"Science" an Improper Term? - Pocket Billiards is Knowledge, Physics and Geometry

CJ Wiley said:
That sounds like someone on a bumper pool forum. ;) I'm going to get my "scientific" telescope and see if I can spot them.......there they are. LoL
Click to expand...

Lay off the TOI drugs for a short second and read through this thread again. Specifically the responses of everyone else.
 
HelloBaby- said:
It's always good to have something to discuss on an open forum. But this seems go a little bit too far...:rolleyes:
Come on man, are you serious ? :scratchhead:
Click to expand...

Would you rather discuss what color chalk someone should use?

Physics(Science) vs 'Feel' or Pool Knowledge would seem to be a very valid topic given the wide array of player types here on AZB.

At least IMHO.
 
Ok you don't like the word science. John has another thread asking if players want to know the science of pool or shoot top speed. Are you countering with would you rather know the physics, geometry and knowledge (not sure what that covers) of pool or shoot top speed? I think to play at top speed you need a basic understanding of everything.
 
Let me tell you why. Because CJ's statement is invalid. Pool is not knowledge, physics, or geometry.; pool has its own definition. Science can not be compared to knowledge because they are 2 different concepts. Knowledge is basically everything one's know about, whether it's true or false, proven or unproven. Science is a method in an effort to test, explain, expand... these knowledge.
What you said about "feel" has its own science. Start with some questions, how, why, and you begin to use science to explain why or how that works.
For example, someone claims that he gets down to the shot and feel the angle. Scientists can explain that because he shot that shot so many times that his brain, eye, hands, body remember the position, the angle,etc and the message "this is the right angle" pop up when then guy in that exact condition.
So the question is whether somebody care or not care why or how one shot works.
More valid statements can be : the science of pool, which can be define as the study of all factors that affect the game, and the explaination why and how pool shots work and what affect the outcome of a shot.
I think I should stop here, hope you get the idea. It always sound nice when using these terms, but be careful :)
 
HelloBaby- said:
Let me tell you why. Because CJ's statement is invalid. Pool is not knowledge, physics, or geometry.; pool has its own definition. Science can not be compared to knowledge because they are 2 different concepts. Knowledge is basically everything one's know about, whether it's true or false, proven or unproven. Science is a method in an effort to test, explain, expand... these knowledge.
What you said about "feel" has its own science. Start with some questions, how, why, and you begin to use science to explain why or how that works.
For example, someone claims that he gets down to the shot and feel the angle. Scientists can explain that because he shot that shot so many times that his brain, eye, hands, body remember the position, the angle,etc and the message "this is the right angle" pop up when then guy in that exact condition.
So the question is whether somebody care or not care why or how one shot works.
More valid statements can be : the science of pool, which can be define as the study of all factors that affect the game, and the explaination why and how pool shots work and what affect the outcome of a shot.
I think I should stop here, hope you get the idea. It always sound nice when using these terms, but be careful :)
Click to expand...

I hear you. So...don't you agree that this would be a more interesting topic than 'what color chalk should I use'. I think that is a bit too far.

Also I think one of the points that CJ is trying to make (in his own 'let them discover it manner) is that there has not been enough scientific study of the game & how it is played for 'science' to make some of the 'definitive' statements that have been made in science's name. Players have knowledge based on experience & 'science' will say 'no that is not correct' BUT 'science' may have isolated the issue & left out certain other parameters that when taken in total make the players knowledge valid.

There's no need for anything further. I just thought your comment about this subject going too far was a bit odd given what is usually discussed in the main.

Best 2 Ya & Shoot Well,
Rick
 
"Science" an Improper Term? - Pocket Billiards is Knowledge, Physics and Geom...

You are the one who brought up what is interesting or not and the chalk color example. Reread my comments. My point in the 1st comment is " come on, compare science to knowledge, physic, geometry. Do you know what you are talking about". I understand what CJ wanted to say, but be careful with the use of those words. Don't make things more confusing and complicated.
 
Last edited:
CJ, are you looking to be the pope and holder of the pool knowledge? LOL

Knowledge is what science brings to us. Before "knowledge" we had the sun going around the earth, people killed because a volcano was going to erupt or the sun went away mid-day (eclipse), and it's sad that so much knowledge has not filtered into some of the darker areas of the planet thanks to those that let mystics put forth facts to them instead of science.

Bring forth your virgins to me and I shall anoint thee at the holy water of the 9 ball run out! Just don't look at the microscopes and telescopes to see anything different and you will all be saved!
 
Depends on how good the teacher is. I have had teachers that could put anything in laymen's terms and make the light bulb go on.

Others that I would have to wonder if they could order a pizza without getting themselves into a world of trouble.
 
Truth is a term for absolutes...

PoolBum said:
I don't think you can have knowledge without truth.
Click to expand...

