a Knight vs a Samurai?

[toli]

Have you ever picked up a real sword?

Ever swung one with intent?

I think the people who could best answer these types of questions are people with combat experience.  Unless you're actually in a fight where real injury or death is possible and your intent is to injure or kill your opponent, all the philosophy is just philosophy.  

That doesn't mean, of course, that the methodology taught in the training wasn't developed 'scientifically' through the testing of ideas...NT

[Muggins]

Linguistics is a science?! (not serious)

(My background, for those who care involves an undergrad in pure mathematics and geology, a MSc. and PhD. in Isotope Geochemistry, a B.A in History, Ancient History and Comparative Religion (gotta know your enemy:)), and one of the courses I teach is History and Philosphy of Science (for my poor bewildered littel aspiring geologists). All of which means I know absolutely nothing about science (and I ain't kidding!).)

Contracycle is both wrong and right by refusing the label of 'science' to martial thoughts in the 16th and 17th century. Wrong, because they are probably more valid as sciences today with our overly broad and encompassing view on things, and right, because by strict consideration the ideas lack rational organisation and consistency.

One of the problems when defining anything as a science lies in the context in which something is considered. The Greeks promoted a philosophy through which the natural world could be understood through rational thinking. Arguments on the nature of things were decided by a close examination of the logical underpinnings of the theory (not by empirical testing). In some ways, the Greeks were more exacting than we are today as to the rational basis of our science. The core idea is of course that there is a single truth out there that can be deduced. The same idea is present in most mathematics: there is only one right answer to a question (even in quantum mechanics, there is only a limited solution set to solve the problem).

The real world does not work that way, and much of the rational Greek outlook on life was pushed out of the way by barbarians and alchemists. Alchemy did wonders for the development of chemistry (not). The big problem was this: alchemy is devoted to working towards something that is believed to exist. To this end, very little work was devoted to reactions that failed to work, or why they failed to work. Roger Bacon started to formalise empirical observation in the natural world ('science').  Later Humanists such as Erasmus, Kepler and so on did much more work and even tied empirical observations to mathematical expressions. But was this work 'Science' under modern definitions? No.

What was lacking was a framework to hang the empirical observations from. Descartes is often credited with starting modern scientific thought, by reducing arguments and constantly tackling assumptions. I prefer not to consider this the birth of science, but the birth of modern thinking. By realising that the problems with observations can be solved by tackling the assumptions underlying the observations (if the waves do not behave like gods control them, then maybe there are no gods controlling them...), the natural sciences were born.

Strangely, it is only in the late 19th and early 20th Century that rigorous sciences such as chemistry and physics emerged. Both are heavily dependent on the technology and expertise to make the necessary observations, as well as on a mechanistic mindset. Much of the exploration of electricity can be considered pseudoscience or engineering, and would not stand up today as enlightened use of the theory of science. However, things worked, even if Newton, whose laws ruled the Industrial Revolution but who left space for divine intervention in all things.

It is only since the 60s that 'modern science' has existed, following the books by Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Under their enlightened rule, anything that involves rational thinking and logical thinking has been reclassified a science. Paradigm and context are all important, and just becuase the context of a thought is not considered correct today, it does not invalidate the process. Many of these newer sciences, such as psychology and statistical work in the humanities, often fail to realise that the underlying assumptions in their work are false (consider: psychology is dependent on the human brain- which ain't rational). At the same time, natural sciences have also been able to tackle their subjects more radically.

Anyhow, by the Greek standard, we do very little science nowadays. We assume too much and contextualise paradoxical observations. By the modern standard though, Bacon, Newton and the old masters were very much scientists, within their own paradigm and context. They observed, they theorised, they tested their theories in the manner of the day. As such, they were on the cutting edge of the art!

James

-hopefully that will kill this thread dead. I want get back to mowing down samurai with my zweihander!

[Salamander]

I think the people who could best answer these types of questions are people with combat experience.

And if some of us have had said combat experience? What then?
 

That doesn't mean, of course, that the methodology taught in the training wasn't developed 'scientifically' through the testing of ideas...NT

An excellent point, which I believe supports the treatise I put forward in regards to the art and science of swordsmanship.

[toli]

I think the people who could best answer these types of questions are people with combat experience.

And if some of us have had said combat experience? What then?
 

That doesn't mean, of course, that the methodology taught in the training wasn't developed 'scientifically' through the testing of ideas...NT

An excellent point, which I believe supports the treatise I put forward in regards to the art and science of swordsmanship.

In the first case, my point is that I would fairly quickly defer to some one who had actually tried to kill some one with a knife when discussing how much technique one remembers in a knife fight.  My experience from wrestling (in high school) is that it becomse a bit of both the "science" that you learn in practice and improvisation as opportunities arise.  The science is, however, important in providing the opportunities.  However, one isn't really worried about dying in a wrestling match...

