Experience or science?

Which do you trust most?

  • Experience

    Votes: 134 72.0%

  • Science

    Votes: 52 28.0%
  • Total voters
    186
Bob Callahan

Bob Callahan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
People don't always agree about things on AZB, much less in the real world.

For example:

A seasoned pro might say, "You can get more spin with a little wrist flip." His proof is by showing you a shot. A science guy might say, "You don't need the wrist flip. The same thing can be done with a straight wrist." His proof is a bunch of diagrams and equations.

So...in general, who are you more likely to believe?
 
Last edited:
Bob Callahan said:
People don't always agree about things on AZB, much less the real world.

For example:

A seasoned pro might say, "You can get more spin with a little wrist flip." His proof is by showing you a shot. A science guy might say, "You don't need the wrist flip. The same thing can be done with a straight wrist." His proof is a bunch of diagrams and equations.

So...in general, who are you more likely to believe?
Click to expand...

In general, I trust experience more than "paper science" -- only because results speak for themselves, and the science guy might just be a "paper" guy who could be not going deep enough into many of the "sideline" physics that alter what the "paper" says.

However, Bob, your example above is a POOR one, because 1.) it's leveraging that particular pro's strength in spinning a ball, which happens to use a wrist flop (rather than comparing two pros with equal ability but different forearm/wrist strokes -- to see who gets better draw), and 2.) it's not an even-handed comparison *at all*. What I think you're trying to say, without saying the direct words, is that you don't trust science guys at all, and are using this "comparison" as sort of a straw man argument. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

-Sean
 
I would be likely to trust both within their respective fields of expertise: the pro on how to play (or rather, on how he/she plays) and the science guy on explaining what is happening / why something works or doesn't work.

Where it can all go wrong is where the person goes outside their expertise.

Good players and coaches often do this by coming up with 'explanations' for what they know that are suspect (or downright garbage). But that is not necessarily a reason to disregard their knowledge.

Equally the scientifically minded can come up with models that are good in the sense that they are a useful tool for understanding, but can be bad in the sense that they can be too simplistic to solve a 'human shaped' problem like playing pool.

Both are worth listening to.
 
Experience, by far! The science guys say CTE doesn't/can't work. My experience shows me that it can/does. Lots of things look good on paper but when it comes to actual execution don't work too well.
 
All said and done ignoring science is why wars are fought, people are killed for wearing a different hat, and non-conformers are beheaded (ie- religion). Sorry, I won't be sacrificing any goats to the sun god today.

Experience is individual. Science is universal. Understanding the science helps you down to the path to your experience and makes it repeatable. The "lucky socks" don't work.
 
It depends. There have been lots of theories that turned out to be false, usually from incorrect assumptions. One example that keeps coming up for pool is that "physics says" that the nose of the cushion ought to be at exactly 70% of the height of the cue ball. This has a grain of truth from physics -- if a cue stick strikes the cue ball at 70% of its height the cue ball will immediately start rolling without slipping. The pitifully wrong assumptions that go into this hypothesis are pretty obvious, but the major one is that a stick hitting a stationary ball is just like a rolling ball hitting a cushion. There is also the assumption that cushions don't deform much.

Of course a simple experiment shows immediately that this "Theory of 70%" for cushions is totally bogus and you get screwy angles and very poor rebound if you actually move the cushion to be that high. Most cushions are more like 62% of the height of the ball.

The problem with the "Wrist Flip Theory" is that unlike the "Theory of 70%" it is more or less impossible to test. About all you can be sure of is that the flipper believes strongly that this technique is valuable. Even if you point out all the champions that don't use it but still get amazing spin, the question remains: how much better would they spin the ball if only they could learn to flip their wrists?

On the other hand, top players have good sensitivity to how things should work and so can detect when things aren't going quite right. Their observations can be very useful for figuring out why the accepted theories are not complete or correct. For example, Joe Davis pointed out long before many accepted it that contact-induced throw was important to most shots. Joe saw the shots clearly enough that he could notice the effect. Some players still deny CIT, evidently because they can't observe as well as Joe even though Joe had only one working eye.

Given Joe's input, the open-minded physics guy (of the 1940s) would soon have had an experiment set up to measure the effect. And of course Joe was right. In that particular case it would be easy to conduct the experiment and to work out the theory which is pretty simple once you know about the observed phenomenon.

A really bright physics guy would have figured out the possibility of CIT without Joe's input and would have measured the relevant material property (ball-to-ball coefficient of friction) prior to any report from the field. He might even have found out during the experiment that the friction varies with the speed and force of the contact although simple theory says it's constant.
 
