... So then... what exactly is the purpose of LBG... to advance knowledge or is it a mere personality cult.
Speaking ONLY for myself. There are wonderful forums where one can debate the golf swing and come up with the flavor of the month while dismissing and demeaning everybody else's study and hard work. I enjoy LBG because I can learn more about the book that I consider to be the truth in golf. It contains what I believe to be the structure and foundation important to everybody else's swing theories.
Until we understand Homer Kelley's work 100%, nothing else matters much...
Just my opinion.
Kevin
__________________
I could be wrong. I have been before, and will be again.
The danger of reliance on "authority" as a basis for argument should be obvious. Its also one of the logical fallacies.
The decision to rely on the authority of The Golfing Machine -- in whole or in part -- resides with the individual. While I do not have the right (or, for that matter, the inclination) to dictate such reliance, I do recommend it as a useful shortcut for those who would play better golf now.
Homer Kelley understood that much amplification of his work was both necessary and inevitable (1-H). He knew that his seminal approach (Scientific Golf / 1-G) had opened a whole new territory for those interested in "such things". For that reason, he referred to his students as "pioneers".
I think that "science" as it applies to the golf swing is the idea of seeking to produce testable theories regarding the mechanics/biomechanics/geometry of the golf swing, and if those testable theories have a high verifiability factor and a low falsifiability factor when experimentally tested (using "objective reality" as the gold standard), then those testable theories could represent the "best" theories. The theory, among all existing theories, that has the highest verifiability factor and the lowest falsifiability factor is the "best" theory - from my perspective. That's why I hold Homer Kelley's golf swing theories in such high regard - his theories regarding the golf swing could be accurately regarded as being the "best" (in the present-day world of existent golf swing theories) - in the sense that they have the highest verifiability factor and the lowest fasifiability factor. It doesn't mean that one cannot theoretically develop another swing theory that will be better - by having a higher verifiability factor and lower falsifiability factor - it simply means that if Homer Kelley's theories are presently regarded as representing the "best" theories then it sets the bar very high - and for that accomplishment he deserves an enormous amount of respect. Yoda also deserves an enormous amount of respect as an "authority" - as a person who most clearly understands Homer Kelley's theories and can defend them from being misunderstood and misrepresented. I am an example of a person who has unintentionally misunderstood and/or misrepresented Homer Kelley's theories, and I am always appreciative when Yoda "corrects" me regarding the "correct" understanding of Homer Kelley's golf swing theories. I may disagree with Yoda regarding certain golf swing issues, but I am very willing to regard him as being an "authority" regarding Homer Kelley's body of work. I do not believe that Yoda equates being an "authority" on Homer Kelley's body of work as being equivalent to being the "ultimate authority" that determines the level of verifiability/falsifiability of any proposed golf swing theory.
. . . are we involved in a modern-day sports oriented "priest-craft" where by any dissension... any evidence to the contrary... any questioning of the authority or the priests interpretation there-of leads one to be "put to the question"? So then... what exactly is the purpose of LBG... to advance knowledge or is it a mere personality cult.
no_mind_golfer:
I have known people like you all my life. You take much, produce little, and in general, delight in stirring controversy and dissent. You are, for the most part, mere 'friction' in the system of life.
My site, its many Forums and diverse contributors speak for themselves. One more crack like this, and you're history.
Was Mr. Homer Kelley a human or an errorless cyborg ? Errare humanum est..., isn't it ?
I am sorry to sound bitter, but such remarks that someone is the only one "authority" worth listening to usually makes me be more sceptical when approaching to listen to such "authority"...just as inquisition caused people stay away from religion.
____________________
The English word authority comes from the Latin word auctoritas which literally meant such things as “a producing”, “production”, “invention”, “cause”. Auctoritas in its turn came from auctor which meant “producer”, “father”, “progenitor”, “creator”, “maker”, “inventor”, “founder” and so on. In the English language, the Latin words auctor and auctoritas have become corrupted to “author” and “authority”.
In short: The auctor of a matter or thing is the one who made or established it, and also, the one who originally taught something.
