

The op has been debunked already, In fact seems more about advertising if you check multiple sites, well let me do some advertising too then, we are making a super cute video game with a ninja monkey

 

[drop bear]

I know his reference. I'm actually one of those, because I've never seen any actual classwork from any of school in our styles on the web. I've seen a couple of demos, and even portions of some tests, but never a class or even a seminar. He has actually challenged me on that, asking why I haven't rectified that by posting some of my own training. I don't actually see it as a problem that requires rectification, and still haven't gotten around to getting any decent video of any classes I teach.

And none of that has anything to do with my comment, since I was discussing the validity of the demo as evidence. He's just doing what he does when he feels so inclined.

And the premis you basically made was if the demo was not a real representation of the validity of the art. And that the demo was the only representation of the validity of the art that we can access.

We should therefore consider the art valid because we cannot access all the information that exists. Using science. (which got presented) Or ancecdotal evidence (which was presented)

Which is nuts.

And yes. I am outright saying that this vibravision has presented as much evidence for its validity as akido. And so people who do martial arts may want to consider that association when they are supporting their own claims.

Doing what I do is forcing people to think. And not just accept.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And the premis you basically made was if the demo was not a real representation of the validity of the art. And that the demo was the only representation of the validity of the art that we can access.

We should therefore consider the art valid because we cannot access all the information that exists. Using science. (which got presented) Or ancecdotal evidence (which was presented)

Which is nuts.

And yes. I am outright saying that this vibravision has presented as much evidence for its validity as akido. And so people who do martial arts may want to consider that association when they are supporting their own claims.

Doing what I do is forcing people to think. And not just accept.

Actually, no. The points I made were:

1) A demo (actually any video) is not a guaranteed representation of any art or style. As such, it cannot be used as conclusive proof that an art or style is crappy. It's evidence, but being such a small population (compared to the hours of training) and possibly being out-of-context, it's problematic to consider it conclusive.

2) There are types of evidence other than video. This is not even arguable, in my opinion. What is arguable is which pieces of information we should consider valid as evidence. Among those will be some of the anecdotal evidence, but certainly not all.

You try REALLY hard to make people statements absolutes, even when they clearly are not made as such. Perhaps that's because you seem to often take absolute positions. Many of us recognize that extremely little in life can be boiled down to 100% right vs. 100% wrong.

EDIT: And your comparison to Aikido (and here I refer to Ueshiba's art, as I believe you do, rather than the group of arts) is valid from your standpoint. For those who have actually experienced effective Aikido, there's more evidence, but it's not something we can point to for you.

 

[drop bear]

Actually, no. The points I made were:

1) A demo (actually any video) is not a guaranteed representation of any art or style. As such, it cannot be used as conclusive proof that an art or style is crappy. It's evidence, but being such a small population (compared to the hours of training) and possibly being out-of-context, it's problematic to consider it conclusive.

2) There are types of evidence other than video. This is not even arguable, in my opinion. What is arguable is which pieces of information we should consider valid as evidence. Among those will be some of the anecdotal evidence, but certainly not all.

You try REALLY hard to make people statements absolutes, even when they clearly are not made as such. Perhaps that's because you seem to often take absolute positions. Many of us recognize that extremely little in life can be boiled down to 100% right vs. 100% wrong.

EDIT: And your comparison to Aikido (and here I refer to Ueshiba's art, as I believe you do, rather than the group of arts) is valid from your standpoint. For those who have actually experienced effective Aikido, there's more evidence, but it's not something we can point to for you.

The point is to make your art more than a belief system. It should be valid from the other persons stand point. How much ineffective akido do I have to experience before I can expect evidence before investing?

As is my way when I am inclined.

For those who have actually experienced God, there's more evidence, but it's not something we can point to for you.

Which is what I thought of from that statement.



I don't have to try that hard to make peoples statements absolutes. Peoples statements generally are absolutes. It is a martial art thing.
.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The point is to make your art more than a belief system. It should be valid from the other persons stand point. How much ineffective akido do I have to experience before I can expect evidence before investing?

As is my way when I am inclined.

For those who have actually experienced God, there's more evidence, but it's not something we can point to for you.

Which is what I thought of from that statement.



I don't have to try that hard to make peoples statements absolutes. Peoples statements generally are absolutes. It is a martial art thing.
.

It's not a "belief system" to those who have actually experienced it being effective. They simply have an experience others do not. What I can't speak to is whether that effectiveness is universal, or was because of the way the individual used it. It might be that Aikido has limited effectiveness. Or it might be that it's highly effective. My experience with that art is fairly limited, so all I can speak to is that limited experience. I know the physical principles are sound, and I disagree with some of the focus that (based on my experience) probably limits the effectiveness, but that's all based on my limited experience. I've met and worked out with some folks whose Aikido was effective in a training environment against me, so I have that experience to draw on, but we weren't going all-out and I don't know how much of that effectiveness was simply because that person had decades of experience.

You can expect exactly as much evidence as you need before investing. Know that you are not the target market for Aikido, from what I see. You'd be focused on getting to combat effectiveness as quickly as reasonably possible, and no Aikido school I have visited seemed to have that speed as a goal. That said, most folks don't select for the most combat effectiveness - they select for a level of effectiveness they feel is achievable within their willingness to commit.

And, no, people's statements generally are not absolutes. Take a look at the way I word mine. I am usually careful to be clear that I see room for disagreement. Only occasionally do I view something as inarguable, and those statements are usually very narrowly focused. In fact, I watch for absolutes in others statements, because research has actually shown that the more bombastic and hyperbolic a statement, the more likely it is to be either incorrect or backed by illogical reasoning.

 

[oaktree]

Demos at least in Japanese and Chinese arts are really just basics or the surface superficial representation and not the actual art, understand to show the actual art in olden times would allow other people to steal and counter which is why you see the omote set or public in demonstration and the ura the hidden and only to members.

 

[oftheherd1]

Actually, a simple initial study wouldn't be expensive, and there are plenty of graduate students who could do those preliminary studies. A preliminary study would be far from conclusive, but if it showed a statistically significant effect, those results would lead to a larger study and so forth. Funding for that type of study on a controversial topic like this comes after promising results. The complete lack of such studies doesn't mean there's not a measurable effect, but it makes me more skeptical. Let's face it, this would be groundbreaking, changing rules of science as we know them. There are a ton of PhD candidates who would sacrifice much to put their name to a study that even remotely suggested that sort of upheaval.

While I agree with all you have said, I still don't believe many graduate students would wish to lend their name to such a study, much less get funding for it.

And I still point out that I am not agreeing with the OP, just stating science would never look askance at anyone saying they wished to conduct such a study. I also believe a preliminary would have as much chance of being funded these days as a more rigorous study.