Pushout said:
Experience, by far! The science guys say CTE doesn't/can't work. My experience shows me that it can/does. Lots of things look good on paper but when it comes to actual execution don't work too well.
Click to expand...

Push:

I think the issue there is that the science guys haven't yet figured it out. That's the only issue. There's a variety of reasons for that, not the least of which is in-depth analysis, and mathematical explanation (and yes, I *do* believe there's significant math in it -- someone hasn't had the opportunity to explain it yet).

-Sean
 
Bob Callahan said:
People don't always agree about things on AZB, much less in the real world.

For example:

A seasoned pro might say, "You can get more spin with a little wrist flip." His proof is by showing you a shot. A science guy might say, "You don't need the wrist flip. The same thing can be done with a straight wrist." His proof is a bunch of diagrams and equations.

So...in general, who are you more likely to believe?
Click to expand...

I am more likely to believe whomever has the more rational argument and evidence to back up their claims. Often BOTH the pro and the science guy have failed to account for a lot of what is going on in the shot. There are a vast array of scientific explanations for things in billiards...nearly all of them ignore variables that would likely have an effect. For example, listen to the science of breaking, and hitting the ball harder. I have yet to hear any scientific explanation that didn't leave our accounting for variables that absolutely have a bearing on this.

SO...the Pro player has a *simpler* job of validating their claims. Also, if employing a particular technique (eg. the wrist flip) produces the desired result consistently and accurately, do I really need to care if science can shoot it full of holes?

In general, I glean information from wherever I can get it, and I test it myself for its effectiveness on *my game*. If I find a consistent and accurate benefit, I am likely to recommend that my teammates or friends *try* it out for themselves. If they also meet with the same success, I am more apt to file that concept away as "confirmed".

KMRUNOUT
 
Science of billiards is 300 years old and %100 accurate. The problem is the lack of a perfect stroke and aim, as a result every experience will be different...
 
Most guys really don't know (they THINK they do) how their shot works. They're able to deliver their cue tip to the precise point on the cue ball at the precise angle to make it do what they want. Some may say that a lateral swipe of the tip across the face of the cue ball is increasing the action, but it's more likely adding acceleration more efficiently (for them, anyway). Some guys will say that they "dig" the cue ball (swooping the butt downward) to create more draw, but believing they are doing something that a level, accelerating stroke below the equator of the cue ball can't do...and they're wrong. They're delivering a level, accelerating cue at the point of contact, but just got comfortable doing it with a swooping, buggy-whip wrist action. The science is right, but so are the strong players that do it their way. It's just in how you describe what is really happening that's different.
 
Cue sports is a sport that requires sustained solitary performance. There has yet to be a completely effective and all-encompassing "pertubation theory" (CTE, GB, contact points, whatever) that teachers can consciously lecture to their students. The best that teachers can do is explain their own learning process, and perhaps also repeat the learning processes explained to them by other teachers.

One can't teach subconscious micro-thoughts, muscle memory, and mental connections to perspective.

Therefore, any experiment that depends on any element of human-induced variance is questionable.

However, all pertubation theories are similar and boil down to one thing:

"The resulting impact vector upon the face of the cueball"

But, how does someone make a sensor that measures this? Well, you can open up a cue ball and inject a 3-axis accelerometer... but now you need to make sure you restore the moment of inertia and weight back to the original parameters. How do you power it? How do you measure the signals coming from the accelerometer? Maybe Bluetooth, but now you have a larger board to deal with. Maybe instead you can use lasers to measure the ball, or a three dimensional camera, or an array of cameras with customized DSP software. Is all this work even worth doing for a sporting industry that isn't very popular? Golf sure has enough money to do this type of analysis and make a profit, but do we?

Precisely performing an emperical measurement on the impact vector of a cue ball is a complex problem to solve. But if it were done properly, I am confident that all of the proven "aiming systems" will have the exact same measured impact vectors for the same shots.

And the ONLY way to consistently produce the same impact vectors, as a human being, is through practice and experience.

So in conclusion:

Can you directly apply complex math from your head to pool. No.
Is flicking your wrist a different mental concept than pivoting? Yes.
Is there any physical difference between the end results? No.
 
