Jeff,

The introduction of your ad hoc examples is not the issue. The issue, for me, is that I find it difficult at times to understand your motives in doing so.

Often it seems, to me, that you are more intent on proving your own theories with these "evidential" examples, than furthering your own understanding of the concept in question - i.e usually your own question.

Finally, a Plane is a Plane, is a Plane. But, congruency must be avoided at all costs. At least that's my understanding.

Burner

I have learnt through experience that I can never prove my "own theories". I can only test their "falsifiability level" by exposing them to alternative points of view. That's why I constantly have to adopt different "own theories" - because they are frequently falsified, and I have to either modify them or adopt a "new" theory. I am not wedded to any "particular" theory over the long-term, and I primarily believe that deep thinking, critical analysis,and passionately expressed arguments/counterarguments is the "best" way for me to constantly improve my knowledge of golf mechanics/biomechanics/physics/geometry.

Jeff.

Somewhere a hat needs to be hung

Trouble is Jeff that it is never your own theories that are being tested and falsified.

Your modus operandi always seems, to me, to be to try and falsify TGM, for example, by advancing arguments to the effect that "If HK is right, then why is this guy doing something that I, Jeff, think is an indicator that HK may have been mistaken?

A more acceptable approach, to me, would be to seek clarification should you have doubts which you have trouble reconciling, rather than directly contest those issues by giving evidential examples of some mistake that you think you may have uncovered.

As 6bmike says "Somewhere a hat needs to be hung".

As I would ask "At the foot of whose bed do you leave your shoes?"

Flies and Honey
 

Bucket's a sucker for The Colonel's chicken: Original or crispy -- makes no difference. But, if you really want him in the cage . . .

Ya gotta go for the Nawth Car'lina beef BBQ!

No no no no . . . . ONLY PIG . . . . beef is for pot roast.

Catch'in Rabbits
 

See, Burner?

Phase I of the plan is working!

:laughing9

Pending meltdown . .. .

Burner - you wrote-: "A more acceptable approach, to me, would be to seek clarification should you have doubts which you have trouble reconciling, rather than directly contest those issues by giving evidential examples of some mistake that you think you may have uncovered."

Think about what you are recommending. You are stating that I need to change my writing approach to resolving contentious theoretical problems to suit your personal tastes of "how best to address an issue". I have never asked that of you, or any other forum member. Why can't you accept my personal falsification approach - finding single examples that contradict, and thereby falsify, a theory (eg. TGM theory), which is quintessentially the Popperian approach? Even if you don't like my Popperian approach, and think that it is too confrontational with respect to your "favorite" theory, why do you simply not accept that it is merely my personal style of thinking, and writing, and why don't you stick to arguing about the "facts" (objective issues)? I personally don't like the way that certain forum members think, and argue, and write, but I don't criticise their stylistic approach. I simply state that I cannot understand another person's posts, without attacking that person (like you and 6bMike are doing with respect to me). I think that my posts may be intellectually confrontational, but I am civilized in the sense that I do not mount personal attacks against other forum member's because I think that they are arrogant, or disrespectful of my "favorite theory".

Regarding "hanging one's hat" on a certain set of beliefs, I do that all the time, but I constantly challenge my own beliefs (the strength of my hat rack), because I believe in the Popperian principle that a "theory" is only valid to the extent that it cannot be falsified, rather than verified.

Jeff.

when I came across the Nike adv swing, it really looks like what Homer told us regarding plane shift, right forearm and #3 pressure point “on plane”; Elbow plane and Turned shoulder plane; double shift; parallel; pointing at…etc. I am not kind of lines drawing expert…Jeff might draw something different on the same or other video to support his opinion and said I am wrong....same as someone might spend hrs to find out some physic term mistakes, picky from egg in the book, but why don’t make good use of the information and digest to help themselves or others with the same amount of effort? I think the “marginal return” must be higher in the later case. One day, Dr. ABC or CDE might show us with a complete study of a golf stroke based on 21st century technology facts and universal law supports, but before that which book showed you the most?

