Experience or science?

[Siz]

If you mean Pat Johnson, I think he's on hiatus.

I have not checked back on his posts , but I think that you are doing PJ a disservice. As I recall, PJ was happy to acknowledge that CTE can work (ie it can help a player using it); but I think that Patrick would contend that many of the claims that it's proponents make of it are factually wrong.

 

[cookie man]

I have not checked back on his posts , but I think that you are doing PJ a disservice. As I recall, PJ was happy to acknowledge that CTE can work (ie it can help a player using it); but I think that Patrick would contend that many of the claims that it's proponents make of it are factually wrong.

PJ basically said cte works as an illusion, as do most of the science guys. They never really admit it works as a system.

 

[rrick33]

Science or experience

Did anyone think to correlate skill levels associated with those who selected experience as opposed to science?

I'd be curious how that poll might turn out.

 

[ShootingArts]

what works and why it works

Old players and experience tell us what works. The scientific method is often able to tell us why something works. Even when the people explaining things by the scientific method are wrong the explanation sounds far more impressive!

When we can reduce things to one variable or several known variables where we know their values relative to each other the scientific method has great value. When we are seeking a solution with many unknown variables scientific method has little value. Quite often in pool we are in the second position, trying to address very complex processes with simple solutions to how they work.

I used to enjoy stringing together a great long train of absolute facts to get a totally ridiculous result. A to B couldn't be disputed, B to C couldn't be disputed, C to D was unquestionable too as was D to E. However going from A to E was totally ridiculous. Sometimes it seems like there is a lot of that going on either on one side of a pool discussion or both. The other thing is artificially simplifying matters by throwing out most of the variables and then reaching very questionable conclusions. Either method can be equally wrong! The printed page has presented 2D solutions for a 3D world for generations. The solutions are great in 2D, often false in 3D. Thing is we are living in a 3D world, . . . maybe.

While on a roll about the scientific method and scientists, some have now decided that everything sucked into a black hole leaves a 2D representation of the object on the surface of the black hole and everything, the entire universe including ourselves, may be merely a 2D representation of 3D objects on the surface of a huge black hole. This takes care of some glaring issues with current physics. It may become "scientific fact" over time.

How can we possibly be skeptical of scientific theory presented in a scientific manner???

Hu

 

[Pushout]

Normally I would inquire further because I think you are quite wrong in your original statement, but considering this is not a CTE thread and I don't think anybody wants it to become one, I will leave it alone for now.

edit: On topic, I trust both. Science can be used to solve anything provided you go in far enough detail. In real life though, there is much room in between what is physically possible on the pool table and what is currently scientifically explainable (the biggest gap I believe is in the area of stroke and body mechanics). A lot of that gap is due to pool being a human game, we cannot execute perfectly every time, therefore we cannot get a perfectly scientific solution for everything that happens. If we could pool would not be interesting at all.

If someone shows me something that works, but I can't figure out why it works, I will use it anyways because I want the best possible advantage in a match.

I'm not wrong, not by a damn site! That was the thing that bothered me about the guys who said it wouldn't work. If you couldn't show them why it worked, they refused to agree that it would/could. I can understand saying something doesn't work for you, personally but to sneer at the whole process and say it can't work because I can't show you how it works on paper when I've been using it successfully for three years is crap.
I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, though.
As for PJ, he put down anything and everything that came from Hal Houle for years on the usenet newsgroup rec.sport.billiard.

 

[Masayoshi]

I'm not wrong, not by a damn site! That was the thing that bothered me about the guys who said it wouldn't work. If you couldn't show them why it worked, they refused to agree that it would/could. I can understand saying something doesn't work for you, personally but to sneer at the whole process and say it can't work because I can't show you how it works on paper when I've been using it successfully for three years is crap.
I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, though.
As for PJ, he put down anything and everything that came from Hal Houle for years on the usenet newsgroup rec.sport.billiard.

Okay, here's where you are wrong. Nobody said it doesn't work, it does for some people. PJ, Dr. Dave, Lou Figueroa, Roger Long, basically the main posters in any CTE discussion against CTE will not contest this. The main discussion was whether or not it was a geometrically continuous system like ghost ball, which it is not. It works for other reasons just like how fractional ball systems also work, not because they are perfect, but because they are close enough.

