There's a new article from the ARMA up on some of the changes that have been going on in our interpretations in the past three years or so: http://www.thearma.org/essays/revealing-new-perspectives.html
I usually don't offer much criticism of articles unless I have something nice to say (and often, not even then). However, there is a lot of statements that basically say, "I know the right way, and no one else does." Sorry, I just can't agree with that.
And if you want evidence, then this statement:
"...defending by Baroque-notions of parry and riposte is antithetical to the sources..."
Now I am unsure of whether or not the author is talking from the context of one particular system. If he is talking merely in terms of German Longsword, then I cannot argue that one way or another as that is not my specialty. However, defending by parry and riposte--for example, I parry an incoming Riverso in Guardia di Testa and then riposte with a Mandritto--absolutely is part of the Bolognese tradition (I just gave you an example). Period. We have literally multiple hundreds of plays in which this is demonstrated in clear Italian. Now I guess we can quibble over whether the Bolognese system is a renaissance system--but I am talking about swordsmanship from the early 1500s (and likely before). To deny this is the truth in terms of Bolognese is to show a complete lack of understanding of this system. It really is that clear in the sources. Note that I am not saying that counterattacks don't exist or that they are not used, but they are certainly not used anywhere near exclusively.
Steve
And if you want evidence, then this statement:
"...defending by Baroque-notions of parry and riposte is antithetical to the sources..."
Now I am unsure of whether or not the author is talking from the context of one particular system. If he is talking merely in terms of German Longsword, then I cannot argue that one way or another as that is not my specialty. However, defending by parry and riposte--for example, I parry an incoming Riverso in Guardia di Testa and then riposte with a Mandritto--absolutely is part of the Bolognese tradition (I just gave you an example). Period. We have literally multiple hundreds of plays in which this is demonstrated in clear Italian. Now I guess we can quibble over whether the Bolognese system is a renaissance system--but I am talking about swordsmanship from the early 1500s (and likely before). To deny this is the truth in terms of Bolognese is to show a complete lack of understanding of this system. It really is that clear in the sources. Note that I am not saying that counterattacks don't exist or that they are not used, but they are certainly not used anywhere near exclusively.
Steve
| Steven Reich wrote: |
| However, there is a lot of statements that basically say, "I know the right way, and no one else does." Sorry, I just can't agree with that. |
Steve
Then how are we to ever make any progress in re-creating the lost Medieval and Renaissance martial arts? To move forward someone has to stands up and says, "Hey, I got new interpretations, it invalidates what we have been doing, but it moves us forward" Is that not the foundation of science? In the article John Clements warning against "approved consensus". Where would the sciences be if they only had "approved consensus"? Do remember that Europe had a nice "approved consensus" about the shape of the Earth before 1492. We must question the everybody's work. Please note that the first interpretations that John Clements had to challenge was 20+ years of his own work!
All the best,
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | ||
Steve Then how are we to ever make any progress in re-creating the lost Medieval and Renaissance martial arts? To move forward someone has to stands up and says, "Hey, I got new interpretations, it invalidates what we have been doing, but it moves us forward" Is that not the foundation of science? In the article John Clements warning against "approved consensus". Where would the sciences be if they only had "approved consensus"? Do remember that Europe had a nice "approved consensus" about the shape of the Earth before 1492. We must question the everybody's work. Please note that the first interpretations that John Clements had to challenge was 20+ years of his own work! |
Well, it would be one thing to say the assertions in the article were unassailable, but I've already given an example from Bolognese to refute the note about parry-riposte. I suppose I might be misunderstanding what he is saying, in which case, I'm happy to listen to clarification, but if the point is what it sounds like in the article, then sorry, it is incorrect. The great majority of the actions of Bolognese swordsmanship are two tempo parry-riposte type of actions, as are a great many in other Italian sources of the 1500s. Note that I'm not saying that *all* of them are parry-riposte actions--clearly that is not the case.