________________________
On Science.... (a word that is as misused as 'centrifugal force')
There are three "ordinary" ways of gaining knowledge: chance, trial and error and generalization from experience. They are used by nearly everyone but none of them are "scientific". Some people are equiped with another method of gaining knowledge: logic... ability to reason things out. That is not scientific either. Going far beyond these elementary methods of gaining knowledge, even far beyond the method of logic (which Mr. Homer Kelly used) is a method of seeking truth we call research or scientific inquiry.
Science is a method of study by which, through careful and exhaustive investigation of all the ascertainable evidence bearing upon a definable problem, we reach a solution to that problem. Research.... SCIENCE is a instrument... a method that is only a few centruries old and seems today to be mankind's most reliable means of advancing knowledge.
On Appeal to 'Authority'...
Its human nature to rely upon authority. When tribes were attacked or experience flooding or plagues, people naturally wanted to know why... they went to the priests. The reliance on authority grew from the idea that great thinkers of the past were able to discover the truth. But history has shown great thinkers are almost alway proven wrong... eventually. A book is a snapshot of the generally accepted state of a body of knowledge at that time. The danger of reliance on "authority" as a basis for argument should be obvious. Its also one of the logical fallacies.
So then...
Are we endeavoring on a truth seeking venture of the scientific variety whereby all commonly accepted premises are subject to questioning... to scrutiny and yes possibly even rejection? Or are we involved in a modern-day sports oriented "priest-craft" where by any dissension... any evidence to the contrary... any questioning of the authority or the priests interpretation there-of leads one to be "put to the question"? So then... what exactly is the purpose of LBG... to advance knowledge or is it a mere personality cult.
Science can be a religion too. Modern science would not have been possible without the world view of "priests". I don't think it really is human nature in this world anyway -to rely upon "authority". Modern science sees man and reason as "autonomous". Many have a science god and have sacrificed unto him the very reason they seek to promote. So let's not be to quick to trot out the old cult deal.
Was Mr. Homer Kelley a human or an errorless cyborg ? Errare humanum est..., isn't it ?
I am sorry to sound bitter, but such remarks that someone is the only one "authority" worth listening to usually makes me be more sceptical when approaching to listen to such "authority"...just as inquisition caused people stay away from religion.
Cheers
Darius . . . . come on man. You're a good dude. I've seen you all over the various forums. You have much to contribute and have helped many. Everybody knows that this forum very much about Lynn Blake helping people to understand concepts in The Golfing Machine and doing it without peer. That's pretty much the haps here and what is expected.
How many people go to McDonald's and get pissed because they don't serve up chicken chow mein. Lynn has been more than generous by giving others voice here . . . Jeff has his own deal . . . even a doofus like me has a forum. But Lynn pays the bills and Homer Kelley is honored here. Most people wouldn't show up at somebody's house and talk about how their dead granny's award winning chicken pie tasted like dawg food. They may just get kilt or worse where I'm from. There's dissent . . . then there's disrespect.
I am sorry to sound bitter, but such remarks that someone is the only one "authority" worth listening to usually makes me be more sceptical when approaching to listen to such "authority"...just as inquisition caused people stay away from religion.
No worries, Dariusz J., there are no such remarks on this site.
Check it out.
To the contrary, LynnBlakeGolf.com offers a flexible framework that accomodates and encourages a wide spectrum of opinion, dissent and debate. A glance at a few of our more than 6,000 threads and almost 60,000 posts will attest to that fact. We even have a dedicated forum, The Lab, whereby members can put forth new material, largely theoretical, without fear of retribution or ridicule. Finally, there's Jeff's stuff, most of which I perceive as Memorandums For Understanding written for his own edification, but which he offers to us for assessment and critique.
That said, I make no apology for the work we do in helping people understand The Golfing Machine and apply its concepts to their games. It's a large part of 'what we do'. Not the only part, to be sure, but a large part.
I think that "science" as it applies to the golf swing is the idea of seeking to produce testable theories regarding the mechanics/biomechanics/geometry of the golf swing, and if those testable theories have a high verifiability factor and a low falsifiability factor when experimentally tested (using "objective reality" as the gold standard), then those testable theories could represent the "best" theories. The theory, among all existing theories, that has the highest verifiability factor and the lowest falsifiability factor is the "best" theory - from my perspective. That's why I hold Homer Kelley's golf swing theories in such high regard - his theories regarding the golf swing could be accurately regarded as being the "best" (in the present-day world of existent golf swing theories) - in the sense that they have the highest verifiability factor and the lowest fasifiability factor. It doesn't mean that one cannot theoretically develop another swing theory that will be better - by having a higher verifiability factor and lower falsifiability factor - it simply means that if Homer Kelley's theories are presently regarded as representing the "best" theories then it sets the bar very high - and for that accomplishment he deserves an enormous amount of respect. Yoda also deserves an enormous amount of respect as an "authority" - as a person who most clearly understands Homer Kelley's theories and can defend them from being misunderstood and misrepresented. I am an example of a person who has unintentionally misunderstood and/or misrepresented Homer Kelley's theories, and I am always appreciative when Yoda "corrects" me regarding the "correct" understanding of Homer Kelley's golf swing theories. I may disagree with Yoda regarding certain golf swing issues, but I am very willing to regard him as being an "authority" regarding Homer Kelley's body of work. I do not believe that Yoda equates being an "authority" on Homer Kelley's body of work as being equivalent to being the "ultimate authority" that determines the level of verifiability/falsifiability of any proposed golf swing theory.
Jeff.
Jeff
I don't intend to take you any further off topic so this is the last I will say on this matter. I'm not questioning R-E-S-P-E-C-T or anybody's self-proclaimed (or earned) 'authority' . Everyone deserves it (at least at the outset) and some undoubtedly are (authorities). I'm questioning the science (rather lack there-of) in the book. I'm questioning what are acceptable subjects for discourse in the pursuit of knowledge if that is indeed the mission of Golf by Jeff.
Research.... Science... has arguably five steps or identifiable traits.
1) Identification of the problem (statement)
2) Collection of all of the essential facts (indisputable basic assumptions...i.e. the premises)
3) Selection of one or more tentative solutions (thesis)
4) Evaluate choosen solutions to determine if they are in accord with the facts (data collection/analysis... perhaps some theoretical modeling too)
5) Select the final solution (theory)
Science is a processes whereby thesis gets elevated to theory, but even theories aren't "cast in stone". The scientist is epitomized by: accurate observation, objectivity, willingness to consider all evidence, recognition of causal relationships and demonstration of originality and independence of thought. Anything conclusions arrived at by any means other than the above given framework are not 'scientific'. TGM is not scientific (there's no data... many of the premises have been debunked). TGM is not a scholarly report; TGM is an essay that is full of the author's conjecture.
Syllogism is not science either... here's a common examples of a syllogisms:
-Some Good golfer's hands are seen to slow down
-Joe is a good golfer
therefore Joe's hand's slow down..... NO
or
-Some Good golfers maximize the angle between hips and shoulders (X factor)
-Joe turns his hips almost as much as his shoulders
therefore Joe is not a good golfer... NO
or
-Some Good Golfers hips face the target at impact.
-Joes hips are parallel to the target line at impact
therefore joe can't be a good golfer.... NO
Syllogisms do not lead to scientific conclusions... Infact they are probably not even accurate conclusions (particularly if Joe can play).
So its all about asking the right question.. (Problem statement... is it testable?) Defining the research study (possibly experimentation or perhaps mathematical soln.?).... all the while remaining objective towards the pursuit of knowledge. Predjudice and premature conclusions or discounting a possibility simply because an authority has rejected it has no place in scholarship. The Scientific method.... a scientific attitude implies basing generalizations not upon the authority of others or upon abstract logic or one's personal opinions but on carefully observed facts.
(Emphasis should be on CAREFULLY OBSERVED) Merely hitting the range with a trackman in hand does not constitute science or scientific method. Conclusions drawn from such haphazard research are likely as fallacious as those drawn from the "lessor" truth-seeking methods.
Ultimately the value of any theory is its efficacy.. at explaining possible outcomes or in the case of golf instruction producing winners. On that account, at least in my mind, the jury is still out on TGM. How many winners has it produced? Yes I know... Bobby Clampett had a run of luck but given the time its been around and the number of adherents, one would think, simply by the law of large numbers, more winners would have been produced... that is if it is as good as "they" say.
P.S. I hope I don't get banned like Mandrin says I will for simply stating my opinions. I respect Homer... really I do.
Linear Mode
