Pressure testing self-defence techniques

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Just 1 small point of clarification: My comment "101 reasons why Phil is a Twit" was not a suggestion or shot at him. I could have easily called it "Why Phil should be Sainted". My apologies to Mr. Elmore for any taken slight.
:asian:

 

[Phil Elmore]

As I've said twice now, it is evading if our thought process stops there.

You are free to engage in as much hero worship as you like; you are free to engage in the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority; you are free to let others do your thinking for you. The truth or falsehood of an idea is found in the substance of the idea, not in the resume of the person expressing it.

 

[Bigshadow]

Tell me Phil, who is better qualified to judge the quality of an art? The 40 year expert in that art, the 30 year expert in another art, the 10 year non-expert in 6 arts?

Quality of the source is key. One does not need degrees and awards to be of quality, but one does need experience and quality sources.

I would like to offer an opinion of mine regarding the above approach to identifying quality or expertness.

IMHO, time in something alone is no guarantee someone is an expert and I believe this also applies to martial arts. Experience and skill does not come about by osmosis or just being around "it". It comes from doing and learning. Some people learn fast, some learn slowly, some probably don't learn at all no matter how much time they spend trying. I am hesitant to put a label on someone because of time. Of course we all hope that when people put time in they are actually learning at or above some generally accepted rate.

To muttle things even more, education and wisdom are completely different. They are not bound together and a person can have one over the other or both or neither.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I would like to offer an opinion of mine regarding the above approach to identifying quality or expertness.

IMHO, time in something alone is no guarantee someone is an expert and I believe this also applies to martial arts. Experience and skill does not come about by osmosis or just being around "it". It comes from doing and learning. Some people learn fast, some learn slowly, some probably don't learn at all no matter how much time they spend trying. I am hesitant to put a label on someone because of time. Of course we all hope that when people put time in they are actually learning at or above some generally accepted rate.

To muttle things even more, education and wisdom are completely different. They are not bound together and a person can have one over the other or both or neither.

I agree with the time reference. Just because you started training a long time ago and stopped advancing or training with an instructor and you have more time in does not mean you are better than someone with less time who trained harder and or spent the time training quality. Although I give those who started before the respect of being a senior in the sense that they started before me, but let us touch and play and see who is leading who. If they lead me then great I can learn from it. If I am leading them then great as hopefully I can help them out.

 

[Bigshadow]

I agree with the time reference. Just because you started training a long time ago and stopped advancing or training with an instructor and you have more time in does not mean you are better than someone with less time who trained harder and or spent the time training quality. Although I give those who started before the respect of being a senior in the sense that they started before me, but let us touch and play and see who is leading who. If they lead me then great I can learn from it. If I am leading them then great as hopefully I can help them out.

Rich, I totally agree!

 

[RoninPimp]

Kickcatcher's chart is subjective. Phil is correct on this count. Phil disagrees with the chart because he lacks hard contact training despite his "15 years experiance". Phil is wrong on this count.

 

[James Patrick]

I'll just make one point before fading into the background again...

Arguements need to be observed for their own merits or logic and evidence. Subjectivism, personal attacks, and credential contests don't really have a place in logical debates.

Carry on...

 

[Phil Elmore]

Subjectivism, personal attacks, and credential contests don't really have a place in logical debates.

Precisely.

 

[Kreth]

Subjectivism, personal attacks, and credential contests don't really have a place in logical debates.

Nor does selective moderation to weed out points opposing your own... :uhyeah:

 

[shesulsa]

Nor does selective moderation to weed out points opposing your own... :uhyeah:

That's not selective moderation ... that's troll-eliminating. Riiiiiight????

 

[Kreth]

That's not selective moderation ... that's troll-eliminating. Riiiiiight????

Is that sort of like:
"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter?" :uhyeah:

 

[Phil Elmore]

Judging the evil of an action is not simply a matter of perspective. Situational ethics might tell us that it is, but morals are objective, not subjective.

Ask yourself, "Shesulsa" -- if a poster started dragging disputes from other threads into this thread in order to pursue some sort of grudge based on the disagreement and/or handling of the disagreement in the other threads, would that be trolling? Would that warrant one of those "please keep the conversation polite and respectful" warnings?

 

[Andrew Green]

Judging the evil of an action is not simply a matter of perspective. Situational ethics might tell us that it is, but morals are objective, not subjective.

I don't think you'll find many Ethics professors or Cultural Anthropologists too back you up on that one Phil.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Requiring those who are making statements to be qualified to make them is not hero worship.

However, this thread continues to go hell, and is losing its own quality. What was the subject again?
Phils need to iron fist control all conversation in outpost Martialist?
Hmm, nope.
Phils opinion of this sites staff as trolls when they wander into his little reservation land?
Damn, no again.
The MT staffs opinion that Phils a wart on the fabric of cyberspace?
By Zeus, no again.

What could it possibly be?
Oh yeah.
"Testing" your stuff out to see if it worked.
We're so far off course here, even the Skipper's laugh at us.

Now you'll excuse me, I have to go talk to Sensei Gilligan about lessons. He's been training for 20 years now, and has read Lack Belt magazine so I know he's good.

 

[Phil Elmore]

The Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. The truth or falsehood of an idea is not determined by the resume of the person uttering it.

If I point out that you're not abiding by the moderator warning issued for this thread, Edmund, I imagine I'm engaging in some sort of unfair control of the discussion, or insulting you by implying that you didn't see it, right?

I don't think you'll find many Ethics professors or Cultural Anthropologists too back you up on that one Phil.

Popularity does not determine truth. I'm an Objectivist.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Well then Phil, since the qualifications of the person commenting aren't of any value, what is? Are you saying that someone, with no real experience, no credentials, no background can write expertly? Oh wait. You did.

Also, I have to ask, are you now calling for the same people you branded as trolls in your little pit to now come and punish me? Now thats an interesting picture. "Hey Pigs! Yeah, you scumbags over there with the badges. Come take out this piece of trash, he's bothering me."

 

[Flatlander]

Final Moderator Warning:

This thread is way off topic. Further disruptions in thread will not be tolerated. Clean it up now, please.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT SuperMod-

 

[Phil Elmore]

Well then Phil, since the qualifications of the person commenting aren't of any value, what is?

I didn't say they werent' of any value. I said they don't determine the truth or falsehood of a statement. This is simple logic.

When you evaluate an idea, hopefully applying critical analysis as part of maintaining an active mind in everything you do (note that this is NOT an "open" mind), you are certainly free to consider the source. You must also consider the context. Finally and most importantly, you must consider the idea itself and as such. If you dismiss out of hand any idea whose "quality of source" does not meet with your approval, you are doing yourself and everyone else a grave disservice -- because you are allowing others to do your thinking for you.

Revered experts in many fields frequently and ardently disagree with each other -- people whose credentials make them authorities. If they cannot agree despite the great "quality of source" each of them brings to the argument, there is no hope for the mere mortals among us -- unless we acknowledge that, ultimately, we must think for ourselves. To do so requires that we examine ideas on their own merits and in context.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

But one of the key points of those real experts is that they have true experience. It may not agree with the other experts experience, but it is however real experience. Never once did I ever say or suggest blindly following them. I do however insist that anyone schooling me on a subject have more than a novices background. You for example, are a much better writer than I. I might be a better painter. I would look to you as an expert on writing, but not painting, despite our differences. The opinion of those you disagree with can also be of value, helping to avoid the "yes men" problem. But, based on your limited martial arts background, I do not find you to be credible on the martial front, even though your conclusions on the idiotic idea of pressure testing your art is a sound one. Even a blind man might get a bullseye, and neither of us are so much blind as vision impared.

Pressure Testing my skills makes as much sence to me, as crash testing my car to see if the airbag really works. It's expensive, it's painful, and it's outright dangerous. At some point, one needs to simply trust that things work, and will work when you need them, provided you keep the system running correctly. In a martial application, this means training, practicing, and drilling, maybe even competing.

 

[Phil Elmore]

There is your problem. My martial arts background is not "limited," nor am I a "novice." My work bears this out. I imagine you see it as such because, apparently, you accept as having valid experience only those whose official credentials correspond to whatever criteria you've set. This is perfectly understandable. It remains a logical fallacy, however.