Personally, by this stage in the game, I am wary of anyone who stands up and says, "I made a huge discovery that invalidates all the swordsmanship we've done so far." I highly doubt anyone is going to come up with anything that will do that for the Italian rapier. Nor do I see it happening for any of the systems of 1500s Italian swordsmanship, nor for Baroque sword (i.e. late 1600s Italian swordsmanship). Is there space for improvement or refined understanding? Yes, most definitely. But a complete revision? No.
That said, I'm more than willing to change my mind should I see anything that convinces me otherwise, for one can't improve if one can't correct one's mistakes.
Steve
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| To move forward someone has to stands up and says, "Hey, I got new interpretations, it invalidates what we have been doing, but it moves us forward" Is that not the foundation of science? |
Fair enough. Just don't be surprised when people don't buy into it. :)
I'm hoping that this article can be critiqued politely without turning this into a typical internet flame war. I'll start out saying that there are a number of points I completely agree with in the article. Nothing I'd consider revolutionary or new, but certainly worth writing down for others to see.
On a personal level, I hate reading anything where the author assumes he's the only one who's got the right of things and that everyone else is ignorant, and I also really hate the passive aggressive digs at unnamed practitioners. I also think the article suffers from being redundant: We get that he feels his figured it all out; he doesn't need to constantly repeat it over and over again. I also, personally, think John Clements needs to get out more and meet with the greater WMA community around the world, because he's really making a lot of assumptions about what these unnamed "others" are doing in ways that really haven't been true for a decade or more (i.e. back in the days when ARMA was called HACA, and was just as guilty of doing the same things he's calling out as everyone else was). More than that, I also just don't see the point of the article. It says, "I have the answer, everyone else is wrong, let me reiterate this a few dozen times", but doesn't actually get around to "revealing new perspectives", as the title of the article claims. It doesn't really reveal anything at all, quite frankly.
But even setting all that aside, that's not really what bugs me about the article. What bugs me is the fact that I feel John Clements, in this article and elsewhere, often makes some tall claims that are based on his own fancy, not on what the historical sources actually say. I wouldn't mind that at all if he were honest about that. Heck, if he were just writing an article about things that he feels are necessary to being a good martial artist, I wouldn't mind at all. He has some very good ideas. Instead, though, he's claiming that there are things in these historical manuscripts that in some cases is a misunderstanding of the sources... and sometimes worse: Completely made up.
I'm not claiming to have the answer myself. (Heck, I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to.) I've had interpretations that I thought were pretty rock solid, only to find evidence at a later date that proved me wrong. I'll likely have that happen again. But I'm also not telling everyone else that they're wrong while I have some glaring mistakes in what I'm saying.
Take for example this quote from the article:
| Quote: |
| that nearly every strike and defense should wind from a bind while hanging |
How can that be true for arts that don't really wind or don't rely on the hangers? John can't possibly be saying that Fabris, Fiore, Page, Angelo, Vadi, Giganti, Marozzo and a multitude of other historical masters, advocated that you nearly always wind? Even a cursory glance at any of these masters' works should show this to be completely false.
Steve above mentioned the parry-riposte fallacy. And that's two glaring errors in an article that barely even talks about technique. Elsewhere John has made claims about things that simply aren't found in the manuals. There are videos that ARMA has that, while martially sound and well executed, don't actually fit the texts of the manuscripts that they are supposedly showing.
Don't get me wrong: There are some great things ARMA has done, and anyone doing their best to promote these historical arts is doing a great service. But don't be surprised if a lot of people roll their eyes when reading some pretty tall claims, many of which seem very ignorant of the Historical European Martial Arts world.
Hello All,
I did the article but never came across any proof of a newly uncovered "Rosetta Stone" that unlocked swordplay other than JC's claim of being that stone.
Since you guys have totally rethought everything does that mean:
You now will touch swords edge to edge?
