Experience or science?

[Scott Lee]

IIRC, Einstein said it was much less than 10%. In today scientific environment we don't even understand the human brain well enough to be able to figure out HOW to use more of it...nor it's eventual capabilities. FTR, I believe it is a combination of science and experience that produce the best results...but the poll has not option for voting that way.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Why do we have all that brain mass if we only use 10% of it?

 

[C.Milian]

Egg

If evil is all that destroys life.....one can only conclude that if this universe balls back up to a big ol chunk of mass.....we lose. I was going somewhere with this but all of a sudden have a huge headache.

science or experience? Altho, I don't have the need for science in my pool game, some of that Dr dave stuff did help a little bit. I had a little spark about 4-5 months ago on a bar table after reading some of PJs bullshit. Funny stuff...I chuckled and carried on. I have contemplated pool during my spare time...and often times during meals, pretty much most of my time, and have come to the conclusion that focusing on what can be done with the cue in relation to the body is most important. Most guys that play well know this. More like most guys that play right.

Playing wrong can mean missing shots up to a quarter diamond thinking you "aimed" wrong when really your eyes are capable of locating very small objects.

So the objective then is to build on what we know is right, doing it any other way is not necessary. I don't know where I'm going with this. Hope I'm being helpful.

 

[ShootingArts]

multi-tasking supercomputer

IIRC, Einstein said it was much less than 10%. In today scientific environment we don't even understand the human brain well enough to be able to figure out HOW to use more of it...nor it's eventual capabilities. FTR, I believe it is a combination of science and experience that produce the best results...but the poll has not option for voting that way.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

The 10% thing is an old myth, maybe scientific fact at the time!

Different areas of the brain are for different functions so naturally we don't use 100% or anywhere close to it at once. Some areas of the brain are of use in our early development and basically shut down in later life too. Current theory is that we use 60-70% of our brain mass, just not all at once. Some really interesting possibilities if we could get fifty percent or more running at once, speculation of course. While Einstein was supersmart, outside his own areas of expertise he knew no more than most of us.

Science and experience both have value. However experience without science can and does make world champions. Science without experience makes rail birds! :grin: :grin: :grin:

Hu

 

[C.Milian]

IIRC, Einstein said it was much less than 10%. In today scientific environment we don't even understand the human brain well enough to be able to figure out HOW to use more of it...nor it's eventual capabilities. FTR, I believe it is a combination of science and experience that produce the best results...but the poll has not option for voting that way.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I think the most important attribute is sight. The most precious tissues are made to endure and sustain many years of ware and tare. Because the brains functions are so important, it has to be small to be able to withstand damage. The mass of the brain apart from what is being used for memory is to stabilize your eyes and tissues connecting...well I'm just guessing here. But it only makes sense because I've fallen on my head many times...and I'm still ok.

 

[JoeW]

Many years ago (circa late 1950s) ten plus expert clinicians (highly qualified professionals) who were well known for their ability to interpret a psychiatric test (The MMPI) were asked to write down the rules they used to come to a conclusion about a particular set of cases. The synthesized set of rules were placed in a computer program and on the next go around the accuracy of diagnosis by the set of clinicians was compared to the computer model. It was found that while experts (serious professionals) were accurate about 80 – 85% of the time the scientifically generated program was accurate well over 90% of the time and was better than any one clinician. It has been several years since I read this set of studies so my numbers may be off a little here or there.

These were truly highly qualified professionals in their field and far better than the average professional clinician who used this instrument. That is why the “experts” were asked to participate. The researchers wanted to know (and thought they could) improve the accuracy of diagnosis.

One of several conclusions from further studies of this set of findings involved the idea that experts place too much emphasis on their own ability, lengthy careers, and often (too often) disregard their own rules. It was in this set of studies that one of the things we learned was that experts discount a serious problem when the patient is young and attractive. This seems to be part of human nature. When you are an expert you just know that you are right. It turns out (meaning there is much research to support the next idea) that young clinicians (or Pros) just out of school who use the scientifically generated rules do better than the original experts because the young pros stay closer to the rules.

It follows that if one were to gather a set of professional pool players and synthesize their knowledge, the set of rules created by the scientists would be better than any one professional, no matter how good that professional was at his specialty.

I would suggest that the synthesized recommendations created by Dr Dave, Bob Jewett and their colleagues are better than any one professional player. These scientists have already begun to create a super set of recommendations based on an evaluation of the Pros recommendations. The scientifically generated materials (Dave’s sets of DVDs) were created after a careful review of prior practices. Fortunately for all of us Dr Dave and colleagues, like any good scientists, have also provided the methods that you can use to determine the validity and reliability of their findings.

Currently, it doesn’t get any better than that and you ignore this growing mountain of synthesized data at your peril.

