20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture
Karate Confirmation Bias

Hi all,

more I talk to martial arts community less I see open minded people,

my thoughts about the probem.

https://shinaido.wordpress.com/2019/07/20/karate-confirmation-bias/

Kind regards

Les

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Another good article Les! Something we see a lot of and something we all need to guard against.

This related podcast may also be of interest to people:  https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/reinventing-violence-podcast

All the best,

Iain

Anf
Anf's picture

Excellent article. I found myself agreeing in full, but then realised I was also exhibiting confirmation bias, in that I was enjoying the read, largely because the article supports what I already believe.

While some martial artists exhibit confirmation bias more than others, every martial artist I've ever met, at every level, exhibits it to some extent. I think there is a simple reason for it. Purely, nobody likes to think they've made a bad investment. As martial artists, we invest a lot. There's the financial investment in terms of training fees, equipment etc, but that's nothing compared to the investment in terms of physical, mental and sometimes emotional exertion and time.

I think martial art gives us an additional problem. You can never test it*. That means it's easy to justify a belief and prove it with a carefully selected test.

*Confirmation bias is also the trait that will prompt people to tell me I'm wrong. Of course you can test it. BJJ fans say they can go 100% because they trust in the tap. They don't play on a beer soaked and broken glass covered dance floor with someone spitting and biting while 3 other people kick them in their head. MMA fans will say what they do is as close as it gets to a real fight, while they play one on one under supervision against someone of similar size and skill level, in a fight they both knew was going to happen. Traditionalists will say they know they can strike hard, resist grappling attempts, maintain balance etc because they've tested it all in their hall with pads and boards and people who also want the system to work. The only way to test it is to find yourself genuinely under attack, and of course if we know when that's going to happen, then we probably caused it, or at least did nothing to avoid it.

Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture

Thank you Iain, podcast downloaded for tomorrow's drive.

Anf, i totally agree, we all have confirmation bias that's our nature. Some are aware of this fault like you and can spot it and correct it again like you just did while reading my article.

No one is perfect but some are more open for the facts and other view then others.

Thank yu for reading it :) 

Kind regards

Les

AllyWhytock
AllyWhytock's picture

An interesting subject. Being a software engineer, designing ATMs, I spend time analysing and fixing problems, found in the "field" (or is it the "street") :)

When I was less experienced, I would think I'd find the root cause, fix it and retest. However, my belief and my testing were construed by confirmation bias. After the embarrassment of having to "fix" things twice, I'd become more critical of my approach, my beliefs and my confirmation. It was the same during the late 90s and early 00s when I used to read martial arts magazine articles and become concerned about these "new" beliefs of practicality, karate will get you killed, tradition obscuring the truth etc etc.

However, as time went on and my karate pedagogy or "engineering" process became more akin to my other engineering process I began to see the illusion of my tradition. Not quite a "Paul & Damascus" moment but a gradual process.

My habit now is to see connections in everything, not confirmation of what I currently believe, but supplemental or additional or evolutionary practices that I can apply to what I do and what I teach.

I think I'm open minded with that approach but I do become reserved when I read, hear or see Karate Ka proport, propagate and blindly regurgitate information or practices that are known to be wrong or inaccurate, from a variety of then contemporary text. Karate has indeed likewise evolved, changed and been adapted - for better, for worse, for assimilation into a dominant culture, assimilation into a sporting context or appropriated as a cultural window into spiritual, philosophical or militaristic element, deemed to be superior to other cultures deemed flippant, entitled or lacking respect.

Laterly, MMA has thrown another view into the mix, which makes things even more interesting, and more socially known and provides a public presentation of "that works" with almost every major meet.  Likewise, we can all see what we recognise as kata elemenrs within a MMA match, because precisely as mentioned, two humans having a bit of a set to.

I think I'd spent 25 years appropriating stuff, 3 years discovering differences and 10 years just doing my thing. I'm sure this whole melting pot of views and ideas will continue indefinately. However, I think by taking a more scientific, engineer or formal approach to study, theory, experiment, test and peer review, then more practically minded people like myself will find likeminded colleagues. However, after writing that the trend for denunciation of science across society is a bit worrying. Another subject perhaps.

