Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
Bogus. You aren't putting the movement of aikido into a rigorous biomechanical framework. This is because doing that would require you to conduct instrumented testing to objectively verify your conclusions. You haven't done that. What you have is narrative.
|
Bogus back. The mechanisms are well-documented. The application is not well-described. That is a narrative task. What we have are simply competing narratives. But they really are NOT in competition.
Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
You are using the tools of legal analysis, i.e. hermeneutics. This is standard first year legal reasoning, which is entirely appropriate in court. It does not analyze motion. |
Uh. No. What law school did you go to? In Louisiana maybe -- civil law uses a hermeneutic method because there is only the text to consider. Legal reasoning according to the common law method of cases goes like this. "In such and so case, such and so court decided that X is like Y in Z setting. Such and so court is binding/persuasive authority, and this case is the same as/analogous to X and/or Y and/or Z so the decision here must/should be the same or similar." THAT is legal reasoning. Stacking Analogies. I am doing nothing of the kind -- I am not talking in analogy -- and there is no text.
Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
Likewise, one should not use hermeneutics to analyze motion.
|
... Or a counter-hermeneutic to a physical problem ...