As to the second point, I think we essentially agree.  However, I think the key point for something to be a science in the modern sense is the testing of ideas with the collection of new data.  Many of the Greek scientists had rational but incorrect theories that persisted because they were'nt really tested.  THis is probably more true in biology than in some of the physical science...where the temple falls down if you don't understand the physics of building...NT

[Salamander]

In the first case, my point is that I would fairly quickly defer to some one who had actually tried to kill some one with a knife when discussing how much technique one remembers in a knife fight.  My experience from wrestling (in high school) is that it becomse a bit of both the "science" that you learn in practice and improvisation as opportunities arise.  The science is, however, important in providing the opportunities.  However, one isn't really worried about dying in a wrestling match...

And say if you were perhaps involved in a conversation with a fellow who may have been forced to use a knife at one time in his military career? A rifle or SMG many times? I come from the land of, "You fight how you train".

As to the second point, I think we essentially agree.  However, I think the key point for something to be a science in the modern sense is the testing of ideas with the collection of new data.  Many of the Greek scientists had rational but incorrect theories that persisted because they were'nt really tested.  THis is probably more true in biology than in some of the physical science...where the temple falls down if you don't understand the physics of building...NT

Ah... here we have a slight problem. You use the qualifier of science in the modern sense. We really must nail down which context we are discussing here. I feel it may be slightly unfair to refer to an ancient practice using modern standards. It's like comparing the aerodynamic knowledge of the Wright Brothers to the that of our friends at Boeing Defense and by those standards we could say that the Wright Brothers did not make the world's first aeroplane, but in fact a motorized flying bicycle.

[Bastoche]

Some discipline like sword fighting and crystal growth are both art and science. They're science on the part of the variables over which we have control and art on the part of the guesses enlightened through experience (or instinct or luck or...) you need to make over the uncontrolable variables.

[toli]

You use the qualifier of science in the modern sense. We really must nail down which context we are discussing here. I feel it may be slightly unfair to refer to an ancient practice using modern standards. It's like comparing the aerodynamic knowledge of the Wright Brothers to the that of our friends at Boeing Defense and by those standards we could say that the Wright Brothers did not make the world's first aeroplane, but in fact a motorized flying bicycle.

The qualifier is just a qualifier and helps to specify what I mean by science.  Your airplane example is not really a good one in this case.  It isn't a question of the quantity of knowledge but of the methodology in developing that knowledge.  Modern science requires testing of ideas not just thought experiments without data to support them.  

As to the question of fencing as a science, after further thought, I think I wouldn't necessarily call it a science but technique (but see below). I think when people refer to fencing or what have you as a 'science' what they really mean is that there is a detailed technique and not just natual instinct and ferocity (or what ever).  

Instead, I would potentially call fencing a scientifically derived technique.  To me, as a scientist, science requires hypotheses and the testing of those hypotheses.  Without the testing, you have philosophy not science.  This doesn't mean that an individual has to do all steps in the process.  For example, there are theoretical physicists and experimental physicists.  (pure Math is, I think, not really science but something unto itself).  After the testing but without a new question and test, you have technique or methodology or something similar.  The development of a particular fighting style may have been based on observation, idea development and then the formal (experimental) or informal (experience based) testing of those ideas into a technique.  But the use of those techniques is not necessarily a science (but wait...)

A biological analogy would be the use of PCR, a methodology for amplifying DNA.  Doing a PCR reaction to amplify some piece of DNA is a scientific technique but isn't in an of itself science, even if the person doing it is scientifically trained.  I use SCUBA as a technique in much of the research that I do.  That doesn't make SCUBA a science, although the equipment was developed through basic scientific principals and testing (to some exent).

A way in which fencing would be a science, by my definition, would be in the process of probing your opponents weaknesses.  In this case, you would be using the methodology of your fencing school to answer the current problem of how to defeat your current opponent... and than apply other techniques to do so.  I'd be happy to call fencing a science under these conditions.  However, a situation of "I stab with my bayonete this way because that's how I was taught to do it" is, by my definition technique...not science.  If there is no thinking there is no science.

An important note regarding this particular discussion is that I am not making a value judgement regarding technique vs. science.

[Salamander]

The qualifier is just a qualifier and helps to specify what I mean by science.  Your airplane example is not really a good one in this case.  It isn't a question of the quantity of knowledge but of the methodology in developing that knowledge.  Modern science requires testing of ideas not just thought experiments without data to support them.  

Semantics aside, this is exactly what happened with the Wright Brothers. They said, "why do birds fly and we can't?" So they asked, what parts of the bird seem to be doing the most work? The wings. So they looked at the wings made an observation and went with it. They did not know it was going to work until that little 12HP paper and wood contraption lifted off the rails. The guys at Boeing look at an airfoil and make a calculation based upon hard numbers and say "this will provide the required flight properties" or "this will fail to provide the required flight properties". Pre-aerodynamics and post aerodynamics. Same effect, just a different look at the picture.