Again, and interesting article.

Cheers,

Ally

JuhaK
JuhaK's picture

Great article. As you probably know there are lot of different cognitive biases and those affect to all of us. It is great that you make this articles, blogs and podcasts. It is important to raise awerness of healthy scepticism and critical thinking and help people to understand their own biases and give martial arts more pragmatic approach. Juha

Marc
Marc's picture

Thanks for sharing your article, Les.

Confirmation bias is one way of flawed perception of the world, we need to be aware of.

If you are interested in more of such flawed world views and how to overcome them, I'd strongly suggest a book by Hans Rosling, called "Factfulness". As it says on the cover: "Factfulness: the stress-reducing habit of only carrying opinions for which you have strong supporting facts."

This is not a martial arts book. It is a book about how we perceive facts about the world and how to get better at it. A wonderful work for people who like critical thinking.

Take care,

Marc

Josh Pittman
Josh Pittman's picture

Hi, everyone

I have some pushback that's going to sound as if I'm disagreeing with you're conclusions, but I'm really not. I agree that confirmation bias can be dangerous and that we need mechanisms through which to recognize and correct it when it is. But, I think we tend to look at biases like this in a moralistic way that doesn't account for why they exist. I teach logic, and I think that understanding how it works is very important to engaging well with others in public spheres, so here goes!

Far from being a "flaw," interpreting new information in light of information we already accept is a necessary process. Without it, we would never be able to navigate the world. The fact that we all exhibit confirmation bias doesn't mean that "nobody's perfect"; it means that synthesizing data is a precondition for our knowledge. We will always be more open to information that accords with what we already accept, and furthermore we should. Otherwise, we'll go into tailspins of self-doubt anytime we encounter bizarre claims from left field.

For example, if someone told you that Shotokan is the best style of Karate because Master So-and-so achieved immortality by doing 1,000,000 jump-spin-crescent kicks in 3 minutes, you would probably be skeptical. That's not because you have any direct evidence to the contrary; in fact, it's probably impossible to independently verify or debunk that story. Rather, you wouldn't believe it because you accept other facts about the world that make the story implausible--people can't achieve immortality, it's impossible to move that fast, there's no relation between immortality and speed of kicking, etc. We're always assuming all sorts of things, and logic is assumption and inference all the way down. That's not a flaw to lament but the very way that we make sense of the world.

Confirmation bias becomes a problem when we start to overlook clearly relevant evidence that's brought to our attention, or when we refuse to engage in meaningful conversation because it's threatening to what we already believe. But even if you do consider evidence to the contrary of some claim you accept, you'll be evaluating that evidence in light of a whole world of other information that you accept without directly questioning it. So the reason we'll never be able to rid ourselves of confirmation bias is that we actually need it.

Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture

Thank you guys for all the answers,

Josh, Marc and Juha you are more informed on the subject then I am, and I agree with you that we need that process. I also understand that there is quite a few biases we are equipped in. My post was in relation to my clip about wrist grabbing and attack by bigger opponent.

Where people suggested it never happening and we will be attacked by only bigger opponent. I done small research on line and found evidence (pictures) from cctv footage that indeed people grab wrists on many occasions and we can be attacked by any kind of person. Despite that some people on social media were adamant that its impossible hence my bias article :)

Kind regards

Les

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Awesome post Josh! I think there is an important distinction to be drawn though.

Josh Pittman wrote:
Far from being a "flaw," interpreting new information in light of information we already accept is a necessary process. Without it, we would never be able to navigate the world. The fact that we all exhibit confirmation bias doesn't mean that "nobody's perfect"; it means that synthesizing data is a precondition for our knowledge.

That makes perfect sense to me; particularly because you have referred to “information” and “data”. When we base our worldview on objective information and data, we are more likely to develop a worldview that reflects the real world and hence will serve as a solid guide to navigating the real world. It also makes sense that we would check everything new against such a worldview.