A secondary discussion was the less than discrete methods of marketing used by the pro-CTE camp. Of course, that is outside of the science part of this topic.

 

[JoeW]

The advantage to using science versus individual (or group) testimonials is the idea that you can make your point much more effectively with science. Let’s say that someone says:

Hypothesis: The player makes more balls using the butt end of the cue.

Find 10 people willing to participate in your study who have not used the butt end of the cue and who have not played much pool in the past.

Teach five of them to use the front end.
Teach five to use the butt end.

Set up a series of shots that range from easy to difficult and determine the average number of shots the people in each group make.

There are tables that can be used to determine if the difference in averages between group one and group two are large enough to make a difference worth talking about.

Present your findings to others with your conclusions.

This type of “experience” is much more persuasive than individual testimonials as it contains controlled real world experience.

There will be criticisms such as the idea that you may have spent more time or placed more effort on the group that favored your hypothesis. So we need further studies by other people with larger groups of people in which we address all of the criticisms.

Eventually, based on all of the studies and experiences a general consensus is arrived at by many of the people who read and study; Using the butt end of the cue is or is not worth while.

This way of approaching the topic is more fruitful, more quickly than endless years of arguing that, “mine is better than yours.”

Of course if you want to say, “well it is more complicated than that,” we will want to know what you mean by complicated and exactly what the other variables are that lead to this “better” pocketing so that we can do the next study that uses the things that you think are important.

Some people will say, “I can’t tell you exactly what it is.” And of course we have to reply that you don’t know what your talking about because you can’t tell us how to get the necessary experience to test your idea. This tends to make the believer angry and they say, “Just trust me, it works.” The scientist only trusts or believes in the data, not authorities.

The continuous pursuit of why and how something works based on requiring people to tease out the most import aspects is the beauty of science.

Some peopl just don't get it. It is not about the individual and their intent. We begin by thinking that you believe in your idea, but we also recognize that you (me, anyone) may have mistken beliefs about why it works and so we seek real, controlled experience to determine what is going on.

Anyone can do these kinds of studies, it does not require any special training. There are of course people with years of experience conducting studies and they can be helpful in designing the best possible study to avoid many of the standard criticisms.

It is in this way of approaching a topic that "science guys" place more credence. Not that it gets the "truth" but it gets closer to the "truth" than other approaches or so we think we have learned over the years.

 

[Neil]

..............

 

[Masayoshi]

You are wrong. It IS a geometrically sound system. It's just that you and pj, and others just don't know what to plug into the formula so it does work on paper. This has all been explained in the past, but for some reason, you all want to dismiss it. As Joe W said in essence- you are wanting to claim science on your side, while dismissing science in your approach. The FACT that it works, means that there is some math that can prove it. Science says that since it works, we have to find out why it works. I know why it works, but have no clue how to do the math for it. And, I really don't think that anyone else on here does either, no matter what your math degree. I say that, because no one knows how to come up with the numbers to put in any formula for the math. The reason it works is because of how our eyes work. Once you can figure out how to do the math on that, then you can start to come up with the formulas. Until then, forget it.

When you line up center to edge, and edge to A, B, or C, you are experiencing an optical illusion from what you would actually have if you drew the lines out on paper. Until you can do the math for an optical illusion, you can't get a formula.

You are trying to argue something completely different from what my post was about. It works, therefore it is geometrically sound isn't what we were arguing against. Of course if you figure out the geometry for what the brain does to the shot image and how well people can automatically adjust once they are close, you will come up with a geometrically sound system (if it works every time), but nobody can do that because humans can't directly measure things like that.

CTE supporters, specifically Spidey, were trying to claim that it is a continuous geometric system void of the use of feel, estimation, or error if done correctly, like ghost ball. This would mean that you can aim it at any of an infinite number of cut angles according to how the system is described, you can't, simply because the available points of aim aren't infinite. We were against those claims (and admit it, there were many CTEers who were claiming such about a year back).

 

[JoeW]

At the very least, based on all of the individual observations by many different people, CTE merits further real world (scientific) studies. Following these studies some people will be interested in working out the details in more depth such as reducing it to a formula that can be used to predict other, perhaps, non-obvious phenomena.

 

[nrhoades]

In the past 6 posts, I've seen the use of the word "wrong" more than a couple times.

Imagine if there were no "right" and "wrong".

Replace the word "wrong" with the word "perhaps".

Replace the word "right" with the word "apparently".

This is really all that science does; it severs the emotional and judgemental connection.

Do this, and you will probably live a longer and happier life.

 

[JB Cases]

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?

I trust results. I will use whatever I can find that works to get consistent results.

What do you think when the science guy whips out the equations and then goes to the table to demonstrate it and does it?

The pool table is the great equalizer. If you can say it then you should be able to show it.

Mike Sigel said that contact induced throw doesn't exist.

Dr. Dave proved on high speed video that it does. (and of course he and other scientists always knew it exists)

So if Mike does a video on basics and says that throw doesn't exist what should the student do when he is constantly missing the shot using his Ghost Ball template?

Now, if you're going to ask me if I'd rather be trained by Jack Koehler or Buddy Hall that's a no brainer.

 

[Bob Callahan]

Sigh.

Could we turn this into a "Low deflection shafts suck" thread instead of a "CTE doesn't work" thread?

CTE is getting a bit old, and we haven't argued about LD for a while.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I still stand by that comment. Hal told me cte was a 3d proof over 7 years ago and I believe him. I think it's the only perfect system that's objective.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

Has anyone noticed that some of the most popular shows on tv are the ones where science is applied to explain the feats that people accomplish? They have analyzed runners, gymnasts, loggers, climbers, athletes, chess players, you name it and you can find a program where people attempt to use science to explain actions that people do.

Therefore experience trumps science. When it comes to a task it's better to know how to do it rather than to understand the physics behind how it's done.

That said however I can tell you all that I face this question almost every day. I work with people who didn't get a lot of "science" in their education. So they often fail to understand simple things like mixing certain chemicals causes a bad reaction, the don't understand leverage, how to make precise jigs, how to allow for material change due to temperature fluctuations, and a host of other things that basic science covers.

Luckily for us we have access to the science and the experience. On my leather working forum I can ask a question and get both the experience answer and the science answer and both will help me solve my problem.

 

[PoolBum]

In the past 6 posts, I've seen the use of the word "wrong" more than a couple times.

Imagine if there were no "right" and "wrong".

Replace the word "wrong" with the word "perhaps".

Replace the word "right" with the word "apparently".

This is really all that science does; it severs the emotional and judgemental connection.

Do this, and you will probably live a longer and happier life.

I'm sorry, but that is just perhaps. You know I'm apparently.

 

[Roger Long]

Sigh.

Could we turn this into a "Low deflection shafts suck" thread instead of a "CTE doesn't work" thread?

CTE is getting a bit old, and we haven't argued about LD for a while.

Okay, I don't like low deflection shafts. They take all the "feel" out of my game. :grin-square:

Roger

 

[Bob Callahan]

Okay, I don't like low deflection shafts. They take all the "feel" out of my game. :grin-square:

Roger

Golly. I can't believe you said this--with science and experience clearly proving LD shafts are magical, and especially good for CTE aiming....

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[cookie man]

Okay, here's where you are wrong. Nobody said it doesn't work, it does for some people. PJ, Dr. Dave, Lou Figueroa, Roger Long, basically the main posters in any CTE discussion against CTE will not contest this. The main discussion was whether or not it was a geometrically continuous system like ghost ball, which it is not. It works for other reasons just like how fractional ball systems also work, not because they are perfect, but because they are close enough.

A secondary discussion was the less than discrete methods of marketing used by the pro-CTE camp. Of course, that is outside of the science part of this topic.

Saying cte works because it gets you "close enough" is not the same as saying "it works".

 

[sfleinen]

Okay, I don't like low deflection shafts. They take all the "feel" out of my game. :grin-square:

Roger

I agree. I don't know about anyone else, but I like a "high" degree of deflecting balls into the hole. I mean, isn't that what we do with the cue ball -- use the cue to deflect the cue ball into the object ball, which gets deflected into the hole? If that's the case, I don't want low deflection shafts -- I want HIGH deflection shafts! In fact, I'll take an OD (optimum deflecting) shaft any day.

-Sean