Phil Elmore
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,514
- Reaction score
- 54
Why, conducting yourself in a manner we can all consider exemplary of a forum moderator, of course. Why, were you not pursuing that goal?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So where does your real understanding of the arts and systems about which he was commenting on come from?
Phil Elmore said:More than fifteen years of studying multiple martial arts...
Phil cannot be more specific as he has never spent enough time in any one art to really get to the true "meat" as it were.
MODERATOR WARNING:
Keep the conversation polite, respectful, on topic and non-defamatory.
So, he asks politely, would that be 15 years of continous and progressive martial arts training, or dabbling here and there with no real advancement in any particular art that has given you this depth of understanding?Phil Elmore said:More than fifteen years of studying multiple martial arts, culminating in more than three years publishing a successful martial arts magazine and an equally successful book (or books, depending on how you look at it) in the same topic area. Granted, that might not stack up against a series of computer-generated cartoons depicting caricatures of martial arts figures farting and defrauding their students. It's all in your perspective, I guess.
Edmund BlackAdder said:And when a short billionaire with big ears starts whipping out the charts and waving a pointer around, I tend to pay more attention.
(points if you get the ref.)
Phil Elmore said:The fact that something was written, drawn, or otherwise publicized means nothing, no. When we start dismissing everything with a wave of the hand and the statement, "Hell, anyone can say anything," we are being intellectually dishonest. The fact is that we can judge the substance of an opinion based on its content, its context, and the degree to which these correspond to objective reality, as analyzed through the science (some would say art) of non-contradictory identification (logic). We can then make conclusions, integrating the data of our senses into concepts with which we deal with life and make decisions (and extrapolations) for long-term survival.
The chart is a subjective, speculative, and ill-informed attempt to couch inaccurate opinions as quantitative analysis. This is why it fails. Were it recast as an editorial, it would still fail, but it would at least be honestly presented.
Phil,Phil Elmore said:Saying, "Anyone can publish anything" is not reasoning; it is evading -- if we do not then follow it up with critical analysis of what has been said. Judging everything by the "quality of the source" is a logical fallacy; someone you detest or whose resume you find lacking is not wrong simply because you think so. You must judge the statement made, not the person making it.
You're stumbling over the notions of the "open mind" versus the active mind. The latter is desirable. The former is popular but generally useless. Don't worry, though; your mistake is a common one. If I'm to guess I'd imagine you lean towards populism rather than ruthless logic.