Thread: Aikido vs....
View Single Post
Old 07-27-2005, 09:44 PM   #17
Location: Auckland
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 971
New Zealand
Re: Aikido vs....

Hey Jean, sorry I've only just come across this post so haven't responded sooner.
Jean de Rochefort wrote:
1)Logically speaking, if I recall correctly, this was an appeal to innapropriate authority...namely, yourself. You don't know what Aikido is or isn't.
Ummm....actually no it's not. Appeal to authority would involve stating that authority. You cannot just call something appeal to authority because someone makes a statement.
But if you want to move the discussion into the language of philosophy of logic that could actually make things easier, so lets run with that.

The point I was making was one of falsifiability. It is a generally held principal of logic and philosophy that if a statement is not falsifiable it has little epistimilogical value. Which is what's happening here.

Your claim seems to be based on two premises
1. you cannot make statements about what Aikido can or cannot do until you fully understand Aikido
2. no one fully understands Aikido.
None can make claims about what Aikido cannot do.

My contention is that your thesis is not falsifiable. In other words the end result is exactly the same as the counter claim - that there are things that aikido cannot do. By end result I mean, pure Aikidoka tend to be vulnerable in certain situations and against certain arts. I say it's because it has gaps, you say it's because no one knows how to do it.
This is what I mean when I say the claims are functionally equivalent. It doesn't matter if you are right in what you say because, in practical terms, it amounts to the same thing.

Or let me put it another way. As I get taken down and choked out by a BJJer it's of little comfort to me that Aikido has an answer for it it's just that no one knows what it is yet.


Regarding the last sentence (and the example that precedes it) "functionally," when you ask an "Aikido vs....." question, the ability of any practitioner (or all practitioners) isn't relevant. The question (Aikido vs...) is simplified..."how does the abstract and theoretical concepts as they are exercised in an ideal group of techniques within this art compare to that of the other?" See there? That's not the question,"20yr Aikido student vs. 2yr. BJJ student, etc.?"
I think this is getting to the heart of our disagreement. Let's keep it in philosophical terms. You are taking an a priori approach to what Aikido offers, I'm looking at it a posterori. In other words, you are arguing what you think it should be able to do in theory. I am saying that in practice this is what we observe and these are the lessons we garner from that.
In theory I can come up with any scenario I want. But fighting is something that needs to be tested. It's not something you can aproach from a purely a priori standpoint like say mathmatics. I can't sit at my desk and work out in theory what is possible to do in a fighting context and come up with an efficient martial art as a result. I've actually got to put the theory to the test.
So we come back to the original point. If 2 year practioners of BJJ can consistantly beat 20 year practioners of Aikido, that's something we should be interested in. Saying that in theory Aikido can win is not very interesting if in reality that's not what happens.

2)Next argument...

Ahhh, another example of my "flawed" reasoning. Well, I can't remember the name of this fallacy...but it's another fallacy.

I'll save both of us the time.
So it's a fallacy, but you can't remember which one and I should just take your word for it? Ummm thanks but no (paritcularly given your above track record in mis applying fallacy's)
3)Eh, if Ueshiba was saying that he was still learning Aikido before he died, who am I to argue? I just said that noone really knows it all.
I'm confused as to how that adrdresses my point that it is foolish to assume everyone who is pointing out Aikido has some gaps are dabbers?
In regard to the rest of the post, you may want to read the entire thread.
The rest of the post was throwing you a line, giving you a better way to argue that art vs art discussions shouldn't undermine Aikido than your approach of "Aikido only fails because no one knows how to do it".
I guess you can lead a horse to water...

"When your only tool is a hammer every problem starts to look like a nail"
  Reply With Quote