Non-martial training in martial arts

[Gerry Seymour]

its not your point im disputing, its not you posting multiple links claim multiple health benefits for yoga.

and I've never claim yoga doesn't have health benefits, my point is that its over hyped and has no more benefits than most other forms of exercises , different benefits perhaps, but not more or superior benefits. Certainly in like for like it is not in anyway better than Pilates . It's just that Pilates doesn't have new aged mysticism wrapped up in it.

if people wish to show that yoga n has health benefits greater than other forms of exercise, then they need to show that, or except that it's just another exercise no better than many others

Those links were to scientific evidence. You know, the kind of stuff that we should use to make sure something's not over-hyped. It's not over-hyped if it's true. And the fact that someone can show (or even just asserts) multiple benefits doesn't imply they think it's better than everything else for any one of those (though it's possible it's better for the collective, even that's not implied). If someone claims it has benefits that aren't supported by evidence, or that it is the only/best way to get some of those benefits, etc. - that would likely be overhype.

You are arguing against a partial strawman. You're making statements to counter assertions not made, using assertions made as incomplete evidence of them.

EDIT: It would be like if someone showed evidence that acetaminophen + ibuprofen is effective at relieving tooth pain (it is), and I said they were over-hyping it and I'm tired of people saying that combination is the best way to treat any pain (neither being in evidence in their advice).

 

[jobo]

Those links were to scientific evidence. You know, the kind of stuff that we should use to make sure something's not over-hyped. It's not over-hyped if it's true. And the fact that someone can show (or even just asserts) multiple benefits doesn't imply they think it's better than everything else for any one of those (though it's possible it's better for the collective, even that's not implied). If someone claims it has benefits that aren't supported by evidence, or that it is the only/best way to get some of those benefits, etc. - that would likely be overhype.

You are arguing against a partial strawman. You're making statements to counter assertions not made, using assertions made as incomplete evidence of them.

EDIT: It would be like if someone showed evidence that acetaminophen + ibuprofen is effective at relieving tooth pain (it is), and I said they were over-hyping it and I'm tired of people saying that combination is the best way to treat any pain (neither being in evidence in their advice).

its not just yoga being over hyped, so to are the links, non of them could reasonable called scientific evidence

 

[jobo]

Who said anything about "unquestioning"? If someone asked my early instructors why they used push-ups when people didn't follow instructions, they'd be able to supply a reason. And if people asked why a drill was being assigned, they'd have an answer to that, too. Push-ups to encourage coordinated effort among the group doesn't even imply "unquestioning obedience".

well clearly they could supply a reason, its a cult, that's the reason, if they admit to it is another thing all together

 

[Gerry Seymour]

its not just yoga being over hyped, so to are the links, non of them could reasonable called scientific evidence

So, dispute that rather than the strawman.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well clearly they could supply a reason, its a cult, that's the reason, if they admit to it is another thing all together

You're ignoring the point of the post. On purpose, I presume.

 

[jobo]

You're ignoring the point of the post. On purpose, I presume.

no, i ignored your attempt to derail .

punishing someone who disobeys, has but one purpose, to ensure they obey on the future, I'm sure you won't take issue with that simple statement of truth.

the question then, is there future obedience for your benefit or theirs. Organisations in general, some in particular seek to remove individuality and expressions of free will, that is very nearly always to the betterment of the organisation and the detriment of the individual. though they always claim its for " your own good" it,seldom is

 

[jobo]

So, dispute that rather than the strawman.

but the whole claim of scientific name evidence is a stawman.
no such has been produced this far.

as the only argument against my points is an appeal to " higher authority, in the shape of non existent scientific evidence, then it would be them that's building a strawman

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no, i ignored your attempt to derail .

punishing someone who disobeys, has but one purpose, to ensure they obey on the future, I'm sure you won't take issue with that simple statement of truth.

the question then, is there future obedience for your benefit or theirs. Organisations in general, some in particular seek to remove individuality and expressions of free will, that is very nearly always to the betterment of the organisation and the detriment of the individual. though they always claim its for " your own good" it,seldom is

Nope. You're avoiding the point...again.

You spoke of "unquestioning". If people can (and do) question, then their compliance is not - by definition - unquestioning.

But go ahead and try to swing the topic away from your weak attempts to toss in terms that aren't applicable to the topic.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but the whole claim of scientific name evidence is a stawman.
no such has been produced this far.

as the only argument against my points is an appeal to " higher authority, in the shape of non existent scientific evidence, then it would be them that's building a strawman

So, show some reason why it's not scientific. "Appeal to authority" refers to an argument in which the authority cited is cited only for its inherent authority - rather than because it has provided research that supports the argument.

So, if the links cited aren't evidence of scientific research, then discuss that, rather than simply tossing out your epithets and ill-used jargon.