That people with a living history/ SCA/Renfaire/ past can join ARMA?
As for all actions must flow from winden... Even Johannes Lecküchner has " parry-riposte" action with the 15th century Messer in his tome.
Page? I've tried winding and failed against "Page", the 18th century swordplay does not flow the same way a the 15th century messer nor does the basket hilt lend itself well to the Lecküchner thumb grip .
Cheers,
David Teague
I did the article but never came across any proof of a newly uncovered "Rosetta Stone" that unlocked swordplay other than JC's claim of being that stone.
Since you guys have totally rethought everything does that mean:
You now will touch swords edge to edge?
That people with a living history/ SCA/Renfaire/ past can join ARMA?
As for all actions must flow from winden... Even Johannes Lecküchner has " parry-riposte" action with the 15th century Messer in his tome.
Page? I've tried winding and failed against "Page", the 18th century swordplay does not flow the same way a the 15th century messer nor does the basket hilt lend itself well to the Lecküchner thumb grip .
Cheers,
David Teague
| Steven Reich wrote: |
| Personally, by this stage in the game, I am wary of anyone who stands up and says, "I made a huge discovery that invalidates all the swordsmanship we've done so far."
... But a complete revision? No. |
But what if someone does make a hugh discovery that invalidates all of the previous work by others and himself? Should that person remain silent just because other people have a lot of effort and pride invested in their own work? Should the only interpretations presented be those that are popular and fit existing work? The true power of science is that it builds upon previous knowledge. However, sometimes new research will show that a large bodys of knowledge is invalid and has to be discarded, allowing science to take a fresh start. When something is fundamentally wrong in its core you can't build upon it enough to make it right at some point in the future. You have to rip it out and start over. That is what John Clements did with European longsword. John looked at the current body of knowledge on European longsword, including his own, and realized that it was fundamentally wrong.
Ask yourself this, when was the last time you saw a new interpretation of European longsword that really changed how people fight? The truth is, longsword interpretations have been fairly static and stale for the last several years. For example, the people who study Fiore are actually doing very little beyond what Bob Charron was doing in 2002. In the past year people found a new version of Fiore but I've yet to see any impact from it. Sand can be piled only so high. It's time to clear out the sand and lay solid foundation stones.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Having some experience in a scientific field myself, I think it's pretty safe to say that the only place you hear about the abandonment of entire bodies of knowledge in on TV. That is emotive language designed to grasp peoples attention to increase viewer numbers. There are no fresh starts, merely work building upon previous work.
The only time 'knowledge' is discarded is when it has been shown to be inaccurately obtained or fraudulent.
Similar to WMA, the real progress is made by building up evidence and not flights of fancy. There is ample evidence (as already briefly mentioned by others) as to the inaccuracy of that article, so it doesn't stand up to our own little peer review process.
Doing something different is not necessarily moving historical interpretations forward nor does it invalidate what other people are practicing, especially if what others are practicing is actually representative of the texts.
The only time 'knowledge' is discarded is when it has been shown to be inaccurately obtained or fraudulent.
Similar to WMA, the real progress is made by building up evidence and not flights of fancy. There is ample evidence (as already briefly mentioned by others) as to the inaccuracy of that article, so it doesn't stand up to our own little peer review process.
Doing something different is not necessarily moving historical interpretations forward nor does it invalidate what other people are practicing, especially if what others are practicing is actually representative of the texts.
I am not going to refer to any of the content of that article, as I am not familiar with the texts being interpreted or the practices being discused. I will, however, coment on the tone, which reminded me of promotional material distributed by cults and late night telemarketers. This is unfortunate because it distracts attention away from any merits the article and auther might (and probably does) have. If I was going to be cheekier, I might be inclined to ask what flavour the cool-aide was
I was particularly put off by this statement from near the end
"How does this new and different interpretation unlock so much? Asking this is a bit like asking someone to explain in an online essay how techniques of Brazilian jujutsu differs from the original parent version. It's something you have to experience first-hand through proper instruction and disciplined self-study..."
