Originally Posted by 12 piece bucket (Post 59928)

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.

Hope you had a nice Christmas Mandrin :happy3:

Originally Posted by no_mind_golfer (Post 59932)

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.

Originally Posted by 12 piece bucket (Post 59929)

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.

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 59931)

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.

:salut:

Originally Posted by 12 piece bucket (Post 59935)

Brian Gay won . . . . Riegger got a win . . . . Elk was a Machine guy . . . . about every teacher has some back ground in the Machine . . . . Mac O'Grady gives credit to Homer . . . . Stack & Tilt gives credit to The Golfing Machine . . . winners in their stable. Ledbetter had his people reading the Machine supposedly.

Opinion is one thing but then to roll up to somebody's house and take a piss on the rug is another thing. The "cult" thing? Come on dude . . . .

Some of these flaws y'all come up with and say Homer was a doofus about are putting words in his mouth anyway.

Who would pay your own cash to take a lesson from?

Originally Posted by no_mind_golfer (Post 59934)

Err... No. Beg to differ. Religion has been the biggest impediment to science (maybe it still is). (Can you say dark ages) Galileo Galilei was imprisons for suggesting the Earth orbits the sun (He challenged the priests who's consensus was that Earth was the center of the Universe). Thankfully the French revolution ushered in the "enlightement" and the Age of Reason thereby demoting the priesthood.

Today many of us think we need another "enlightment". Today we have the Priests (man made global warming adherents for example) destroying real scientist's careers and even wanting to pass hate speach laws against the "deniers" because they dare question their politically expedient conclusion (which is that we must tax carbon).

Bucket... Never mistake pseudo-scientists and their ilk (the Al Gores of the world) with real honest hard working "yeoman" scientists. And never mistake Me for Mandrin. I don't agree with much of what he says and consider him one of the former (i.e. pseudo). Also, I don't write anything like his mostly childish mal-formed drivel.... Please. I AM NM not mandrin of la mancha (slayer of windmills)

Originally Posted by no_mind_golfer (Post 59937)

I don't mean to be niggling about this.... but come on "dude" did you even visit the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality ? Its a legitimate term even in today's dumbed down politically correct world. Either the things Homer claims are open for question or they are not. Nobody is "pissing" on the rug Lynn has graciously given Jeff purportedly to explore these matters.

As for your question... I would have to think about that. Dead or alive? One thing is for certain though... arrogance is one trait that eliminates them from my consideration. Teachers might help (might hurt too) but ultimately I believe what Gurdjeiff said: A man can only learn by his own efforts.

Originally Posted by no_mind_golfer (Post 59940)

Bucket...

Much as I'd like to carry on this off topic discussion with you, I have been put on notice by our host who I learned also takes issue with the term "personality cult"...

Since I wish to continue reading this forum, and I cannot risk the umpire declaring a third strike against me, I must now go to lurk mode which I do regret because in so doing I become what he says I am (yet God knows I'm not): a taker not a giver.

Best to you bucket.

Originally Posted by Jeff (Post 59941)

snip......

Using that intellectual approach as to what represents a "scientific endeavour", I think that TGM theory regarding the golf swing is a "scientific endeavour" in the sense that TGM theory can be tested for its verifiability and falsifiability quotients.

Jeff.