 

[jobo]

Nope. You're avoiding the point...again.

You spoke of "unquestioning". If people can (and do) question, then their compliance is not - by definition - unquestioning.

But go ahead and try to swing the topic away from your weak attempts to toss in terms that aren't applicable to the topic.

the ability question aurthority, is more than simply asking that aurthority to provide an explanation and then doing it anyway, it must also consist of the ability to decline that explanation as a good enough reason and therefore decline the aurthority to give that instruction.

 

[jobo]

So, show some reason why it's not scientific. "Appeal to authority" refers to an argument in which the authority cited is cited only for its inherent authority - rather than because it has provided research that supports the argument.

So, if the links cited aren't evidence of scientific research, then discuss that, rather than simply tossing out your epithets and ill-used jargon.

its not scientific, as they appear to contain no data,no blind study, no methodology, in fact nothing scientific at all, points you have made many many times , when people post up chopped down conclusion

 

[Gerry Seymour]

the ability question aurthority, is more than simply asking that aurthority to provide an explanation and then doing it anyway, it must also consist of the ability to decline that explanation as a good enough reason and therefore decline the aurthority to give that instruction.

Yes, it is. But only with reason. Doing it capriciously - without regard to how it affects others in the environment - is not relevant to whether the authority is cultish or not. Being able to question and challenge is. And giving push-ups is not inherently relevant to the question.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

its not scientific, as they appear to contain no data,no blind study, no methodology, in fact nothing scientific at all, points you have made many many times , when people post up chopped down conclusion

Now you're putting forth something worth discussion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

its not scientific, as they appear to contain no data,no blind study, no methodology, in fact nothing scientific at all, points you have made many many times , when people post up chopped down conclusion

Looking at the first three links, you are drawing conclusions from evidence not present. The brief synopses do not give any of that information, so you’re assuming the studies are fatally flawed.

 

[jobo]

Looking at the first three links, you are drawing conclusions from evidence not present. The brief synopses do not give any of that information, so you’re assuming the studies are fatally flawed.

no I'm stating as a fact, that what people have declared as " scientific evidence" is no such thing. What is actually in the,studies we will probably neve know, as it seem highly unlikely that the people making such rash claims will even acknowledge their short comings let alone track down the actual studies.

i suspect, that like most headline conclusions to studies the actual evidence in the data is far less conclusive.

 

[oftheherd1]

its less what i was doing,vso much as she thought my not obeying her instruction was worthy of punishment and even more that she thought i would subject myself to the humiliation of punishment by following her instruction to punish my self.

clearly her expectations were based on the amount of cult status she has with her normal group

Martial Arts have their roots in fighting, quite often organized fighting, but certainly in organized training to fight. It requires discipline. It would seem you not only don't have discipline, but like to flout the fact you do not.

I wasn't there of course, but I could believe her expectations were based more on her desire to instill discipline. Discipline is needed for many endeavors, including teaching and learning.

Worse, I would believe your actions, since they were obviously flouting her authority to teach, were disruptive for other students. For me, knowing I was doing that to other students would be a big burden to carry.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no I'm stating as a fact, that what people have declared as " scientific evidence" is no such thing. What is actually in the,studies we will probably neve know, as it seem highly unlikely that the people making such rash claims will even acknowledge their short comings let alone track down the actual studies.

i suspect, that like most headline conclusions to studies the actual evidence in the data is far less conclusive.

You last statement is the best point you can make from this.

 

[jobo]

You last statement is the best point you can make from this.

and of course if the studies didn't contain control groups doing other exercise and no exercise, the data its self would be of extremely limited use, if we ever got to see it

 

[Gerry Seymour]

and of course if the studies didn't contain control groups doing other exercise and no exercise, the data its self would be of extremely limited use, if we ever got to see it

That’s too iffy for the strong statements you made earlier. As you said, the biggest issue is that articles for mass consumption often draw strong conclusions where the study result only allows inferences.

 

[oftheherd1]

well clearly they could supply a reason, its a cult, that's the reason, if they admit to it is another thing all together

All cults share certain characteristics.

What is your definition of a cult?

no, i ignored your attempt to derail .

punishing someone who disobeys, has but one purpose, to ensure they obey on the future, I'm sure you won't take issue with that simple statement of truth.

Generally that is true. But is that to the benefit of only the teacher, or are there any group benefits expected? And could any group benefits extend to other parts of society?

the question then, is there future obedience for your benefit or theirs. Organisations in general, some in particular seek to remove individuality and expressions of free will, that is very nearly always to the betterment of the organisation and the detriment of the individual. though they always claim its for " your own good" it,seldom is

So answer your own question; but consider if there is benefit to others beside the teacher or you.

If an entity (organization) desires to limit the expression of individuality/free will, but not eliminate it completely, would you see benefit to that? Could that enhance the mission completion of the entity?