Just as an exercise I highlighted the "how techniques of Brazilian jujutsu differs from the original parent version" bit, hit controll-c, opened a new tab, pasted into a well known search engine and hit search. I found an online article that did a very good job of explaining, using only words, the diferences between Brazilian Jiujitsu and the parent forms. Take from that what you will.
I was particularly put off by this statement from near the end
"How does this new and different interpretation unlock so much? Asking this is a bit like asking someone to explain in an online essay how techniques of Brazilian jujutsu differs from the original parent version. It's something you have to experience first-hand through proper instruction and disciplined self-study..."
Just as an exercise I highlighted the "how techniques of Brazilian jujutsu differs from the original parent version" bit, hit controll-c, opened a new tab, pasted into a well known search engine and hit search. I found an online article that did a very good job of explaining, using only words, the diferences between Brazilian Jiujitsu and the parent forms. Take from that what you will.
Randall,
The main pitfall in your argumentation is that, being in Arma, you know the new interpretations at least partially. We don't since the present article gives little or no detail... And what little is there is already subject to criticism as pointed out by Steven and Bill.
For as long as there is no article, book or whatever giving technical details, referencing the sources, there is no revolution or evolution to discuss. The editorial content saying that everybody else is wrong has exactly zero scientific value. People here are not rejecting enlightenment has you seem to imply, they are expressing doubts about the possibility, without knowing what the enlightenment is. Doubts that are very reasonnable given what has been made public.
You said on the Arma forum that the next major article about footwork is meant to appear next week. If there is anything technical to be found in it, then the discussion will be meaningful.
Personnally I think it will be very difficult for it to make up for the bold claims...
Regards,
The main pitfall in your argumentation is that, being in Arma, you know the new interpretations at least partially. We don't since the present article gives little or no detail... And what little is there is already subject to criticism as pointed out by Steven and Bill.
For as long as there is no article, book or whatever giving technical details, referencing the sources, there is no revolution or evolution to discuss. The editorial content saying that everybody else is wrong has exactly zero scientific value. People here are not rejecting enlightenment has you seem to imply, they are expressing doubts about the possibility, without knowing what the enlightenment is. Doubts that are very reasonnable given what has been made public.
You said on the Arma forum that the next major article about footwork is meant to appear next week. If there is anything technical to be found in it, then the discussion will be meaningful.
Personnally I think it will be very difficult for it to make up for the bold claims...
Regards,
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| [...] That is what John Clements did with European longsword. John looked at the current body of knowledge on European longsword, including his own, and realized that it was fundamentally wrong. |
Ask yourself this, when was the last time you saw a new interpretation of European longsword that really changed how people fight? The truth is, longsword interpretations have been fairly static and stale for the last several years. For example, the people who study Fiore are actually doing very little beyond what Bob Charron was doing in 2002. In the past year people found a new version of Fiore but I've yet to see any impact from it. Sand can be piled only so high. It's time to clear out the sand and lay solid foundation stones.[/quote]
So is the article now limited only to Longsword? If so, then it is unclear. If not, then please address my points (regarding 1500s Italian swordsmanship), because what is stated in the article is clearly not what we find in the treatises of Marozzo, Manciolino, the Anonymous, etc. Remember, the article is specifically stating what Renaissance swordsmanship is, not just that the author has found/created an effective new way to wield swords.
BTW, the new version of Fiore isn't exactly night and day different from the other versions (which aren't all that different in content from each other); there are far more differences between the treatises of Dall'Agocchie and Marozzo.