If a person told us they had seen horses in a field, we would be inclined to believe them because we have prior information that tells us horses are often found in fields. However, if they said they had seen a fire breathing dragon in a field, we would disbelieve them because prior information tells us no such creature exists. In both cases, we are working from a solid premise based on objective experience.

Where it all falls apart – especially in the martial arts – is when the worldview is not based on information and data but instead on unfounded belief and what we would like to be true.

Josh Pittman wrote:
Confirmation bias becomes a problem when we start to overlook clearly relevant evidence that's brought to our attention, or when we refuse to engage in meaningful conversation because it's threatening to what we already believe.

100% agree. This happens a lot in the martial arts.

Josh Pittman wrote:
But even if you do consider evidence to the contrary of some claim you accept, you'll be evaluating that evidence in light of a whole world of other information that you accept without directly questioning it.

This is where I disagree and feel the distinction needs to be drawn. If the worldview you have is based on information and data, then it has an objective reality. The information and data that informs the worldview, and that you will check things against, has already been questioned and tested. I have seen horses in fields. I have not seen dragons. That information is not, “a whole world of other information that you accept without directly questioning it”. Instead is it information and data based on direct experience. It is because of those repeated experiences that I accept it. It has been questioned and proven to be reliable.

1) Evaluating new information against information that has proven utility and is based on objective truth is wise.

2) Denying information that can show your existing worldview to be faulty is unwise.

Wikipedia defines “Confirmation Bias” as:

“Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses”

I would therefore say that the thinking in Point 1 is not confirmation bias because the measure is always objective reality and a worldview based on that reality. It is evaluating information against other information that has proven to be true. The search for truth is therefore the driving force.

The thinking in Point 2 is confirmation bias because it is protecting the worldview against truth.

The burden of proof is always on those making the claim. I’m therefore not going to believe there is a dragon in the field until the person claiming there is can provide the information and data that would get me to question my prior experience that dragons don’t exist.

I would not class the need for proof as conformation bias (i.e. me assuming there is no dragon); rather confirmation bias is the denial of proof in favour of belief. However, I WOULD be exhibiting confirmation bias if I still denied there was a dragon after evidence had been provided for its existence.

Josh Pittman wrote:
So the reason we'll never be able to rid ourselves of confirmation bias is that we actually need it.

We do need to construct a worldview in order to get us to navigate the world around us. We need to base that worldview on information and data; on things with proven utility. If we base that worldview on untested belief and deny any evidence that could show that belief to be false, then we are exhibiting conformation bias. That also means we have a worldview based on falsehood and we don’t need that because it will be harmful when belief clashes with objective reality.

I’d agree that we need to assess new information against the prior experience and information that forms our worldview and that has shown to have utility and have objective validity. I’d disagree that we need falsehood as part of that i.e. confirmation bias. To my way of thinking, it is confirmation bias that can lead to such falsehoods and therefore we don’t need it and should seek to guard against it.

In short, not all worldviews are equal. Worldviews based on objective truth are better than those that deny truth. We need the former. We should reject the latter. To do that, we need to be aware of the difference i.e. on what is the worldview based? If it is based on truth and wishes to be so, it will welcome truth and accept truth. If it is based on falsehood and wishes to be so, it will avoid truth and deny truth. A truth-based worldview is not conformation bias because it simply places the burden of proof where it belongs (i.e. on those making the claim) while remaining open to that proof.

All the best,

Iain

Josh Pittman
Josh Pittman's picture

Les,

Yes, I absolutely agree that overlooking your evidence would be a fallacy. I didn't mean for my post to contradict that conclusion.

Iain,

Thanks for your response. This is a very interesting conversation.

I think our basic disagreement regards the definition of fact. I argue that facts are conventions--we have to agree on which facts to believe in order for objectivity to exist. When we talk about basing our worldviews on facts, we tend to overlook the agreement that we have to share about what counts as a fact.