West Point 1987 said:
Most guys really don't know (they THINK they do) how their shot works. They're able to deliver their cue tip to the precise point on the cue ball at the precise angle to make it do what they want. Some may say that a lateral swipe of the tip across the face of the cue ball is increasing the action, but it's more likely adding acceleration more efficiently (for them, anyway). Some guys will say that they "dig" the cue ball (swooping the butt downward) to create more draw, but believing they are doing something that a level, accelerating stroke below the equator of the cue ball can't do...and they're wrong. They're delivering a level, accelerating cue at the point of contact, but just got comfortable doing it with a swooping, buggy-whip wrist action. The science is right, but so are the strong players that do it their way. It's just in how you describe what is really happening that's different.
Click to expand...


This is right. I suppose I said the same thing a different way.
 
One of the things we say in the sciences (yeah I am a science guy) is that part of the problem is finding the best question. I think you have asked the wrong question.

Science is a method, not an answer. The beauty of the method is in its empirical contribution to possible answers. Someone proposes a hypothesis and you can test it for yourself. So it is not a matter of believing anyone. It is a matter of which hypothesis do you want to test.

Those who say this or that is the right way are not committed to the scientific method where it is more important to understand that every statement is tentative and that when the statement is “supported” the support is only as good as the next test or until some one can come up with a better question and or a better way to assess the usefulness of the findings.

Those who truly subscribe to the scientific method do not ask you to believe, they suggest an idea to test.

Unfortunately for those who do not understand the sciences well we have our own ways of proceeding that can appear confusing. We begin with a statement of putative fact to be tested. Those who are not trained in the sciences may see such a statement (hypothesis) as a statement of fact. Over the years we have learned that you should state something as clearly as possible to make the statement amenable to testing.

So it is not a matter of who do you trust; It is a matter of whether you think the scientific method is of use.

I find it frustrating here on the board, among other places, that people often argue about whom to believe when we would all be better off is these same people would conduct their own studies and tell us what they found. But that would be the mark of a scientist wouldn’t it. Scientists do not respect anything or anyone except for the facts and logic. Testimonials are basically useless to the scientist except as food for thought and the construction of yet another hypothesis. Unfortunately, most people would prefer to believe an actor who played a prosecutor that some way of investing their hard earned money is indeed the best way – how foolish we can all be.

Some of us listen to the conversations and then try to find a way to test the implied hypothesis.

Science is a method not an answer. Perhaps you have noticed in the last few months that some people are currently challenging the idea that the speed of light is a constant that cannot be exceeded. The speed of light as a constant is a hypothesis that is always subject to further testing. What does that imply about science and all things related to playing pool.
 
Last edited:
BTW the poll is of little use. Scientific conclusions are based on experience. Without experience (observations relative to the idea under consideration) there are no scientific conclusions of merit. If you "believe" that experience is the better path to knowledge then you subscribe to one of the scientific method's fundamental perspectives.

Perhaps more succinctly stated is the idea that the scientific method is one of several ways in which we organize our experience.

There are other ways to organize experience. Science as a method is well suited to real world observations – things you can actually see and touch.

The method is useful in other areas for finding the best questions to ask.

We can use the experience of others (scientific observation, analysis, and conclusions) to construct our own hypotheses, tests and thus organize our own experience. In the history of our civilization this has been found to be one of the most powerful tools that has made truly fantastic contributions to the way we live.

Unfortunately far too many people who are not trained in the science try to use the scientific method’s terminology and phraseology as a bludgeon because it is such a powerful tool.

One of the keys to use to identify those who speak from the scientific perspective is recognize that they will not tell you that they “know” something. They will tell you how they arrived at their tentative conclusion and how you too could test the idea.

I think it is unfortunate that many (most?) people are looking for answers that are simple and require little thought or action on their part. They choose to "believe" that something is true becasue some putative authority says it is so. Thus in their rush to resolve an issue they attrubte the source of their belief to some "science guy" who never said that. He only said, "current research leads to the conclusions that ..."

And then there are those who, knowing little about the scientific method, attempt to use it as the final answer to some problem and thus speak in the name of science when they have no real knowledge about how the game is played.
 
Last edited:
As Isaac Asimov said, "I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."

Basically, I'm a science guy. If someone can show me something works, but has no clue as to why it works then if it is interesting enough I'd want to figure out why it works -- but that is science too.
 
Bob Jewett said:
He might even have found out during the experiment that the friction varies with the speed and force of the contact although simple theory says it's constant.
Click to expand...

Is it actually the friction between materials that changes with speed!? I wouldn't think it's constant, but intuitively I would think the effects would be negligible.

Is it not ball deformation and contact time that impart greater changes?

I know you've done a great deal of research in this subject, I wonder if you could explain further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top