You are saying that the proof that it works is that the student pockets balls. That is like observing that the sun crosses the sky and using that as proof that the sun orbits around the earth. It is an easy mistake to make.
No, I am saying that Stan and others can demonstrate the usage and if the assumption is that they are telling the truth about about using the method then it proves FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES that the method is effective. A group of CTE players can communicate to each other the EXACT way to apply the method for any makeable shot. A group of Dan White jellybean method users will NOT have the same effectiveness in my opinion.
No. What I mean to say is what I said. Stan makes claims he cannot back up. I'd accept any form of proof that show you can do the exact same thing for two different angled shots and make both.
Then the answer is that the exact same "thing" is not being done for both shots OR there is a variable missing that is not being accounted for. OR the subconscious - using the EXACT SAME OBJECTIVE AND CONSCIOUS steps - is making some final "adjustment" that is COMPLETELY UNKNOWN to the user but which results in getting on the correct shot line consistently for both shots. Could be. And IF SO then the method works exactly as stated BECAUSE the most important criteria is getting to the shot line dependably. So if the OBJECTIVE steps are 1-2-3 and go to shooting position and you get on the shot line then "it works" is perfectly correct. Now, how WELL does it work? That's the key metric we are looking for. If I go to buy a tool and it only "works" half the time then I can discard the use of that tool is not reliable.
You can certainly CLAIM to use any method you can dream up but if it can't be reliably taught to others and reliably used by them to fulfill the goal of getting to the shot line then the effectiveness will not be attractive to those wishing to find methods of aim that produce consistently correct results.
I am speculating based on my knowledge of various aiming methods. IF everything is above board and we get beginners with no prior influence and we are reasonably sure they haven't learned any other methods of aim I am highly confident that your "jellybean" method fails and the CTE students will easily score higher.
Here's another test. Stan has some set up shots used to teach the method, right? I don't have the book but I'm guessing he has 15 degree and 30 degree, etc shots that will go if you perform the CTE steps. If you take two students and have one of them learn CTE and tell the other one to focus on making the ball and forget any CTE stuff, you would have interesting results with enough students participating. Mind you this still does not prove how CTE works but it might show that there is something about how shots are approached using CTE that does improve shot making.
Yeah that's a good idea. In fact I would love to take a lot of beginners and gather a ton of data on how they approach shots before they learn ANYTHING. Then teach them basic stroke structure and test again. Test with center ball first then teach them about sidespin but nothing about aiming or deflection and test again. Go through every possibility to isolate whatever can be learned.
Again, you are making an assumption.
Yes I am. Assumptions are the bedrock of science. Your assumption, based on your experience is that CTE cannot work as described. From an academic perspective that is a valid thing to assume. However you have not actually dissected the method or tested with all available means and so being a good scientist you should ALSO assume that perhaps you don't have all of the variables accounted for. I am positive that tests such as I have proposed would turn out closer to what I assume then closer to what you assume. Unless you want to participate in trying to test your mocking "jellybean method" against CTE in a controlled manner we simply can't really KNOW can we?
However I am pretty sure than no one reading this is confident enough that your group of beginners would outscore the CTE students to actually bet on the outcome. I am however willing to bet on the CTE students in such a contest.
Well, that's the question.
Yes it is. And so instead of worrying about whether there is a 2d diagram than you can be happy about the more important question is whether any given method is actually beneficial, as tested against some sort of benchmark performance, and whether it is practical.
It strikes me that you want it both ways. You say it cannot be diagrammed (probably because what Stan claims is impossible) but when it comes to recognizing shots they can be diagrammed. So maybe it can be partially diagrammed. That's the problem. When a guy makes a wild ass claim that defies known science he leaves the door open to silly arguments.
No, I said it HAS NOT been diagrammed to YOUR satisfaction. A ghost ball diagram is wrong UNLESS it INCLUDES some formula to determine the amount of conscious adjustment needed to make it work. Or with enough brute force one can force the mind to make those adjustments as a subconscious act and the mind will get to a point where it does pretty good with a range of shots, having trouble with some and no problem with others.
Yes, when people make claims that are not congruent with KNOWN science then arguments arise. However you are not a scientist studying the intersection between 2d plotting of ball positions in a constrained field and the 3d target acquisition methods used by the stereoscopic vision of a human. Therefore when you CLAIM that you can make all the shots using your jellybean method and you do make all the shots and attribute it to eating jellybeans then such a claim will cause argument. You can demonstrate great shotmaking and it could be enough to get people interested. And if those who try the method can't get better results than what they were doing they will ask for clarification or drop it.
IF however they were to get better results then it would be worth looking into to find out IF there is any discernible reason why jelly beans should help with shot making. If the results indicate no reason then it can be put down to unknown IF the results are consistent. For example placebos often work in pain reduction. It is unknown WHY they work. So all the researchers are left with is the FACT that they work to a certain degree when scientifically and chemically they should have zero effect. Scientists can speculate why with all sorts of guesses but without a SPECIFIC and clearly undeniable reason they can't really KNOW.
What they do know though is that if 100 patients are given placebos and asked about their pain levels then x-percentage of them are VERY LIKELY to report a reduction in pain levels. That is data on the EFFICACY. So when they have this and then they test drugs against the placebo benchmarks they can determine the efficacy of the drugs which they KNOW is causing a chemical reaction.
So observationally, if someone says I do xyz steps and get to the shot line BECAUSE of those steps then they are being truthful in their description. That person takes two different shots, applies the SAME steps and gets to the shot line. They are making a claim that they can back up demonstrably. Can this claim be reproduced by teaching others the same method? If yes then it has been proven for PRACTICAL purposes. The researcher has then verified that the method is TRANSFERABLE and for a certain percentage of users is of practical value. At that point one can feel confident that teaching the method IS beneficial to others WITHOUT needing to KNOW exactly how it works. The question of exactly HOW it works can be taken on by those interested in dissecting things. The question of DOES it work is the interesting one for those interested in finding good reliable methods to fulfil the task.