Epistemic Viciousness in the Martial Arts

[J Marwood]

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/%7Egrussell ... usness.pdf

A very interesting article, which takes a long time to call martial artists on our tendency to believe stuff we shouldn't, just because someone important or famous said it.

[Cutlery Penguin]

Nice read, thanks.

[Andreas Engström]

Very good, if perhaps a little long-winded. Worth reading, though.

-Andreas

[Magnus Hagelberg]

worth reading tnxs!

[KeithFarrell]

Thanks for posting the link. It is a good read, rather thought provoking.

[Angantyr]

Good read, well worth to think about. I know a lot of people who need to read this and burst their bubble.

[The Salmon Lord]

God its a hard read. Plus having no background and very little knowledge of eastern arts I also didnt really get many of the examples.

[Motley]

Doesn't it just boil down to don't believe all the s!te you are told?

I know it is getting a lot of positive reviews but it just seems to be stating the obvious to me.

[KeithFarrell]

You would think that it would be stating the obvious, but I have come across this very problem during my time in karate, historical re-enactment, historical fencing, university, secondary school, primary school... In fact, whenever a group comes together and someone within the group is very respected, the rest of the group tends to just accept what that person says. Which is useful most of the time, but occasionally it can lead to harmful or incorrect beliefs.

[The Salmon Lord]

Doesn't it just boil down to don't believe all the s!te you are told?

I know it is getting a lot of positive reviews but it just seems to be stating the obvious to me.

In a manner that makes it seems very very clever. Yep thats kind of where I got to.

[Phil C]

It does make Historic Fencing tricky though since we are doing "what is in the books" and have to take it on trust that the books are correct in and of themselves, and that's before looking at them in a wider context of culture or comparison with similar forms or authors which may prove them to be oddities or a generally accepted priniciple at that particular point in time/geography.

I've been looking at Petter with a senior Jiujituska/Catch wrestler and he's appalled at what is recommended at some points as being unworkable, or inefficient at best, and yet, in order to remain true to the ethic of HEMA, one *must* do what is in the books as to do otherwise is to be imposing one's own view and deviating from the text.

[Dave B]

Lots to unpick there Phil,

I suspect that Modern martial artists have difficulty seening where the contet is different, fighting in heavy clothing for example, or not wanting to go to the ground because you don't know where the chaps mates with heavy boots are.

And I think you have to TRY techniques as written, but that is not the same as assuming they are 'right' after all it's still only one guys opinion at the end of the day. I think you can still question a technique, test it, and not use it it it does not suit you.

[Phil C]

And I think you have to TRY techniques as written, but that is not the same as assuming they are 'right' after all it's still only one guys opinion at the end of the day. I think you can still question a technique, test it, and not use it it it does not suit you.

Indeed- maybe a I should have made my point clearer that it can be an effort to keep someone with other ideas to stick to the text as that is the principal ethic of HEMA, not to be effective "now" but to do what you are told to do by the book, and then evalute within your own interest (whether that is authentic purity to one text, only doing what can be provenanced, compariosn with other Arts, using it for modern defence or blending into a "Western" inspired mix)

[Michael Chidester]

Doesn't it just boil down to don't believe all the s!te you are told?

I know it is getting a lot of positive reviews but it just seems to be stating the obvious to me.

Did you actually read the article? That's the main point, but most of it addresses other, tangential issues which are far more interesting.

[John H]

I also thought the article was stating the obvious but it was a statement that needed to be made. I also found it interesting that this was obviously written from a JMA/EMA perspective and they also have cultish groups and those overly dedicated to ‘history’ to the determent what is right in front of them. Perhaps it’s because I read more of the Victorian stuff I see that sometimes the authors are complete tools that have no idea what they are talking about or I see when they disagree there may be something slightly different with the weapon or rules the text is meant to be used under that explains it. Do I think this is a phenomenon that only existed in the 18th-20th C, hell no.

[Motley]

Doesn't it just boil down to don't believe all the s!te you are told?

I know it is getting a lot of positive reviews but it just seems to be stating the obvious to me.

Did you actually read the article? That's the main point, but most of it addresses other, tangential issues which are far more interesting.

No I just commented on it.

[Motley]

Ok so sarcasm aside, I just re-read the article to see if I had missed anything in my initial assessment.

To be honest I don't think I did miss anything, most of the argument basically falls down to 'be careful what you believe', not 'don't believe anything'.

If you think there are any side issues there are are worth exploring them please by all means point them out.

Regards,
Dan.

[Ariella Elema]

As I understand the article, it's saying that not believing everything you're told is also an epistemic vice.

The author is raising a more complicated question: how do you develop a system to evaluate what you're told, incorporate new discoveries and reject unworkable ideas? How do you do this in a field where controlled scientific experimentation would be unethical?

[Michael Chidester]

Ariella beat me to it.

[Motley]

As I understand the article, it's saying that not believing everything you're told is also an epistemic vice.

Which is what I said is it not? Not believing everything is not the same as not believing anything. The former is prudent the latter ignorant. You have to believe somethings, or more correctly accept as valid.

The author is raising a more complicated question: how do you develop a system to evaluate what you're told, incorporate new discoveries and reject unworkable ideas? How do you do this in a field where controlled scientific experimentation would be unethical?

Indeed that would be a very interesting question to pursue and if the article had addressed that in any meaningful way then maybe I would consider it more as than a waste of time But this is a problem that we face in daily life, it is not restricted to the martial arts. Even the one solution it did touch on is what Matt has been referring to as Triangulation for a long time.

I am not saying the article is wrong just that it is making a very obvious point in a convoluted way and dressing it up in big words to make it seem impressive. Granted I did learn a thing or two from the article. I learnt a new word 'epistemic' and the origin of the word 'viciousness'. It just seems somewhat pointless.

If you were marking it, would you really give it more than a 'C'?