5/21/2009 10:44am, #121
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Muay Thai
5/21/2009 11:33am, #122
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
An argument from ignorance is always a logical fallacy. I suppose I could have been wrong in assuming that also meant the burden of proof would be on the proponents of iron body conditioning, but making an argument that states "because there's no proof to the contrary, this is right" is a logical fallacy.
5/21/2009 12:16pm, #123
No, it's not. At least it's not an "argument to ignorance" whatsoever.
No, they don't
"that's an argument to ignorance, you didn't give an alternative theory"
No, it's not.
Galileo obviously had to account for the sun being in the sky - he couldn't argue against its obvious existence. I already have plenty of alternative explanations for bone deposition. Resistance, rather then impact, being the source of most or all of it is my "heliocentric theory" if you haven't figured that out.
Even so, had he not included the heliocentric theory and just said, "I don't know where the fucking thing is, but it doesn't make sense that it goes around the earth, so it must be somewhere else," he still would have been right.
But even it was, the people ITT who don't understand science have given plenty for me.
For example, studies of people with lifetimes in the martial arts - assumptively they've practiced MANY methods of training. Assumptively they were screened by laypeople. Very little work has been done to isolated striking conditioning in their training regimen. This fails to evaluate the hypothesis, it instead evaluates the hypothesis "are lifetime athletes sturdier then the GP"
You scraped up your knuckles/shin until you built a callus or other dermal effect and you notice less pain there when you bang that area hard against something? That doesn't evaluate the hypothesis.
You broke a concrete slab? That doesn't evaluate the hypothesis.
You point out that weightlifting or other resistance activities? That doesn't test the hypothesis.
You tell a non-striker half your size to come fight you if he doesn't believe it? Doesn't test the hypothesis.
Pointing out the simplistic medical fact that bone "heals thicker" after a break (thicker? Maybe. Stronger for striking? Less brittle?) or that thicker bones result from resistance training don't test the hypothesis either - that's actually bullet points in the opposing evidence pile. That's saying, "the unicorn is plausible - hooves and bushy tails exist in nature, and the unicorn has hooves and a bushy tail"
CBF: The scientific method involves testing an assertion in the best possible isolation. You do make a positive assertion as part of science. Just like a debate, you "pick a side" and then evaluate it.
Dale Dugas: Breaking things is a joke. Palm strikes are incredibly biomechanically safe, probably the single safest way to hit someone, with or without conditioning.
On acupuncture: If acupuncture is of benefit for some things, let's for god's sake find out what and why - when we found out certain teas and plants had real medical uses, we isolated the compounds that made them work and made real medicine out of them.
You guys are still bashing your hands into stuff because you want to believe.
Last edited by JohnnyCache; 5/21/2009 12:28pm at .
5/21/2009 12:22pm, #124
The burden of proof seems unfairly high in this thread. For example this statement would be enough for me:
"Conditioning my hands has made me able to break things that I used to not be able to break."
However the opponents in this thread seem to want evidence that it is not only effective but contributes to some sort of bone growth that specifically aids striking. Why isn't efficacy enough in this thread vs almost all the other threads on Bullshido?
YouTube - Baseball Bat Breaking
Last edited by WhiteShark; 5/21/2009 12:36pm at .
5/21/2009 12:31pm, #125
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Vancouver, BC
- BJJ, judo, rapier
5/21/2009 12:41pm, #126
5/21/2009 1:12pm, #127
WS: **** breaking. Bone conditioning via striking has NOTHING to do with breaking as far as I can see, except in the minds of people that do both.
"I can break something I couldn't break before" is the epitome of unscientific, anecdotal, uncontrolled evidence.
5/21/2009 1:13pm, #128
5/21/2009 1:18pm, #129
Round up all the Bullshido posters with "Scientist" tags and get to work.
5/21/2009 1:21pm, #130Ranked #9 internationally at 118lbs by WIKBA http://www.womenkickboxing.com/wikba...rch%202009.htm