KOC

I sympathaize with your belief that HK's on-plane ideas are good enough to "hang one's hat on" (to use Mike's phrase). That's where my hat is personally hanging at the present time. When I introduced this thread, I was simply comparing HK's plane theory to another plane theory (Hank Haney's). I never stated that I had sympathy for Haney's plane theory, or any other non-HK plane theory. I simply thought that this forum was a suitable forum for serious intellectual discussions regarding golf swing theory (TGM swing theory in relatiionship to other swing theories). However, there is a subgroup of forum members who don't like to see anyone question HK's swing theories. They remind me of the radical Islamicists, who want to issue a fatwa on anyone who questions, or lampoons, their beliefs (eg. Salmon Rushdie or a Danish cartoonist). However, this is supposed to be an intellectually-sympathetic forum for the free expression of serious, but different, opinions regarding golf swing theory. Or isn't it? Are you arguing that only posts that idolise HK, and all his swing theories, should be allowed? I agree with you that HK's book may "offer the most", but it is not the Koran.

Jeff.

Put it all together Col. Hannibal.:salut:

I am sure we will all love it, whatever the outcome.:happy3:

Jeff, I think that you make some fair points - but the independence of any forum is always at the discretion of the host. LBG hosts the forum and has a VERY even hand when it comes to governing - as Lynn often says it is a Collegiate atmosphere, questions, debate, answers. But the bottom line is that Lynn teaches HK's work. Therefore the forum works to help people understand HK's words and ideas...spreading the message that Homer would have done had he been given the opportunity.

Lynn and other forum members have a great knowledge of the literature and players that helped HK forge his own ideas and my own library has swelled to incorporate all the old books that HK had access to...so debate goes on about how these books influenced HK etc.

Showing pics of people who have had no exposure to TGM and saying that they are great strikers with their planes does not help....they achieve results in spite of the above hip high patterns rather than because of their above hip high patterns.,,,in fact because their patterns get close to HK's theories below hip high...which makes most of us think that HK was onto something. Politically the problem might arise when those people are associated with people who earn money in the same arena as LBG... I know that this has not happened yet...but the boundary is easily crossed...

There is alot more to TGM than you get just by reading the book and forum for 6 months...eggs keep on hatching many months and even years later...

Seriously, have you built a plane board?...I did...in my living room....full size...that is a great place to start and then people will not take any offence if they know that you have tried it... "less Gedanken...more G-doing" :salut:

Jeff,

Whilst I can only speak for me my intention has only ever been to, maybe, prompt a change in your writing style such that it may enhance your appeal to the much wider audience.

I can live with your Popperian approach, at a pinch, but sincerely believe that you do yourself no justice in pursuing it. It can be, to me, a real turn off at times. Its simply not user friendly.

Whilst I am "attacking" you (I would have preferred "trying to offer a little literary guidance") your introduction of Islamic references in response to KOC is offensive and I think a little editing might be in order.

Was Popper a hitter or a swinger?:confused1

There is usually 2 topics best left out of forums - religion and politics. You managed to include both with the same example. It is true that comparing people to others is a suitable effect when you wish to.

Recently there was a thread where some professional was shooting a video, a bird was squawking and he shot a couple of golf balls to scare it away and hit/killed a bird and someone on here was calling for him to get jail time for the pampered athlete...etc. Now I hate animal rights protest movements and I basically used an analogy of Hitler. The effect was to be overly extreme because I personally can't abide anyone with that kind of anti-humanist mentality, and if I annoyed him in the process that was fine.

However I am curious as to the nature of your comment. As an arguement it is rational enough but seems contradictory to the deliberate effect of annoying those to whom it is aimed at if you were serious about your claims. Just don't understand the purpose of the post as the reference nullifies the arguement and the arguement nullifies the effect to those that is aimed at.