Gentlemen, each of you represent a discipline that uses a certain framework for addressing significant questions.
We have evidence based medicine, sports medicine, chemistry/hard sciences, and business.
Can you guys discuss which elements of these frameworks should be used for the project, and which shouldn’t be?
Anyone else, feel free to chime in.
well…
physical sciences probably don’t have much play in this
The only relevant thing I can think of chi/ki/qi which I don’t believe can be proven by modern science in most cases, but in other cases it can. My biology/chemistry background is not going to be very helpful probably in this area.
I think physical sciences have play here. There’s a standard of evidence and procedure that come into what constitutes quality evidence worth believing in.
Replicability of results, for example.
One frequent argument of mystical martial artists (the other MMA) and psychics, etc., is that science doesn’t have the means/instruments to measure these metaphysical features, such as ki/qi.
In my opinion, from the sciences, we should adopt the following standards:
#1. Proof for Bullshido investigations needs to be measurable by current standards and instruments of scientific inquiry.
#2. Proof for Bullshido investigations should be replicable under identical or similar circumstances. For example, if someone claims victory in an underground fighting circuit or full contact tournament, they should be able to still fight/compete at the same level.
#3. We could call this “the Berador Clause:” Using terms such as fighting tournament or full-contact match needs to correspond with conventional uses of the term. A tournament is not submitting 8 clips of shadowboxing to a committee and having them evaluate it.