Steve
| Steven Reich wrote: |
| So is the article now limited only to Longsword? If so, then it is unclear. If not, then please address my points (regarding 1500s Italian swordsmanship), because what is stated in the article is clearly not what we find in the treatises of Marozzo, Manciolino, the Anonymous, etc. Remember, the article is specifically stating what Renaissance swordsmanship is, not just that the author has found/created an effective new way to wield swords. |
Steve
You have mis-understood me. I can only speak of that which I have seen and I have seen John's new work only with longsword and short sword. How John's new work relates to the later rapier swordsmenship is something you will have to take up with him. The ARMA DFW has extended John's new work to sword & buckler with very good success, especially in regard to the I.33 manual. We came up with an interpretation of "Falling Under the Sword & Shield" that clearly matches the instructions of the I.33 author and actually results in one's sword falling under the sword and buckler of their adversary (http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23968). Aaron Pynenberg, the Deputy Director of ARMA, has also been applying this new understanding to the dagger and unarmed arts with great success.
| Quote: |
| BTW, the new version of Fiore isn't exactly night and day different from the other versions (which aren't all that different in content from each other); there are far more differences between the treatises of Dall'Agocchie and Marozzo. |
But my point still stands, in the last several years there has been nothing new in the study of Fiore. Likewise, there has been nothing new that has made a significant impact upon the study of the Germany masters of longword. Things have been stale and static for several years.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Nothing new in the study of arts which are hundreds of years old? Say it isn't so!
For what it's worth, on SFI there are discussions regarding translations and technique nuances all the time.
It's one thing to say things are 'stale', it's quite another to say what is actually 'wrong' with the arts that are being practiced.
This seems very much to me like the 'appeal to novelty' fallacy.
For what it's worth, on SFI there are discussions regarding translations and technique nuances all the time.
It's one thing to say things are 'stale', it's quite another to say what is actually 'wrong' with the arts that are being practiced.
This seems very much to me like the 'appeal to novelty' fallacy.
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| But my point still stands, in the last several years there has been nothing new in the study of Fiore. Likewise, there has been nothing new that has made a significant impact upon the study of the Germany masters of longword. Things have been stale and static for several years. |
And you know this how?
I don't remember meeting you at any of the events I've traveled to in the last 7 years. I don't remember having you in one of my Alaskan classes when we trashed our core and when back to the new basics after I had worked with somebody who had a better way of doing "things"
Heck, I just trashed the way we've been doing 4 main guards of the early German masters and we are in the process of relearning how to hold them them in a better way.
You in ARMA wall yourselves in, then claim we haven't changed in years... how on earth can you know what we've been up to?
| Christopher H wrote: |
| For what it's worth, on SFI there are discussions regarding translations and technique nuances all the time. |
I know fully well what is discussed on SFI. There has indeed been a number of good translation come out during the past few years. Yet, discussions were only about nuances? Is that not a warning signs? :wtf:
| Quote: |
| It's one thing to say things are 'stale', it's quite another to say what is actually 'wrong' with the arts that are being practiced. This seems very much to me like the 'appeal to novelty' fallacy. |
You are right, it is quite another thing to say that the existing ideas of how to fight with longswords is wrong. But that is just what John Clements has done, so he came up with better interpretations. There is a good book you should read titled "Who Moved My Cheese". In the study of European longsword the cheese has been moved. Many years ago the SCA, stage actors, and role players choose to stay where they were with what little cheese they had. That's ok, they all seem happy and enjoying themselves. On the other hand, many others moved to where the real cheese was located. Now you can choose to stay with what cheese you have or you can choose to move to better cheese. What you do is your business and not a concern to us. But a goal of ARMA is to educate the public and it will continue in its efforts.