Let's take the classic syllogism as an example. If I say "Socrates is mortal," and you ask why, I might respond, "Because he's a man." At this point, we might consider the argument over, but really we're both still assuming the third term of the syllogism: "All men are mortal." Presumably, we both accept this as a fact. But for the sake of the argument, let's say we don't agree. I would need (because the burden of proof is on me) to find evidence that all men are mortal. I might make a statistical argument--all men have died. At this point, I'm assuming yet more facts: the statistics I have leave out no outliers, the fact that all men up to this point have died means that mortality is inherent in us, etc. Even if we get all the way to performing a scientific experiment (which I suppose in this case would be killing Socrates!), we would still need to agree on the assumption that we're both receiving the same sense impressions and that our senses give us access to facts. I believe that last assumption, but it is possible to doubt it, thus it remains an assumption. But do we really need to question it? No, not directly...not unless we have some reason to doubt it.

But the fact (pun!) that facts are conventional doesn't mean they're arbitrary. We can agree that our senses don't lie to us, in any significant way for this particular experiment, without evidence but also without being foolish.

Nevertheless, the fact that all argumentation requires assumption (even if the assumption is stated) means that we all "search for, interpret, favor, and recall" information that accords with what we already believe, the assumptions we already accept. "Dragons don't exist" is an assumption, grounded though it may be in prior experience, and trusting your prior experience to be right in this instance is another assumption. If I, the person claiming to see a dragon, showed you not a dragon but what I claimed were dragon bones, you might well doubt that the bones are actually from a dragon. In this case, you doubt my evidence because it does not accord with what you already believe, that dragons don't exist. You will require more proof until I present you with a fact that you also accept. Only when we come to agree about what constitutes a fact will the argument end satisfactorily.

As for distinguishing confirmation bias from other forms of reasoning, I argue that the deductive logic at work in confirmation bias is still deductive logic. What makes responsible forms of reasoning different from confirmation bias? How each deals with countervalent facts, I suppose. So the process remains the same, but the difference is that responsible reasoning allows its preconceived notions to change. So you and I end up with the same conclusion (be open to other evidence), but I see the process of distinguishing what counts as valid evidence as conditioned by assumptions and thus essentially the same in its process as what occurs in confirmation bias.

"not all worldviews are equal"--yes, absolutely. No argument.

Happy Tuesday,

Josh

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Josh,

I think we agree on all meaningful points, but this is a fun conversation that I feel I can learn from so I’m going to split hairs :-)

Josh Pittman wrote:
But do we really need to question it? No, not directly...not unless we have some reason to doubt it.

I would say “yes” because we have already questioned it and that is why we hold the worldview we do. We are not making “assumptions” based on nothing, but all evidence we have been exposed to up to that point. We have questioned that evidence previously and found it to be reliable.

Josh Pittman wrote:
Nevertheless, the fact that all argumentation requires assumption (even if the assumption is stated) means that we all "search for, interpret, favor, and recall" information that accords with what we already believe, the assumptions we already accept. "Dragons don't exist" is an assumption, grounded though it may be in prior experience, and trusting your prior experience to be right in this instance is another assumption.

I’d disagree here. The word “assumption” means:

“a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.” (Goggle)

“something that you accept as true without question or proof” (Cambridge dictionary)

“a belief or feeling that something is true or that something will happen, although there is no proof” (Oxford dictionary)

An “assumption” therefore is a belief without evidence / proof to support that belief. A position based on prior evidence / proof is therefore not an “assumption”.

Basing an expectation on all prior evidence / proof and placing the burden of proof on those making the claim is not conformation bias because the expectation is based on prior evidence / proof and is open to new evidence / proof.

Confirmation bias is “the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's pre-existing beliefs.” The “pre-existing beliefs” are what is unwavering when confirmation bias is exhibited. If the bedrock of a viewpoint is evidence / proof then the pre-existing viewpoint will be based on evidence / proof and remain open to new evidence / proof.

If pre-existing belief is deemed greater than evidence, then confirmation bias is in play.

If a pre-existing viewpoint is based on evidence and is open to new evidence, then confirmation bias is not in play.

The two are very diffrent.

Josh Pittman wrote:
As for distinguishing confirmation bias from other forms of reasoning, I argue that the deductive logic at work in confirmation bias is still deductive logic.

