Incomplete != wrong. Iterated, cumulative approximations are the foundation of learning and understanding anything, including human kinematics, aikido and IP. Basic models may not explain everything all at once, but they do describe portions of phenomena sufficiently to make confident, reliable conclusions and predictions. And, most importantly, the models themselves suggest improvements for creating future models that are more accurate, capture more reality, and lead to even better desciptions and predictions.
What will happen, what will the physics denier say, when someone does bother to do a broad and deep study of an IP practitioner's movement, and what the practitioner is doing is explained by biomechanics? There seems to be a strong need in some folk to keep very special what they do vs what other people do.
The moment the word "force" was first introduced into this conversation, physics stuck its head into the room. If we all train for different reasons and that's ok, we all also should have the freedom to understand and discuss what we do in different ways. Physics is an excellent framework for discussing movement in the real world. It absolutely belongs in this discussion.
Any change that you are related to the English philosopher John Locke ? Your argumentation is quite the same!
And I agree - although not an engineer or physicist myself, I would love to see the biomechanics of Aikido, T'ai chi chuan, and the IP/IS exercises explained through biomechanics.
It would certainly help demystify some of the things that come up repeatedly in discussions like this.