| David Teague wrote: |
| You in ARMA wall yourselves in, then claim we haven't changed in years... how on earth can you know what we've been up to? |
David
ARMA does keep to itself but we are far from walled in. There were three active ARMA members, including myself, at the 2006 WMAW event. We read all publications, watch all public videos, and read all of the public forums. We have a very good idea of the current state of swordsmenship outside of ARMA. ;)
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
|
I know fully well what is discussed on SFI. There has indeed been a number of good translation come out during the past few years. Yet, discussions were only about nuances? ... You are right, it is quite another thing to say that the existing ideas of how to fight with longswords is wrong. But that is just what John Clements has done, so he came up with better interpretations. ... Many years ago the SCA, stage actors, and role players choose to stay where they were ... On the other hand, many others moved to where the real cheese was located. ARMA does keep to itself but we are far from walled in. There were three active ARMA members, including myself, at the 2006 WMAW event. We read all publications, watch all public videos, and read all of the public forums. We have a very good idea of the current state of swordsmenship outside of ARMA. ;) Ran Pleasant ARMA DFW |
Hi Randall
The process any serious martial artist goes through over time will include moments of enlightenment and periods of hard work getting something right or realizing it is wrong. I do not begrudge John such a moment of realization that he was off the track and has seen a better way. I fear that some of your comments above would preclude others from having the same ability and determination.
I have been involved with the growth of WMA from before John met Hank so long ago. I have done reenactment, stage combat, tournaments and practiced several different styles over the years. I have seen many of those who have spent a great deal of time and effort to transcribe, translate and practice the arts over that time evolve their understanding and improve their talents. I fear I would have to disagree with you that the longsword work from those who are striving to improve their interpretation and make it work as a system with core principles has been stagnant at all. In fact I would say it has been clipping along pretty aggressively. If anything we have a tendency to leap to a point we think is right to quickly with out it being pushed by others and the system to hold up.
As is shown clearly in the historical record there are going to be different views on the best way to sword fight at any given moment in time. That is the human way of doing something. In this case John has clearly felt he has new insight for himself. After reading the article I found nothing that indicated it would be different than what others I have been working with have been exploring and working through in their own work. The WMAW earlier this month in fact saw several interesting and valuable comments and interpretations that some found new and others saw as a better way of doing something. Did everyone agree? No. Humans don't work that way. But I can honestly say that I did not talk to one instructor who did not see something that they could use in bettering themselves. That is what is exciting about the community. Everyone there that I saw was working to better what they where doing.
I think the insular aspect is one attribute of ARMA's methodology that can sometimes hurt it. Just a short time ago the organization espouses that it had the best, only real system of historical western martial arts. Now it is all new. When an organization is dogmatic about its cannon it must discover new "truth" to change. This can put it in a difficult spot when it realizes they where not what they thought they were. This also makes it difficult to interact with a wider community in a positive way. The adherence to an "absolute truth" that is interpretation forces one to fit the world into true believers and them.
I look forward to seeing what John has found and see how it interacts with the texts and others interpretations. It sounds like it is along the lines of what several others have been working on. But until we see what he is coming up with I think it might be best to not assume it is earth changing as we have no details as yet. It may well be a great opportunity for ARMA to grow closer to the rest of the community if we can discuss and see the interpration.
Best
Craig
| Craig Johnson wrote: |
| I look forward to seeing what John has found and see how it interacts with the texts and others interpretations. It sounds like it is along the lines of what several others have been working on. |
Craig
I highly doubt others are doing what John Clements is doing. For example, later this week or next week John will post another article on the "Vagge Footwork". This footwork is described in the historical manuals and is clearly seen in everything from I.33 to some of the rapier manuals, yet everybody has totally missed it. Of course, we do expect some to say, "We been doing that for years" even though they can't explain it, haven't talked about it, and haven't written about it. The truth is nobody outside of ARMA and a few ex-members are using the "Vagge Footwork". Likewise with John's interpretation of the Krump, it looks nothing like what anyone is doing, plus it actually breaks Ochs.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | ||
David ARMA does keep to itself but we are far from walled in. There were three active ARMA members, including myself, at the 2006 WMAW event. We read all publications, watch all public videos, and read all of the public forums. We have a very good idea of the current state of swordsmenship outside of ARMA. ;) Ran Pleasant ARMA DFW |
I know that a few of you guys went to WMAW 06...
that was only 3 years ago.How many event have come and gone since??? In that time I've made 2 major core changes in what I teach with the early German masters and we have revised our Thomas Page at least once based off of ideas we picked up from others in the WMA by attending some of the very events you missed. .