And, No, I do not get any kick backs. I do recognize excellent work that will be of use for many years to come when I see it.

When the work of some particular individual does not make it into this corpus of work it is because it does not, at this time, merit inclusion based on empirical studies. The omitted or neglected works may be of use but at this point they can not be sufficiently articulated or placed in a format that allows disinterested parties to study the anecdotal reports.

Note it is not a matter of believing “A” science guy but a matter of reviewing and testing the information presented by a group of reasonably objective scientists.

I think that if you (whoever you are) look past all the bickering and back biting you too would conclude that the scientists among us are more open minded and more willing to study ideas that could be fruitful. I think that Dave has had to carry the burden of attempting to remain objective and open to ideas in a professional manner. Sure there have been a few slips here and there: He and his colleagues are as human as the rest of us.

The scientists bend over backwards attempting to get people to articulate what they think they know so that it can be studied, and so that we can arrive at information that is useful to any pool player, not some select few or some authority who thinks they have the “only” way.

Beware of zealots; they are a vexation to the spirit. And they stand in the way of real knowledge acquisition.

 

[ShootingArts]

milk

Homogenized milk isn't the best or worst tasting milk. By mixing all the different sources of milk together each large sample tastes much the same. The very best milks are lost in the mix.

What were we talking about in this thread again?

Hu

 

[Mikjary]

Homogenized milk isn't the best or worst tasting milk. By mixing all the different sources of milk together each large sample tastes much the same. The very best milks are lost in the mix.

What were we talking about in this thread again?

Hu

Slow moving scientists or something like that.

Best,
Mike

 

[Mikjary]

I voted for experience for one reason. After the science you move to experience. There are only so many things you need to learn before you know what you're doing at a successful level. The science gives you answers to fundamental, tangible applications and should always be a baseline for your game. As you progress, experience becomes the master.

Until the biomechanics research is as well defined as it is in other sports such as golf, baseball tennis, etc., we will have to rely on instruction and anecdotal evidence. Understanding our visual perception for aiming is another key to the overall process that ponders how our conscious and subconscious mind operates.

Best,
Mike

 

[Bob Jewett]

... After the science you move to experience. ...

I think this is exactly backwards. Science can only come from experience. Theories are distillations of experience.

 

[Mikjary]

I think this is exactly backwards. Science can only come from experience. Theories are distillations of experience.

The chicken or the egg? :wink:

Best,
Mike

 

[LAMas]

Originally Posted by Mikjary
... After the science you move to experience. ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The science, geometry, and trig has been proven lo these many decades, but it takes experience/time at the table to incorporate, adapt, memorize, and recall what you learned at the table for a given shot and shape.:thumbup:

sci·ence
   [sahy-uhns] Show IPA

noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4.
systematized knowledge in general.

5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

 

[Mikjary]

The science is created by events around us and the desire to understand what is happening to cause the occurences. To shoot pool, the science is already there. You aren't creating it. You draw from it and increase your abilities.

Your experience (noun) comes from experiencing something (verb). A science is originated from experience, but you don't have to create it every time it's used.

Best,
Mike

 

[LAMas]

The science is created by events around us and the desire to understand what is happening to cause the occurence. To shoot pool, the science is already there. You aren't creating it. You draw from it and increase your abilities.

Your experience (noun) comes from experiencing something (verb). A science is originated from experience, but you don't have to create it every time it's used.

Best,
Mike

Truth out.
You give vitality to this thread for you have a thirst for knowledge and are open to other shooters experiences to glean the subtle truths as opposed to those that are stuck in the academics.

I can't give you a rep just now so accept this instead.:thumbup:

 

[C.Milian]

Many years ago (circa late 1950s) ten plus expert clinicians (highly qualified professionals) who were well known for their ability to interpret a psychiatric test (The MMPI) were asked to write down the rules they used to come to a conclusion about a particular set of cases. The synthesized set of rules were placed in a computer program and on the next go around the accuracy of diagnosis by the set of clinicians was compared to the computer model. It was found that while experts (serious professionals) were accurate about 80 – 85% of the time the scientifically generated program was accurate well over 90% of the time and was better than any one clinician. It has been several years since I read this set of studies so my numbers may be off a little here or there.

These were truly highly qualified professionals in their field and far better than the average professional clinician who used this instrument. That is why the “experts” were asked to participate. The researchers wanted to know (and thought they could) improve the accuracy of diagnosis.

One of several conclusions from further studies of this set of findings involved the idea that experts place too much emphasis on their own ability, lengthy careers, and often (too often) disregard their own rules. It was in this set of studies that one of the things we learned was that experts discount a serious problem when the patient is young and attractive. This seems to be part of human nature. When you are an expert you just know that you are right. It turns out (meaning there is much research to support the next idea) that young clinicians (or Pros) just out of school who use the scientifically generated rules do better than the original experts because the young pros stay closer to the rules.

It follows that if one were to gather a set of professional pool players and synthesize their knowledge, the set of rules created by the scientists would be better than any one professional, no matter how good that professional was at his specialty.

I would suggest that the synthesized recommendations created by Dr Dave, Bob Jewett and their colleagues are better than any one professional player. These scientists have already begun to create a super set of recommendations based on an evaluation of the Pros recommendations. The scientifically generated materials (Dave’s sets of DVDs) were created after a careful review of prior practices. Fortunately for all of us Dr Dave and colleagues, like any good scientists, have also provided the methods that you can use to determine the validity and reliability of their findings.

Currently, it doesn’t get any better than that and you ignore this growing mountain of synthesized data at your peril.

And, No, I do not get any kick backs. I do recognize excellent work that will be of use for many years to come when I see it.

When the work of some particular individual does not make it into this corpus of work it is because it does not, at this time, merit inclusion based on empirical studies. The omitted or neglected works may be of use but at this point they can not be sufficiently articulated or placed in a format that allows disinterested parties to study the anecdotal reports.

Note it is not a matter of believing “A” science guy but a matter of reviewing and testing the information presented by a group of reasonably objective scientists.

I think that if you (whoever you are) look past all the bickering and back biting you too would conclude that the scientists among us are more open minded and more willing to study ideas that could be fruitful. I think that Dave has had to carry the burden of attempting to remain objective and open to ideas in a professional manner. Sure there have been a few slips here and there: He and his colleagues are as human as the rest of us.

The scientists bend over backwards attempting to get people to articulate what they think they know so that it can be studied, and so that we can arrive at information that is useful to any pool player, not some select few or some authority who thinks they have the “only” way.

Beware of zealots; they are a vexation to the spirit. And they stand in the way of real knowledge acquisition.

I'm assuming you consider the red highlighted statement an absolute. It implies that if you do not give what others value (freely), you are a vexation to the spirit. I don't see how, with the rise of better players all over the world, should we freely give out information that may diminish our livelihood...even a very small piece of it. Conversely, Dr. Dave is selling a product, therefore he is obligated to deliver.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Scientific theories are not always grounded in experience.

Take the discipline of theoretical physics, as an example.

I think this is exactly backwards. Science can only come from experience. Theories are distillations of experience.

 

[Mikjary]

I'm assuming you consider the red highlighted statement an absolute. It implies that if you do not give what others value (freely), you are a vexation to the spirit. I don't see how, with the rise of better players all over the world, should we freely give out information that may diminish our livelihood...even a very small piece of it. Conversely, Dr. Dave is selling a product, therefore he is obligated to deliver.

From Dr. Dave's website. http://billiards.colostate.edu/PBReview/index.html

Joe W. has given a lot of free instruction and technical information.

Best,
Mike

 

[derangedhermit]

Various comments on science and experience

Scientific theories usually come from what appears to be directly relevant experience, along with knowledge of previous theories on the same or related topic. Sometimes they don't: Einstein's famous "thought experiments" were input into his theories of relativity. One of those thought experiments was about being inside an elevator in deep space. No one had experienced that.

In the end, theories come from the mind of the theorist, whatever the inputs are to that mind.

A scientific theory is testable. "Testable" means that experiments can be carried out to show the theory is either accordance with reality, or not. There can be theories outside the scientific process - those that can not be tested in some imaginable timeframe. (Many scientific theories have been put forth that could not be tested *at that time*. "Later" is OK for testability, as long as "later" isn't some time beyond the expected useful life of the theory.)

Scientific experiments are one kind of human experience. What makes them particularly useful is that an experiment is designed to provide specific results that are: 1) useful in seeing how well a theory matches reality (or in distinguishing between competing theories, and 2) repeatable by independent experimenters in a different time and place. Please note that 2) is required, or you haven't gotten anywhere.

"Science" is a method or a process; usually applied in an attempt to describe some small fragment of reality. Science's track record is that over time its results generally converge to more closely match "reality". Belief systems not based on science generally do not have this property.

"Reality" is what is left when you take away everything you believe that isn't so.

 

[duckie]

Experience can get one by in most things in everyday life and most things one does.

But there are times one needs to know the "in"s and out"s of something.

When I was in QA doing product testing, we added a wireless device to the communications part of the system.

From a installers point of view, they just wanted to know how to install it, the spec's/limitations of the product. From my point of view,I had to understand spread spectrum technology, how the data communications of the base product worked and the effects of the environment on the signal and then design tests for the product.

I rode a motorcycle on the street and then decided to go racing. When you start pushing things to the limit or want to increase the performance of something or someone, the more you understand on whats going on in the details is critical.

I rode a 900ss on the the street and raced one. The characteristics of each was different, even though both were basically the same bike. The race bike was able to be flicked from left to right easier than the street bike.

Why? Because, once on the track, the little details become big details and understand how all the little details affect each other is critical.

A little detail is the battery location. One the street bike, the battery is up high under the gas tank,going across the frame. On the race bike, I moved it down, next to the front cylinder(v-twin). Why? Because now that weight was located down, closer to the center line of the bike and lessen the affect of having to move a weight from one side to the other.

My street experience was only good to a point on the race track. To improve my on track performance, I had to learn about weight distribution, location of the center of gravity, swing arm angle, ride height, suspension settings, proper body position and so on. These things are not important to most street riders, but for those that want to push it and increase their level of performance, these things matter.

I believe the same is true in increasing your level of performance in pool. The more one understand the little details in shot making, the better your performance level will be. The better one will be in able to determine to decide if what they are trying to do will work or even is possible.

There is 3 cushion player that is venturing out to pocket tables. Yesterday, we played some 8-ball. After, I asked him how he knew where to put the CB to make the shot. He did not have a answer. Just trail and error. Now, this guy is a fairly good 3 cushion player, but was out of his environment.

I took a few minutes to explain how I get the CB to where I want it and I could see the lights come on.

The point is experience will do in most things, but to truly master something and truly understand something, you need to know what is going on behind the scenes and sometimes that is understanding the science that is in what you are doing.

 

[ShootingArts]

world's worst POS was unbeatable

Experience can get one by in most things in everyday life and most things one does.

But there are times one needs to know the "in"s and out"s of something.

When I was in QA doing product testing, we added a wireless device to the communications part of the system.

From a installers point of view, they just wanted to know how to install it, the spec's/limitations of the product. From my point of view,I had to understand spread spectrum technology, how the data communications of the base product worked and the effects of the environment on the signal and then design tests for the product.

I rode a motorcycle on the street and then decided to go racing. When you start pushing things to the limit or want to increase the performance of something or someone, the more you understand on whats going on in the details is critical.

I rode a 900ss on the the street and raced one. The characteristics of each was different, even though both were basically the same bike. The race bike was able to be flicked from left to right easier than the street bike.

Why? Because, once on the track, the little details become big details and understand how all the little details affect each other is critical.

A little detail is the battery location. One the street bike, the battery is up high under the gas tank,going across the frame. On the race bike, I moved it down, next to the front cylinder(v-twin). Why? Because now that weight was located down, closer to the center line of the bike and lessen the affect of having to move a weight from one side to the other.

My street experience was only good to a point on the race track. To improve my on track performance, I had to learn about weight distribution, location of the center of gravity, swing arm angle, ride height, suspension settings, proper body position and so on. These things are not important to most street riders, but for those that want to push it and increase their level of performance, these things matter.

I believe the same is true in increasing your level of performance in pool. The more one understand the little details in shot making, the better your performance level will be. The better one will be in able to determine to decide if what they are trying to do will work or even is possible.

There is 3 cushion player that is venturing out to pocket tables. Yesterday, we played some 8-ball. After, I asked him how he knew where to put the CB to make the shot. He did not have a answer. Just trail and error. Now, this guy is a fairly good 3 cushion player, but was out of his environment.

I took a few minutes to explain how I get the CB to where I want it and I could see the lights come on.

The point is experience will do in most things, but to truly master something and truly understand something, you need to know what is going on behind the scenes and sometimes that is understanding the science that is in what you are doing.

Used to race dirt cars. The track owner across the way had the world's worst late model. Thing probably weighed twice what some of the other late model's weighed, had a tunnel ram drag racing manifold sticking out the hood a foot, two street shocks on the right front which meant that with the too-small valving for all practical purposes he had no suspension on the right front. Can't remember all the details after thirty years but this was the world's worst sh!tbox of a race car!

When his track rained out and he and a dozen of his compadres split a drum of illegal nitro and came to my local track I used every time I passed his car as a lap counter instead of the flagstand and I wasn't winning races at the time. Think I miscounted laps because I passed him twice while he was in the same lap! Thing is that POS was absolutely unbeatable at the one track(his) that it was set up to run on.

Watching the asphalt sprinters on a high banked half mile they had some supermodifieds mixed in, things of beauty. The winning car was maybe forty years old. The owner had been driving it about that long and he adjusted handling by hanging lead off of the back bar!(bumper)

Science is a wonderful thing. Can anyone tell me 1(one) book or instructional video Efren has ever studied?

In all seriousness I strongly believe that science can make you very competitive. It takes more to make you a champion because the science is available to basically everyone.

Hu

 

[metallicane]

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.

Bingo.....