I would say that confirmation bias is NOT deductive logic because it does not deduce and is not logical. It does not logically deduce an outcome based on all available evidence, but instead seeks to deny evidence in favour of the belief.

All the best,

Iain

Heath White
Heath White's picture

Like Iain said, I think people agree on the major points here, but the discussion is fun.  I may have something to contribute here because in my day job I also teach logic and epistemology.  (Is there some correlation between TSD and logic teaching?) 

There are various sources of evidence. 

(1) There is personal experience and observation, what we see with our own eyes and do with our own bodies.  (Empiricism.) This is in some ways the best kind of evidence, but in the martial arts this kind of evidence can be rare, because people don’t get into very many (or any) fights. 

(2) There is the testimony or authority or say-so of other people.  (Testimony.) People rely on this for 99% of their knowledge in the rest of life—most of what people know about science or history or current events, etc. comes from this source.  In the martial arts, this is relying on what your instructor says, or what other people say in these forums.

(3) There is what makes sense, based on other things you know or think you know.  (Inference.)  For example, I am pretty sure that a spearhand to the throat is a more effective technique than a spearhand to the solar plexus.  I have never seriously thrown a spearhand at anyone, but I do have a basic knowledge of anatomy and how vulnerable different parts of the body are.  A lot of people on this  forum would say things like “in early karate, all kicks were low”—this is another example of inference, since none of us were around then, nor does any early karate master say this explicitly. 

Until quite recently, empirical evidence was hard to come by in the karate world.  But then the world changed….  The advent of MMA created more empirical evidence.  Training with resistance creates more empirical evidence.  And looking at footage, as Les did, is another way to get more of this kind of evidence.  Until recently, the UFC did not exist, resistance training was rare, and footage was not on YouTube.  So karateka were thrown back onto testimony and inference.  What has happened in the last twenty years is that empirical evidence has become much more available, and since it is (usually) better evidence than the other kinds, some old beliefs have to be revised.

So, for example:

* Do wrist grabs happen in real fights?  A lot of (male) martial artists might say no, based on their personal experience and what makes sense to them.  But if you talk to women, or look at footage, the answer is yes.

* Do people get attacked by smaller individuals?  It might not make sense, if you are not around a lot of fights.  But the footage says it happens.

* Can a traditionally trained striking-based martial artist adequately defend against a grappling-based martial artist?  Our teachers said yes.  The early UFCs demonstrated no.

But it is a mistake to think we are ever going to rely solely on empirical evidence to the exclusion of the other kinds.  (It is also a mistake to think that science relies solely on empirical evidence.)  For example:

* Are high kicks an effective technique in a real fight?  There is some mixed anecdotal evidence about this (testimony), and you might think it endangers balance (inference), but nobody, AFAIK, has good empirical evidence about it.

* Are neck cranks effective in a real fight?  Has anybody ever done one for real?  What are the chances of breaking someone’s neck?  Beliefs about this are mostly going to be based on inference.

* How often do chops to the neck stop an attacker?  There is footage that shows they can be effective.  But I don’t think we (or at least, I) have a good sense of how high-percentage the technique is.

* Why do forms contain turns?  The accepted-around-here answer to this (taking angles to an opponent) is based on testimony from Mabuni and inference from the need to take angles in a fight.

* No opinion about “original bunkai” is based on empirical evidence.

It is also a mistake to think that empirical evidence is always easy to interpret.  For example:

* Are grappling skills the main skillset needed for fighting?  90s-era Gracies would have said yes, on the basis of their experience in challenge matches, and the early UFC bouts.  Geoff Thompson and Marc MacYoung would have said no, on the basis of their experience in bars.  Whose experience is more relevant here?  (Answer: further reflection drew a distinction between consensual and non-consensual violence.)

Finally, it is a mistake to think that empirical evidence always trumps the other kinds.  The classic example is high school science experiments, in which students never get the value they are supposed to, and yet nobody thinks this is evidence against generally accepted scientific conclusions.  Instead, they conclude there is something dubious about the way the experiment is conducted.