Static, stale...ho hum. :confused: I don't think so.
As for following the written word on the internet, you can uncover more about somebody's current work one on one, swords in hand in just a few minutes than hours of bickering on a internet forum , so again I say:
Static, stale...ho hum. :confused: I don't think so.
It's not that I don't want to see what you guys have been working on, but it's those sweeping statements that you guys often make that allows any real material to be lost in the static. I reviewed the video of the unarmed takedowns that was linked to the article. Let me say this, JC and those in the vid are demo'ing at blinding speed. Much faster than my old ass can move in my mid 50's, but... I watched the striking mechanics and even though the attackers are moving fast... they bring their pommels up towards the top of their heads before presenting the blade in the strike, giving JC a opening to run under with his counter. I hope this striking mechanics is not part of your new system, just a safety artifact added to allow a safe demo at speed.
Cheers,
DT
Last edited by David Teague on Tue 29 Sep, 2009 2:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| Do remember that Europe had a nice "approved consensus" about the shape of the Earth before 1492. |
Yes, they they thought the Earth was a globe, just as we now know to be more or less true, unless you choose not to believe satelite images etc.
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| "Hey, I got new interpretations, it invalidates what we have been doing, but it moves us forward" Is that not the foundation of science? In the article John Clements warning against "approved consensus". Where would the sciences be if they only had "approved consensus"? Do remember that Europe had a nice "approved consensus" about the shape of the Earth before 1492. We must question the everybody's work. |
Hello Randall!
While it is true that new replaces old in scientific context, one must first approach the problem using the scientific method. This is where I believe that Mister Clements and the ARMA are failing.
As we are all in a way scientists, we should be very familiar to how scientific research is conducted. As we all know, we must do research, make connections, form hypotheses, and subject them to intensive testing. For something to invalidate the previous "approved consensus" as you so put it, it must be looked at rigorously, meaning studied over and over, in every possible context, evaluated by your peers, eliminating all possible variables. The main variable I believe Mister Clements is overlooking is his own bias. Simply because he believes he has stumbled onto something is not enough reason for everyone to take his word for it at the drop of a hat.
We must question everybody's work, as you said.
So Mister Clements has written an absolutely enthralling article, using all sorts of writing gimmicks and big, flashy words. The problem is that he hasn't told us anything. How are we, his peers supposed to evaluate his efforts, if he shrouds them in secrecy. Are we expected to drop to our knees and worship the herald of the new doctrine without hearing any of it first? This does not seem scientific.
Mister Clements has not provided us with facts, but with pomp. His article is full of flowery filler text with no useful information; He has gracefully and masterfully told us nothing. To make matters worse, the few "facts" present in the article have already been refuted by my colleagues in the posts above. All of this totaled leaves Mister Clements with little credibility to go on.
Until Mister Clements personally shows up at an event, or at the very least, writes an essay describing in detail his new findings for his peers to evaluate, we will have no choice to regard his findings as pseudoscience. At present, Mister Clements is essentially telling us the classic 2nd Grade line:
"Nah-Nah! I know something you don't know!"
We must question everybody's work, as you said.
Well then may I ask Mister Clements to present his work before his colleagues to to be evaluated? If Mister Clements has truly found a better interpretation of the Masters' works, he should not be shy, as if found to be correct, he would be praised and lauded. What has he to be afraid of? If he truly has found something that has eluded us for centuries, let him show it, so that we can apply a touchstone.
So I suppose I'm telling Mister Clements to put his money where his mouth is. I truly hope he has found out something wonderful. It would be great if we truly were about to enter a new age of enlightenment. I for one, am excited and looking forward to seeing the new interpretations.
Page 1 of 9
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum