Sport Fighter

[Deleted member 34973]

So, should martial artists seek out street fights in order to prove their effectiveness?

The experience of others counts for something. I trust in the experience of my Master, and what he says will work in the streets, based on his past and credentials. When he says something works in the streets, he's saying from experience. When I say the same thing works in the streets, I'm saying from his experience. Does that make me a con artist and my techniques untested? In my biased opinion, no it does not.

How can you claim something as personally legitimate, when it came from another's personal experience.

We have two types of knowledge, assumed knowledge and actual knowledge.

Example- I assume that the earth is round, as to available information. But, I have no personal individual experience to say that it is.

If you trust your instructor and his "credentials, and he tells you it does work and has shown that to you...that is still assumed knowledge. Until you yourself test it, it will remain assumed knowledge.

 

[skribs]

How can you claim something as personally legitimate, when it came from another's personal experience.

We have two types of knowledge, assumed knowledge and actual knowledge.

Example- I assume that the earth is round, as to available information. But, I have no personal individual experience to say that it is.

If you trust your instructor and his "credentials, and he tells you it does work and has shown that to you...that is still assumed knowledge. Until you yourself test it, it will remain assumed knowledge.

So should I go around picking street fights and trying to break people's bodies and give them concussions? Should I seek to bludgeon people bloody and risk assault and batter charges, just so I'm not a "con artist"?

 

[Deleted member 34973]

So should I go around picking street fights and trying to break people's bodies and give them concussions? Should I seek to bludgeon people bloody and risk assault and batter charges, just so I'm not a "con artist"?

Well no, that is just ignorance, but if you haven't, as an instructor, you should be honest with your students and say.."I don't know" if you do not say that...

Yes you are a con-man and a charlatan as well. You are calling something truth, when you yourself, do not actually know.

What else should a person like that be called?

 

[skribs]

Well no, that is just ignorance, but if you haven't, as an instructor, you should be honest with your students and say.."I don't know" if you do not say that...

Yes you are a con-man and a charlatan as well. You are calling something truth, when you yourself, do not actually know.

What else should a person like that be called?

I am calling something truth, which I believe to be truth. That does not make me a con-man or a charlatan.

There are a lot of lessons in life that can be learned vicariously. There's things that have happened in history, that we learn about today. There's lots of things you can know, without ever having experienced, because of the knowledge and experience of others. Now, there is no substitute for your own experience. But saying "this will work on the street", because I've seen it work on the street, is not a lie. It is an observation.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

I am calling something truth, which I believe to be truth. That does not make me a con-man or a charlatan.

There are a lot of lessons in life that can be learned vicariously. There's things that have happened in history, that we learn about today. There's lots of things you can know, without ever having experienced, because of the knowledge and experience of others. Now, there is no substitute for your own experience. But saying "this will work on the street", because I've seen it work on the street, is not a lie. It is an observation.

All assumed knowledge. And, that is ok...but, it doesn't mean you have the personal experience.

And, you should have the integrity to say so or its is just a false statement, Regardless of if you think it's truth.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

How can you claim something as personally legitimate, when it came from another's personal experience.

We have two types of knowledge, assumed knowledge and actual knowledge.

Example- I assume that the earth is round, as to available information. But, I have no personal individual experience to say that it is.

If you trust your instructor and his "credentials, and he tells you it does work and has shown that to you...that is still assumed knowledge. Until you yourself test it, it will remain assumed knowledge.

By that logic, no matter what everything is assumed knowledge. No matter how many times you use a technique in a real fight, you have no idea that it will work for anyone else in that same situation, or will work for you in a slightly different situation (how do you know that a move which worked on main street will still work on 2nd street?)

 

[skribs]

All assumed knowledge. And, that is ok...but, it doesn't mean you have the personal experience.

And, you should have the integrity to say so or its is just a false statement, Regardless of if you think it's truth.

If I think it's truth, how would I honestly say it's a false statement?

 

[Deleted member 34973]

By that logic, no matter what everything is assumed knowledge. No matter how many times you use a technique in a real fight, you have no idea that it will work for anyone else in that same situation, or will work for you in a slightly different situation (how do you know that a move which worked on main street will still work on 2nd street?)

Most things are assumed knowledge, until you experience it personally, it is assumed knowledge.

And, that is the point, if you have never tested at all, you won't even know if it has a chance of working on main Street or any street for that matter and if you are not sure why teach it?

Even though you stretched your point a little bit, it made some sense.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

If I think it's truth, how would I honestly say it's a false statement?

Truth needs to be proven, or it is not even in the realm of truth.

 

[drop bear]

So should I go around picking street fights and trying to break people's bodies and give them concussions? Should I seek to bludgeon people bloody and risk assault and batter charges, just so I'm not a "con artist"?

You just don't say you know what you don't know.

That is one thing I like about sports fighting is the language is a bit better. We go from "this works" to "I have had some success when"

It is a more personal more reflective mindset.

 

[drop bear]

Truth needs to be proven, or it is not even in the realm of truth.

Apparently that kind of talk upsets people.

So the best explanation I got was from this guy.

"Ok.. so..

Truth is analytic, so generally it applies to propositions..

Truth is usually a quality of propositions

There are ‘kinds’ of truth

For example a truth can be conditional

“Today is Sunday” is false

But there will be conditions where that will be true


Facts are empirical observations, like ‘that car is red’

So in science it would go in this order

Hypothesis,
Speculation really

Then fact,
Empirical observation

Example, fish species a swims better in 29 degree water then 30 degree water

Inferences are greater then fact, but can be wrong, inference have the ability of prediction, they are considered higher then fact because multiple facts are required to make an inference

Example

Fact 1
Fish x survive better in 29 degrees

Fact 2
Pond 1 is 32 degrees

Fact 3
Pond 2 is 29 degrees

Inference,
Fish x will survive better in pond 2 then pond 1

Then above fact you have laws, like the law of gravity, it is true across all times and is completely consistent

Then above law you have.. believe it or not theory
(When people say ‘that’s just a theory’ they mean to say, ‘that’s just a hypothesis’)
Theories require multiple laws, and sometimes inferences between laws

Example
The theory of relativity describes and contains many laws


Don’t quote me on this one, I think if it’s a priori (usually maths) they are called Theroms
Eg, a triangle has 3 sides
And if they are a posteriori they are usually empirical

So science uses models to describe the natural world

Logic uses deduction from premises to conclusions
(Though premise are not usually deductive, they usually use inductive or analogical reasoning for example)

So if you think of a word like necessary, it’s an analytical word, if something is necessary, it means for it not to be true there is a contradiction..

My brother is male is necessarily TRUE because if it was false, there would be a contradiction

So terms like ‘true’ typically are analytical, so they are logical in nature, they refer to reasoning using mathematical deduction

And terms like Fact are scientific in nature, they refer to empirical observations

Colloquially, they are all misused

But.. in conclusion you’re a right

To bring ‘memory’ into it makes it more stupid and nonsensical.. You’re then in the field of cognitive science, you’re talking about the equipment we see the work through

Challenging memory is like saying the telescope is broken in science

Propositions need to be falsifiable in science..

10 mins ago, the whole world was created, including your memories, including historical facts.. you can’t falsify it, not can you verify it

Clams about memory should be made in the fields cognitive science, psychology, philosophy of mind, maybe law

Claims about truth should be made in the field of logic

Claims about facts belong to science"

 

[skribs]

Most things are assumed knowledge, until you experience it personally, it is assumed knowledge.

And, that is the point, if you have never tested at all, you won't even know if it has a chance of working on main Street or any street for that matter and if you are not sure why teach it?

Even though you stretched your point a little bit, it made some sense.

1. Do you know how many streetfights I'd have to be in, in order to take my "assumed knowledge" and make it "real knowledge"?
2. No technique is 100% effective. That means even more fights until you have found some where the technique works and can "factually" say it works.
3. As a martial artist, my first goal is to avoid fights altogether. Getting into fights in order to claim I've used the techniques is counter-productive to that goal.

Truth needs to be proven, or it is not even in the realm of truth.

There are lots of things that are true that I haven't personally proven. When I get sick, and the doctor tells me I have a bacterial infection, I don't have to go out and run my own lab results before I take antibiotics. I trust that my doctor is correct, based on her experience and her knowledge, and that when she tells me what will work to kill the bacteria, she is correct.

 

[skribs]

Apparently that kind of talk upsets people.

When he calls me a liar and a con-man because I'm smart enough to avoid streetfights, yes. (And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's said in this thread or another, that the only knowledge that matters is if you've used martial arts to save your life, so that throws out all of the in-ring fighting as well).

You just don't say you know what you don't know.

That is one thing I like about sports fighting is the language is a bit better. We go from "this works" to "I have had some success when"

It is a more personal more reflective mindset.

Outside of the context of this conversation I'd agree with you more. I do agree that personal experience is valuable, and there's nothing that can compete with live repetitions in terms of fully understanding the techniques.

However, in the context of this conversation, I don't like the side you've chosen. Because it's the side that's calling me a liar, a cheat, a charlatan, a con-man, all because I'm smart enough to avoid a street fight.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

1. Do you know how many streetfights I'd have to be in, in order to take my "assumed knowledge" and make it "real knowledge"?
2. No technique is 100% effective. That means even more fights until you have found some where the technique works and can "factually" say it works.
3. As a martial artist, my first goal is to avoid fights altogether. Getting into fights in order to claim I've used the techniques is counter-productive to that goal.

