Rob Watson

As a self-proclaimed scientist I find myself puzzled and confused by this thread. I think that is a good state to be in because it requires me to rethink my understanding of things and this is exactly the point of this thread. O'Sensei was a voracious reader (based on what little I've read about his life) and was certainly looking for something - must be because the answers commonly accepted were found not to be acceptable. Perhaps I'm assuming too much about his intent ...

George Ledyard always has something thought provoking to say and since I really like his approach to aikido so I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. This is certainly a completely unscientific approach or attitude on the face but really it is not. If science has no reasonable solution for a subject then one must draw inspiration from other sources to stimulate further research. Even a cursory study of the history of science will reveal a great many fellows (great scientists) doing quite odd things for inspiration.

What you will find as a common theme is all scientists must believe there is a rational explanation and try to find it - otherwise there is no point to the scientific method. The other thing you will find is science is replete with partial solutions that were proved, not wrong, but incomplete (Newtons law of gravity versus Einstien). It is an ongoing process of discovery - kind of like martial arts practice. If the practitioner constantly asks how does this work, how can it be better and how best can this be transmitted to future generations there will be great progress. If the practitioner simply takes what is given and does it over and over again then there is no progress.

I consider my grasp of gravity to be pretty good. I can even explain it in such a way that others can very quickly reach my level of understanding. This level of understanding does not really give me much control over gravity! I find this to be a very interesting lesson - even a total and complete knowledge of phenomena does not beget control of it. It does however give me a great tool for working with the phenomena. At sometimes the application of such knowledge seems magical - unless the observer is similarly informed in which case a knowing nod and possibly a smile are the result.

Another thing one will find in the study of science is the use of memory tricks to aid in learning. Only a silly person would make the leap that the memory trick is the secret - the trick helps remember the way to the secret. Much the same is found in Mr. Ledyard's posts - maybe not the scientific explanation but the ability to work around the phenomena. Much like knowing the theory does not really help in the application. Here is a perfect example: E=mc squared is the theory but that does not help much in building a fusion reactor. The guy operating the main switch at the reactor plant what lets the electricity flow from the reactor out onto the power grid may not know anything about the theory but he can work that switch like nobody's business - probably can even teach others how to do it too. Consider O'Sensei as the guy at the switch not knowing the theory trying to explain the ins and outs of the power unleashed. His students ask "how?" and he says 'look, I flip this switch' and nobody gets it. Or, even worse he says 'E=mc squared' and still nobody gets it.

It is a two way street: knowing the theory put not the application is not too helpful. Knowing the application but not the theory is no better. The two need to meet and the result will be a more effective way of transmission as well as a better ability to wield the tools in novel ways.

I like to put it this way. There are martial sciences and there are martial arts. I would certainly like the emphasis on moving the arts into the sciences. As our understanding grows so does our ability to remove the unknown aspects (the arts) into the known (the science). I very much lean towards solving the mystery but then again life without mystery is pretty danged dull.

Thanks