[comdpa]

The only reason such posts can exist is because of a lack of understanding of what science is all about. Science is an EPISTEMOLOGY - which simply stated is a way of knowing about reality around us.

Some other forms of epistemologies are so prevalent among us and sometimes necessary in our life on this earth. Indeed at least one form of it has reared its (ugly) in our study of a concrete and tangible matter as that of the golf swing.

Notwithstanding, other forms of epistemologies are valid, even necessary in this life. However, epistemologies are like tools in our workshed.

One cannot use a hammer to screw a screw (pardon the pun, it was intended!) and then say it was "useless". The matter of fact is that the tool was not useless, but the workman was erroneous in using that tool. The tool must be matched to the job at hand.

If you are analysing intangible material like human emotions, then a different set of tools must be utilised then if you were analysing HUMAN MOTION which this website it dedicated to.

Below is an excerpt of an article that I have written previously.

What is SCIENCE?
Science is NOT a subject, we have taken science to become the generic name for the study of natural phenomena like physics and biology. That could not be further from the truth.

Science is a Method of Enquiry
Technically, science is a method of enquiry or what researchers will call an epistemology. Other methods of enquiry include superstition, intuition, and finally sources of authority.

A superstition is a belief or fear based on faith in chance, magic or irrational feelings (Funk & Wagnalls 1982). Superstitions ignore the laws of nature and are based on personal subjective feelings as opposed to objective verifiable experience.

Intuition is the direct knowledge or awareness of something that we acquire without conscious attention or reasoning. Like superstitions, it is wholly subjectiveand based totally on personal feelings. This is the gut feeling approach to knowing about things. In golf, gut feelings cannot improve the swing.

Finally, we can learn about golf through sources of authority. We can learn from our professionals, who are supposed to be sources of authority in the game. HOWEVER, if they are improperly trained and do not understand the real science behind the golf swing, then they would become an invalid source of information. Authority does not equate to valid information.

Golfing instruction for the most part has been based on subjective and invalid knowledge and has gotten to the point where these myths are not even challenged and assumed to be the gospel. Faulty information is the reason that with all the advances in technology, physical fitness and so called instructional theory 95% of all golfers still cannot break 90?

Main Characteristics
The main characteristics of a scientific method are:

o Provisional information: Science is not concerned with preserving falsehoods. Any time that a theory is falsified or found untrue, it is simply discarded or modified. A scientist does not let emotions get in the way of rationality and enshrine myths simply because “this is the way we have taught for years", or "because I said so."

o Objectivity: Science is concerned with objective information, not what someone thinks or feels. Subjectivity is “the cat is cute”. Objectivity is “the cat is black”. With a scientific method, we are only concerned with what science says about golf, not what a pro is doing. A pro may find a way to make inferior methods work because of their superb hand to eye coordination and hand manipulation.

o Cause and Effect: Science is concerned about discovering the relationships between variables or what causes what. Traditional golf instruction’s great failing is that sometimes causes and effects are not accurately recognized and substituted for one another. When an instructor does not know the root cause of a student’s faulty swing, a cure can never be prescribed.

o Empiricism: Science is only concerned with empirically observable phenomena. If you say that an angled hinge action produces a certain shot, then it must be unfailingly demonstrated in order to be correct. This takes the “feels as if” and “seems as if” elements out of golf instruction.

o Systematic: Science is based on systematic enquiry and not on haphazard approaches to learning about a golf swing. It is concerned with procedures. Step one and then step two and so on. Only when a systematic approach is adopted in instruction, can the student improve. We teach the swing in stages and troubleshoot and correct the first wobbly point in the swing and from the feet up.

In conclusion, it can be readily seen that only a scientific approach to studying of the golf swing can yield valid information or simply, what the golf swing REALLY is.

Just as water boils at 100Deg C without fail each time, obeying the laws of force and motion in your golf swing will ensure improvement, no matter what level of golf you play to.

I hope this puts to rest all this "My Way" and "Your Way" arguments. We should not be concerned with such things, we must focus on what science has discovered.

Until the Yellow Book has been disproved, I will continue to focus my studies and instruction on it. Thank you Mr. Kelly for codifying ALL there is to know in G.O.L.F