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?