* Many martial artists take this attitude toward demonstrations of pressure-point techniques.  There are plenty of live or filmed demonstrations of the efficacy of these techniques.  But many of us are dubious, because the demonstration doesn’t fit with other things (we think) we know.

I would say the primary takeaway of Les’s original post is that martial artists need to be ready to confront their existing beliefs with empirical evidence.  And since much of this evidence is pretty newly available (in the scheme of things), we should be ready to change some long-held beliefs.

I would say the primary takeaway from Josh’s points is that empirical evidence, while very useful, is no cure-all, and the knowledge process remains complicated.

And another consideration, which may lie behind Iain’s and some other comments, is that the existing worldview of many martial artists—largely based on inference and testimony—is not a reliable one and needs reformation from the ground up.  People are reluctant to change many beliefs, perhaps, because it would involve “disrespecting” authorities or challenging institutions.   I agree with all that, but it’s not exactly a problem with confirmation bias, and this post is long enough already.

Josh Pittman
Josh Pittman's picture

Hi, Iain

I'm glad you're also having fun! I wouldn't want to just assume that it's as good for you as it is for me...

I think we need to back up even further. Deduction is the process of starting with a general principle and reasoning down to a specific instance. Definitions might be the clearest example of deductive reasoning:

Ducks are birds with webbed feet and beaks. +That, right there, is a bird with webbed feet and a beak. Therefore, that, right there, is a duck.

This syllogism begins with a general principle (a definition), uses as evidence an argument that a particular example fits the principle, and arrives at the conclusion that that example falls under the definition. There is a school of thought that categorizes all logical reasoning as deduction.

The general principle that confirmation bias accepts varies. “People don’t grab wrists in real life” might be one; “My martial art is the most effective” might be another. Even more generally, perhaps we could say that a deductive principle is, “Only accept arguments that require me to reorganize as few of my presuppositions as possible.” I would argue that we all operate on this last principle, but whether you agree with me or not, it would seem that confirmation bias is still a form of deductive logic.

You say “We are not making ‘assumptions’ based on nothing.” That is true. But at no point are we basing all our beliefs on self-sufficient, unassailable grounds, either. Even our senses are capable of being doubted—isn’t it always possible, in any single instance, for me to have misseen, misheard, or misinterpreted? And even if I didn’t, isn’t it always possible that I’m actually inside the Matrix? I do trust my senses because trusting them has generally tended to yield results I want. But even at that point, there are general principles I’m accepting: a conclusion that accounts for the majority of evidence is most likely correct, my sensory observations constitute “the majority of evidence” and don’t overlook anything relevant, yielding the results I want makes the process “correct,” the mechanism of my sense perception and my decision-making will not change the next time I make a decision, etc. Can I “ground” any of those assumptions? Not really, but most of the time I have no compelling reason to doubt them.

Thus, back to our fundamental difference: I think that it takes assumption to agree on what constitutes acceptable evidence. If you think that it’s not assumption that leads us to agree on this question, it’s because you believe in a “wider” data set, not because you have a “ground” for your knowledge.

That might be a useful metaphor, actually. In the theory of knowledge I’m proposing, we reach “out” to verify information, not “down.”

…But now that Heath has responded, I should probably cut out everything else I was going to say and affirm that his critiques of empirical knowledge are probably accurate summaries of my main point. His parenthetical comments about thinking that we know things are spot-on.

Yes, probably TSD is the logical choice of martial art…that accords with what I already believe.

Good conversation, y’all!

Josh

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Heath and Josh,

Great posts both! I appreciate you taking the time to write those as I think they are superb contributions that readers of this thread will get a lot out of. Thank you!

I’ve nothing of substance to add other than a couple of thoughts:

Heath White wrote:
Finally, it is a mistake to think that empirical evidence always trumps the other kinds.  The classic example is high school science experiments, in which students never get the value they are supposed to, and yet nobody thinks this is evidence against generally accepted scientific conclusions.  Instead, they conclude there is something dubious about the way the experiment is conducted.