Truth is a term for absolutes... Scientific knowledge historically has never been currently accurate and is always being tweaked, hence it is not an absolute, it is knowledge but not truth.

Jaden
 
I don't think you can have knowledge without truth.
Click to expand...

Not really, cause you can have the knowledge to know the difference between what is True and what is Not.

But that would be using Simple Logic.
 
but then...

Blue Hog ridr said:
Not really, cause you can have the knowledge to know the difference between what is True and what is Not.

But that would be using Simple Logic.
Click to expand...

But then you end up falling back on the only absolute, the knowledge of your own consciousness.

Since all things can be a construct of your consciousness, that is the only knowledge that can be known with certainty.

But now we're getting off topic.

Jaden

son of a *****, I'm a thread derailer... Well this is a GI Joe moment. Now I know and knowing is half the battle.
 
Jaden said:
Truth is a term for absolutes... Scientific knowledge historically has never been currently accurate and is always being tweaked, hence it is not an absolute, it is knowledge but not truth.

Jaden
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "absolute."

What we have thought we have known scientifically in the past has turned out to be false. Once we find out a belief is false we don't believe it anymore (i.e., we don't think it's true anymore), and thus we don't think we know it anymore.
 
Blue Hog ridr said:
Not really, cause you can have the knowledge to know the difference between what is True and what is Not.

But that would be using Simple Logic.
Click to expand...

How is "knowing the difference between what is true and what is false" any different from knowing what is true and knowing what is false?

If by "simple logic" you mean the truths of logic, those are things that also have to be true in order for us to know them. So, the law of non-contradiction is a law of logic, which says that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time. But if we know that law then that law has to be true.

Or, by "simple logic" you could mean logically true statements. So, here is a logically true statement:

"Either two plus two equals four or two plus two does not equal four."

If we know that statement, then that statement has to be true, so I claim.
 
PoolBum said:
How is "knowing the difference between what is true and what is false" any different from knowing what is true and knowing what is false?

If by "simple logic" you mean the truths of logic, those are things that also have to be true in order for us to know them. So, the law of non-contradiction is a law of logic, which says that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time. But if we know that law then that law has to be true.

Or, by "simple logic" you could mean logically true statements. So, here is a logically true statement:

"Either two plus two equals four or two plus two does not equal four."

If we know that statement, then that statement has to be true, so I claim.
Click to expand...
You could say someone died from Aids , but the actual cause of death could be heart failure so true but false
1
 
Every shot requires physics, geometry, decision making, knowledge and touch

You do develop a knowledge of physics, geometry and phycology by playing pool competitively.

However, I agree with John Brumback, when we played that big match in Kentucky we both had a vast, subconscious, understanding, and wasn't aware of it, we just played the game as well as possible.

Every shot requires physics, geometry, decision making, knowledge and touch (etc.).....grouping these into a group called "science," would be a broad stretch.

The decision making element of the process is crucial.

jburkm002 said:
Ok you don't like the word science. John has another thread asking if players want to know the science of pool or shoot top speed. Are you countering with would you rather know the physics, geometry and knowledge (not sure what that covers) of pool or shoot top speed? I think to play at top speed you need a basic understanding of everything.
Click to expand...
 
Proper "forum etiquette"

ENGLISH! said:
truth
tro͞oTH/Submit
noun
the quality or state of being true.
"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"
synonyms: veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candor, honesty; More
antonyms: dishonesty, falseness
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
noun: the truth
"tell me the truth"
synonyms: what actually happened, the case, so; More
a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
plural noun: truths
"the emergence of scientific truths"
synonyms: fact, verity, certainty, certitude; More

knowl·edge
ˈnäləj/
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More
antonyms: ignorance, illiteracy
what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.
"the transmission of knowledge"
PHILOSOPHY
true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the program had been developed without his knowledge"
synonyms: awareness, consciousness, realization, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation; formalcognizance
"he slipped away without my knowledge"

Hence one can have truthful knowledge

or

One can have false knowledge.

Then there is

wis·dom
ˈwizdəm/Submit
noun
the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment; the quality of being wise.
synonyms: sagacity, intelligence, sense, common sense, shrewdness, astuteness, smartness, judiciousness, judgment, prudence, circumspection; More
antonyms: folly, stupidity
the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment.
Click to expand...

It's probably not proper "forum etiquette" to post copied material without referencing the link, or encoding it visibly.

AtLarge told me this long ago, and I try to do it every time. If not it appears that you wrote what you're posting.
 
DAVE_M said:
Lay off the TOI drugs for a short second and read through this thread again. Specifically the responses of everyone else.
Click to expand...

Hey, that most think the term "science" is fine won't dissuade the man. He has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous .... and for no good reason ... other than for the purpose of posting again and again and again .... IMO.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top