There are lots of things that are true that I haven't personally proven. When I get sick, and the doctor tells me I have a bacterial infection, I don't have to go out and run my own lab results before I take antibiotics. I trust that my doctor is correct, based on her experience and her knowledge, and that when she tells me what will work to kill the bacteria, she is correct.

That is actually a good point, but it was your own personal experience, that made you go to the Doctor in the first place and if it works, then you now have personal experience that it does..

But until then, you do not actually know.

I have watched a lot of medical reality shows, just send me a message and I will diagnose your illness next time.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

When he calls me a liar and a con-man because I'm smart enough to avoid streetfights, yes. (And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's said in this thread or another, that the only knowledge that matters is if you've used martial arts to save your life, so that throws out all of the in-ring fighting as well).



Outside of the context of this conversation I'd agree with you more. I do agree that personal experience is valuable, and there's nothing that can compete with live repetitions in terms of fully understanding the techniques.

However, in the context of this conversation, I don't like the side you've chosen. Because it's the side that's calling me a liar, a cheat, a charlatan, a con-man, all because I'm smart enough to avoid a street fight.

Ah..I see, it is not meant to be a personal attack against you.

But, I do believe that an Instructor has the responsibility, to be honest with those they teach. If you don't that is your own personal right.

But, if I say I can build you a house, but have zero experience doing it and take your money, and the structure of the house fails, wouldn't I be a con-man and a liar?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Most things are assumed knowledge, until you experience it personally, it is assumed knowledge.

And, that is the point, if you have never tested at all, you won't even know if it has a chance of working on main Street or any street for that matter and if you are not sure why teach it?

Even though you stretched your point a little bit, it made some sense.

Assumed knowledge is good enough to teach for actual knowledge, though. For instance: I can calculate how quickly a brick will drop if I drop it from the second story of a floor to the first story. I don't know for certain that it will drop at that speed, but I wouldn't be lying to people if I say "When I let go of this brick, it will fall at a rate of X" (assuming I was someone who actually knew what X was).

 

[skribs]

Ah..I see, it is not meant to be a personal attack against you.

But, I do believe that an Instructor has the responsibility, to be honest with those they teach. If you don't that is your own personal right.

But, if I say I can build you a house, but have zero experience doing it and take your money, and the structure of the house fails, wouldn't I be a con-man and a liar?

No, you'd have either A) made a mistake or B) simply been incompetent.

I would only consider it to be a con-job or a lie in the events that:

1. You gave me credentials which were untrue
2. You purposefully cut corners in order to build the house cheaper
3. You took the money and did not build the house

Everyone who has ever built a house, has built a house at one point with no prior experience. The fact you have not built a house and think you can, is not a con job or a lie. If you know you don't know how, then it's a con job.

Similarly, if I say a technique will work on the street, it is based on a combination of my experience in class, along with my trust in my Master's experience in real life. If someone asks if I've personally used it, I will say "no". I won't lie and say I've used it. But I have enough understanding of the mechanics of the techniques, and enough trust in my Master's credentials, that I believe it to be true.

 

[Dirty Dog]

All assumed knowledge. And, that is ok...but, it doesn't mean you have the personal experience.

And, you should have the integrity to say so or its is just a false statement, Regardless of if you think it's truth.

I've never personally performed a kidney transplant. But I know for a fact that they work.

 

[drop bear]

When he calls me a liar and a con-man because I'm smart enough to avoid streetfights, yes. (And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's said in this thread or another, that the only knowledge that matters is if you've used martial arts to save your life, so that throws out all of the in-ring fighting as well).



Outside of the context of this conversation I'd agree with you more. I do agree that personal experience is valuable, and there's nothing that can compete with live repetitions in terms of fully understanding the techniques.

However, in the context of this conversation, I don't like the side you've chosen. Because it's the side that's calling me a liar, a cheat, a charlatan, a con-man, all because I'm smart enough to avoid a street fight.

You conclusions are incorrect. You are referencing street fights without evidence.

That's the issue.

You can teach self defense without street fights but you would need to reference facts or qualified experts.

If you can fight you can fight. Street fighting has smaller issues. Like for example I always kasegetami because concrete is hell on my knees. But you could take the scrapes and still win.

Most of it isn't that big a deal.

(Now I am trying to think of a deal breaker that martial arts does that will just not work in a street fight)

 

[drop bear]

I've never personally performed a kidney transplant. But I know for a fact that they work.

Do you teach people to transplant kidneys?

The kind of standards that are put on medicine would be a fantastic benchmark to put on martial arts.