You get “questioning of the experiment” being used as a form of confirmation bias too i.e. “No touch knockouts do work, but maybe the recipient had his tongue or toes in the wrong place” ( https://youtu.be/kIL5nD2PQ0Y?t=311  )

I would say that badly conducted experiments and pseudo-science should not be placed on the same footing as good science. Empirical evidence that derives from valid tests is valid and can be trusted.

This high school science experiment fails because it was done incorrectly. When the same experiment is done by innumerable scientists, in the correctly controlled way, it consistently yields the same results. That validated empirical evidence does trump all others.

We are right to doubt that no touch knock outs work because they failed when tested on an independently minded third party. If they consistently worked, then we would believe in them because we would have the evidence for them.

My empirical evidence that punches to the jaw drops people and, has made me drop, is trustworthy. I’ve seen the “experiment” repeated in legitimate ways innumerable times. The punch to the jaw does not depend on belief, tongue position, toe position, etc to drop people. Punch anyone solidly in the jaw and they will know it works (something one of my teachers like to do to prove the point).

Josh Pittman wrote:
I do trust my senses because trusting them has generally tended to yield results I want…

…Can I “ground” any of those assumptions? Not really, but most of the time I have no compelling reason to doubt them.

It’s true that I could be a “brain in a jar” and my belief there is an objective existence outside the jar is false. It could be that the keyboard I am typing on exists entirely in my imagination and my “senses” are illusions. However, this would bring me back to the burden of proof.

While there are limits philosophically when it comes to truth, it would be unwise to live life with the belief you were nothing but a brain in a jar because you could not disprove it. Instead, we would ask the person making the claim to provide evidence for that claim. If they can’t do that – and they can’t – then the logical position is to go with that there is overwhelming evidence for i.e. I exist in the real world.

As the great philosopher Conan the Barbarian (written by Robert E. Howard) once said:

“Let teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.”

Josh Pittman wrote:
Thus, back to our fundamental difference: I think that it takes assumption to agree on what constitutes acceptable evidence. If you think that it’s not assumption that leads us to agree on this question, it’s because you believe in a “wider” data set, not because you have a “ground” for your knowledge.

I’d still disagree (in a splitting hairs way; only disagreeing in expression and not conclusion). I have evidence that punches to the jaw work. It could be said that I’m a brain in a jar and I’m “assuming” there is a reality in which punches work. Therefore, that belief is still founded on an assumption and the belief has no objective grounding; just wider experience based on that base assumption.

I would counter and say that such a claim requires those making the claim to accept the burden of proof … but, even if we overlook that, then we can also say that “if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.” It is within that “reality” (a reality not shown to be false) that I can point to innumerable pieces of evidence to support the viewpoint that punches to the jaw work. That is the grounding. It’s not an “assumption” because it is based on evidence.

Believing punches to the jaw work is therefore not confirmation bias; but a valid expectation based on evidence and proof.

Believing no touch knock outs will work is confirmation bias because the evidence they don’t work is being ignored.

I think we’ve drilled deep on this one … way beyond the point of utility! However, I think it’s made of an interesting and very thorough thread. Fun too!

All the best,

Iain

Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture

Hi all,

Great to read all of those points,I have to admitt I feel highly unacucated in this area :)

Happy that I have sparked great discusion :)

Kind regards

Les

Anf
Anf's picture
Heath White wrote:

* How often do chops to the neck stop an attacker?  There is footage that shows they can be effective.  But I don’t think we (or at least, I) have a good sense of how high-percentage the technique is.

When I was a teenager training in kung fu, there was a particular neck chop that was supposed to be lethal. We all had to sign a formal oath promising to never ever use it unless we were in mortal danger. It was the 1980s. The information age hadn't arrived yet. People believed what they were told.

i told my dad. He insisted a demonstrate on him. I didn't want to harm my dad, so naturally I refused at first, but after some coercion, I did it, at about 25% force. Nothing. I upped it a bit. Still nothing. Gradually increasing, I hot to full force. My dad eventually calmly said, I can see how it might make someone's neck sore after a while.

