Re: Is aiki a clash of forces?
Okay, hold on a second folks.
One problem is that the moment someone says "it's just athletics" or "it's just physics" doesn't necessarily mean that it's somehow common or easy. It can still be a rare thing, something that requires extensive, specialized training, and something that is quite unusual today (my personal point of view having been on the mat multiple times with multiple people). In some meaning of the words of course it is "just" physics or athletics. I personally don't believe in magic and I doubt anyone here does. So we're going off on a tangent about "science" that is simply not relevant, at least IMHO.
The deeper and more focused question in this area is whether the existing models used within those disciplines are sufficient to explain the things we're discussing. I would guess that most who are in favor of the IP/IS thing aren't satisfied with most explanations of what's going on with this stuff when we try to discuss it on a more scientific basis. Which implies that we need a better model, better vocabulary, or maybe even a specialized vocabulary that doesn't carry all the baggage of many commonly used terms that have been used for such various things.
The other side of this coin, of course, are those who are trying to make this stuff fit the current models. If the models are insufficient to explain the phenomena then the models need adjustment, expansion or change. It generally does *not* mean tossing everything away -- the existing science can be perfectly good for many things but fail when it comes to something else. Relativity didn't replace Newtonian, Quantum Mechanics didn't replace Relativity.
The understanding of human movement is necessarily a complex thing. Not only do we have an extremely complex "machine" involved, we have one that is really hard to rip apart and study in little pieces (painful to say the least). Then we add a conscious agent who has intentional control over aspects of that machine and possible there are even levels of control that could be conditioned and enhanced. So it is a complex issue.
But I don't think the problem here is in any way resolved by saying "physics explains everything" or "physics fails here". Maybe better to say "current physical models explain aspects of this as such and such and here is why" or "current physical models fail to explain this particular event because of this and that".
Personally I think the current models are limiting discussion of this. Which is why it's easy to either wave it away or to say IHTBF. But neither extreme position is proven by the apparent lack of rigorous explanation. Just like there were things that drove Einstein to formulate his theories on Brownian motion I think there is something driving the movement towards IS/IP training.
Back to your regularly scheduled program...