Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Ethics of Belief and Martial Arts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The Ethics of Belief and Martial Arts

    Hi. what follows is a brief rant I put together on belief in the martial arts from a Philosopher's/Skeptic's point of view. If it is in the wrong place, I'm sorry - feel free to move or delete the post and/or flame me as a stupid n00blet. I figured this fits, because it is in relation ot standards required for a claim to be valid. ~Deadmeathe stated "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." He argued that it was actually immoral to believe something without sufficient evidence, and used the following example.



    Obviously, Clifford places the guilt for this tragedy on the ship owner. However, what if the ship had not sunk? Surely, one would argue no-harm-no-foul? Clifford Disagrees; in fact, the guilt on the shipmaster is identical regardless of whether or not the ship sunk, because [/SIZE]KNOW[/SIZE]- extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. David Hume (1711-1776) said that to believe a miraculous claim, the evidence must be so strong that to disbelieve it would be more miraculous than the claim itself. The amount of evidence must be proportionate to the strangeness of the claim.

    Lastly, we come to the Burden of Proof. If someone makes an unlikely claim, it is their responsibility to meet the burden of proof. If they fail to meet it, you must not believe the claim until they do. As Clifford would say, it would be immoral to do so.
    Last edited by Tom Kagan; 5/28/2007 10:30pm, . Reason: Removed the annoyingly stupid choice of super small text with super narrow font.

    #2
    Do you have any ideas that are your own, or do you just post other people's thoughts?

    Comment


      #3
      Nice read from a different point of view.

      Comment


        #4
        Can you summarize in 100 words or less?

        I have Internet acquired ADHD.
        "Sifu, I"m niether - I'm a fire dragon so don't fuck with me!"

        Comment


          #5
          Source/link?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Slipster
            Do you have any ideas that are your own, or do you just post other people's thoughts?
            Actually, the interpretation of Clifford's intention is my own. If you read the second half of my post, you'll see that I am expressing my thoughts on how Clifford's statements can be applied to Bulshido martial arts claims. After all, why reinvent the wheel, when you can simply adapt it? Isn't it common practice to look at the records of wise men, and see how it can be further applied today? After all, Helio Gracie's Jiujitsu was miles ahead of what many people were doing once upon a time, but today's BJJ has definitely evolved because people took what built and interpreted it their own way.

            So I guess a return question would be, "Do you have martial arts techniques that are your own, or do you just use other people's techniques?"

            Besides, people could easily argue that anything based of CLifford's view is outdated, as William James described several problems with the train of thought. I personally think Clifford was on the right track, so I wrote about how it is relevant.

            At the end of the document I briefly describe the core tools of the skeptic.

            While I appreciate your point, I must ask whether you have anything to contribute to the discussion? By which I mean, do you agree/disagree with the points raised, have a different interpretation, or a personal belief that might shed more light on the subject?


            Originally posted by Hui_Xiu
            Nice read from a different point of view.
            Thanks for the positive feedback.

            Originally posted by Askari
            Can you summarize in 100 words or less?

            I have Internet acquired ADHD.
            Lol. Fair call. umm.. basically, in 100 words or less, I suppose it comes down to this:

            Although it is wrong to make a fake claim about your credentials as a martial arts instructor, those who are gullible enough to believe your claims without sufficient evidence are in the wrong too.


            Originally posted by DCS
            Source/link?
            Well, here is a link to Clifford's Paper entitled "The Ethics of Belief". Everything else is basically speculation on my part.

            http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm
            In relation to definitions for terms like Burden of Proof, Occam's razor, etc you could try www.skepdic.com (the skeptic's dictionary), or even Wikipedia.

            Comment


              #7
              Seems reasonable for explicit claims, or instances of professional responsibility.

              As an ethical theory it's a bit narrow, but certainly relevant in the above cases.

              Thanks, Deadmeat.
              Martial Arts and Philosophy: Beating and Nothingness
              click here to order on Amazon

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by DeadMeat
                "Do you have martial arts techniques that are your own, or do you just use other people's techniques?"
                Fair enough. But on that note, in this day and age, does anyone have 'their own' techniques? Rhetorical topic for another thread.

                [adhd on] I'm with Askari on the original post [/adhd off]

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Deadmeat
                  Although it is wrong to make a fake claim about your credentials as a martial arts instructor, those who are gullible enough to believe your claims without sufficient evidence are in the wrong too.
                  Which is why I don't work too hard, if at all, to "fix" the incorrect, inaccurate, or other self-imposed ignorant views some folks demonstrate...

                  If you really, really want to believe you're practicing/teaching an art that has absolutely no historical evidence of existence, not even in the alleged country of origin, fine. Believe away. Enjoy your fantasy. When you get your ass beat, blame only yourself...

                  :ninjadanc

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I think I'm going to like it here.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      The only remaining condition is a valid understanding of "sufficiency" of evidence, which never seems to have a clear and convincing definition. Still, Popper and others have done well with falsifiability/testability. Those things certainly can be applied in the ship owner's situation; his theory that providence will protect a ship from being wrecked can be tested by examining the history of shipwrecks for instances of undeserving people dying in them. His theory that a boat's seaworthiness is constant and unrelated to wear, tear, and age can be tested through the same kind of investigation; search for ships that have sunk, after many successful voyages, due to poor maintenance.

                      In this analysis, "sufficiency" is defined through the application of a crucial and unbiased test, or through the examination of such evidence as already exists from earlier tests (whether those were practical tests or instructive examples from real situations).

                      The infinite regression spiral for this particular philosophical tangent begins right about when we start to try to define "crucial" and "unbiased." But the fact that a perfect definition eludes us is not an excuse for lazy thinking.

                      And Deadmeat, I think we're going to like you too.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Bloody Popper.
                        Martial Arts and Philosophy: Beating and Nothingness
                        click here to order on Amazon

                        Comment


                          #13
                          good article deadmeat!

                          as far as evidence goes: most people who start at some form of martial arts simply dont know what to look for,they can only indentify the most outrageous claims as bs.
                          I think thats the problem.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I don't get the point of this thread. If you're wanting to establish some sort of criteria for belief, look no further than the scientific method, which results in no belief without empirical evidence.

                            There is absolutely no need whatsoever to bring morality into the equation, and honestly it taints much of the claimed logic of the argument. Morality is an inherently relative idea, and for someone to write or speak about any subject in which they directly state or even imply that the moral status of a person, action, or idea is fixed and not completely dependent on an individual's own belief system is to demonstrate that the speaker/author does not himself have a firm grasp of objectivity and empiricism, and therefore is in danger of reaching a conclusion via emotional rather than logical means in some other area of life.

                            Put more succinctly: Are you making a claim? If so, prove it, otherwise recognize that it's at best an idea and at worst a delusion.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              What an emotional post.
                              Martial Arts and Philosophy: Beating and Nothingness
                              click here to order on Amazon

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X