In the discussion about what constitutes science and what doesn't, we read this:
......
When looking at people playing golf, I saw that some were good players and others were hacks (like me). After spending many hours watching golf live and on TV, I saw that all golfers had something in common. Once I saw it, it became so obvious what it was. If one looks for it, you can't miss it.
The one common thing I saw was that the good players had a certain element in their swing that the hacks didn't. From this simple observation I concluded that this part of the swing was the most important aspect in being a good, par-breaking golfer. This swing method is based on this observable fact, and if hacks could learn it, they would become much better golfers.
The next thing was to test my idea by teaching it to some golfers to see if it worked. It did, and a few people were very happy about improving their game so much.
I then documented and video'd this swing element and how to teach it, and sent it to Golf Digest. The editors were very impressed and published my article and linked the videos from their website. Their expert columnists agreed that it was a good article to publish, and a good discovery about improving people's golf. After publishing, the letters started pouring in, and although some were a bit critical of my teaching methods, the results overall were excellent.
I was now a Golfologist.
......
After observing and collecting data, you form a hypothesis that fits the available facts.Read on to see how I become a Golfologist...(with apologies to David Berlinski, pg 56 - The Devil's Delusion)
Then you come up with experiments, or you propose other ways of confirming the hypothesis with data currently not available.
Once the hypothesis has been shown to predict outcomes or new evidence, it becomes a theory. Then you write a scientific paper documenting the evidence and making your best argument according to the scientific method.
Then you submit the paper for publication and peer review. Skeptics will pick it apart, but if there is real substance, some legitimate scientists will adopt the theory.
......
When looking at people playing golf, I saw that some were good players and others were hacks (like me). After spending many hours watching golf live and on TV, I saw that all golfers had something in common. Once I saw it, it became so obvious what it was. If one looks for it, you can't miss it.
The one common thing I saw was that the good players had a certain element in their swing that the hacks didn't. From this simple observation I concluded that this part of the swing was the most important aspect in being a good, par-breaking golfer. This swing method is based on this observable fact, and if hacks could learn it, they would become much better golfers.
The next thing was to test my idea by teaching it to some golfers to see if it worked. It did, and a few people were very happy about improving their game so much.
I then documented and video'd this swing element and how to teach it, and sent it to Golf Digest. The editors were very impressed and published my article and linked the videos from their website. Their expert columnists agreed that it was a good article to publish, and a good discovery about improving people's golf. After publishing, the letters started pouring in, and although some were a bit critical of my teaching methods, the results overall were excellent.
I was now a Golfologist.
......
Comments
Post a Comment