Years later, my wife and I training in tang soo do, learn the same technique. And in watching a YouTube video of a respected self defence expert we see it again. Only this time its late on a Friday night, and we've had a couple of beers. So I feel brave. The wife and I occasionally test the 'self defence' we've been taught. Not too rough, but with less compliance than in class. Usually, me being bigger, I play the role of the aggressor, then the wife practices the defence. So on this occasion the defence was to immobilise me with a neck chop. Now here's the thing. The head is quite a heavy object, and to stabilise it it needs some pretty chunky muscles in the neck to support it. Those muscles, like all the superficial muscles, can take quite a lot of force. The neck chops often demonstrated for self defence strike the side of the neck, exactly where those chunky muscles are. So with the wife striking my neck as hard as she physically could, sometimes forcing me to step sideways to maintain my balance, absolutely nothing was happening that would cause me concern. I didn't even have any little bruises or soreness the next day. Things might have been different if my wife had had greater strength and weight, but we're always told that self defence doesn't rely on strength or weight.

Now what if, instead of chopping the side of the neck as we'd been taught and as shown by respected self defence 'experts' on YouTube, what if the strike was more to the softer structures to the front of the neck. Strikes to this area are of course taught, but often excluded from 'practical self defence' due to the need for more accuracy in the strike to hit it, when blind panic reduces us to gross motor skills only. Plus with hands up and chin down the front of the neck is usually better defended. Whatever, we tried it. Not many times. It really hurt. Would it end a fight though? I doubt it. I once punched a man bigger than me, and with greater martial arts experience than me, full force square in the throat. It was by accident. I was aiming for his chest but he ducked and lunged in at the exact moment I fired. He was stunned for a second or two. I waited to see if he was OK, but I suspect even if it had been a real fight rather than a friendly sparring round, he'd have still been able to fight. In the friendly environment of none competitive sparring he only needed a couple of seconds to pull himself together.

I realise the neck chop bit was just one example to make a point, but in support of that point, I think pressure testing is a good start to gathering evidence when assessing the potential effectiveness of anything.

Josh Pittman
Josh Pittman's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
way beyond the point of utility!

Ha! Yes, probably. In defence of my profession's navel-gazing, these sorts of debates arise out of specific challenges. The theory of knowledge and language I'm advocating for is a response to the challenge of Derrida and the "linguistic turn" in philosophy, which had everyone in the 60s and 70s saying, "Shit! Can we ever know anything?"

You're still assuming a particular definition of what constitutes viable evidence, but since we've passed the point of utility and since I don't disagree that empirical evidence is useful, I won't pursue the point.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
it would be unwise to live life with the belief you were nothing but a brain in a jar

Exactly. Which is why I say that we not let the fact that we're assuming our own existence dissuade us from living fully. The finitude of our knowledge isn't a flaw; it's the very reason we're capable of knowing things at all!

Anyway, I think I've made my point to the extent that I can without growing tiresome to any future readers! Thanks for the discussion, all!

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

I have evidence that punches to the jaw work. It could be said that I’m a brain in a jar and I’m “assuming” there is a reality in which punches work.

I read "punches to the jar" there, LOL.

Thank you guys for this interesting conversation.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Josh Pittman wrote:
You're still assuming a particular definition of what constitutes viable evidence, but since we've passed the point of utility and since I don't disagree that empirical evidence is useful, I won't pursue the point.

It’s a point worth making though, so I’ve quoted it … not to comment further, but to highlight it :-)

Josh Pittman wrote:
I think I've made my point to the extent that I can without growing tiresome to any future readers!

This topic (i.e. the limits of what we can know) is one that fascinates me and if our paths cross in person I’d love to pick your brains and learn more. Seeing as this is a martial arts forum, I’ve probably indulged myself enough :-) Thanks for giving me plenty to ponder.

Marc wrote:
I read "punches to the jar" there, LOL.

Love it! You’d have to hope that the person punching the jar was also a figment of the imagination of the brain within it … not a lot could be done otherwise :-)

All the best,

Iain