As to the question of fencing as a science, after further thought, I think I wouldn't necessarily call it a science but technique (but see below). I think when people refer to fencing or what have you as a 'science' what they really mean is that there is a detailed technique and not just natual instinct and ferocity (or what ever).  

And where are these techniques derived from? They in essence hypothsized what effects a specific action would incur. Through observation (did you see that?! He gutted the poor fool like a fish!!!) or (I can't believe we even thought that would work...) they were able to determine the effectiveness of the movements in battle. Do not say they were not scientific simply because they did not share your nomenclature.

Instead, I would potentially call fencing a scientifically derived technique.  To me, as a scientist, science requires hypotheses and the testing of those hypotheses.  Without the testing, you have philosophy not science.  This doesn't mean that an individual has to do all steps in the process.  For example, there are theoretical physicists and experimental physicists.  (pure Math is, I think, not really science but something unto itself).  After the testing but without a new question and test, you have technique or methodology or something similar.  The development of a particular fighting style may have been based on observation, idea development and then the formal (experimental) or informal (experience based) testing of those ideas into a technique.  But the use of those techniques is not necessarily a science (but wait...)

A biological analogy would be the use of PCR, a methodology for amplifying DNA.  Doing a PCR reaction to amplify some piece of DNA is a scientific technique but isn't in an of itself science, even if the person doing it is scientifically trained.  I use SCUBA as a technique in much of the research that I do.  That doesn't make SCUBA a science, although the equipment was developed through basic scientific principals and testing (to some exent).

A way in which fencing would be a science, by my definition, would be in the process of probing your opponents weaknesses.  In this case, you would be using the methodology of your fencing school to answer the current problem of how to defeat your current opponent... and than apply other techniques to do so.  I'd be happy to call fencing a science under these conditions.  However, a situation of "I stab with my bayonete this way because that's how I was taught to do it" is, by my definition technique...not science.  If there is no thinking there is no science.

An important note regarding this particular discussion is that I am not making a value judgement regarding technique vs. science.

But the problem is the blurring of science and technique. Science is the foundation of the technique in the art and science of fence. The majority of students I learn with, granted, do not understand the science behind the movements we use, but it is there. The understanding and cognizance is not employed during the true or pure application of the form, as they have been learned on an "instinctive" level, but to teach your body these things with the greatest effect, a true fencer will always ask why this or that works. This leads to the ability to "improvise" when there is a need to. The finest fencers were in fact artists, mathemeticians and other well learned people. An example, Albrecht Durer, an artist and mathemetician and three of his fellow students were able to hold off 50 town guardsmen in one sitting during a brawl in Altdorf in 1524 or somewhere thereabouts.

[Salamander]

for the giant thread lock in the sky... :D

[toli]

I think at some level we are arguing some of the same things.  

I agree entirely that the development of fencing techniques probably (I only say probably because I don't know enough about it) followed and follows a scientific approach.  That was my point RE the the informal experiment = experience = testing of an idea.  

My other point is that the application of those techniques is not necessarily a science even if the principles are based on scientically derived ideas.  Responding to a threat in a particular way because you have been drilled to do so is not science.  The reasoning for choosing that drill might be.  Likewise, the gas engine in my car was developed using science or at least a scientific approach, but driving it doesn't make me a petrochemical researcher.

It may be nit-picking but I do think there is a difference between science and technique.  I could train a monkey (or undergraduate, but that might be harder) to do underwater visual transects to count reef fish...doesn't make him a scientist...    :)

Re the plane thing, the wright brothers were testsing ideas in the field.  A modern engineer using aerodynamic theory and software to test plane designs on a computer are similar.  There is a different state of knowledge but the approach of applying previous observations and information to a test is the same approachy with different technical levels of methodology.  Rationalizing that the heavens circle the earth because man is important is not science.  

Within the realm of science, there are many peoply who would agrue that without a falsifyable hypothesis you are not doing science...

[Jake Norwood]

Hey all.

I am not, NOT going to lock this thread. Why? Something about the chaos here is cathartic. I don't want every thread to end up this way, but I think that a lot of venting has come out here, and some good points. Is it TROS related anymore? Not really, but what the hell.

So, if you think I should lock the thread, just stop reading it. Vote with your feet, so to speak.

If you are getting something out of this chaotic mess, then keep on attending and commenting.

I have a lot of opinions on a lot of the topics here, but I'm going to refrain from now. Partially because I want to avoid ego in a discussion that's had plenty (some from me), and partially because I haven't seen solid refutement for my points--meaning that they're either rock-solid and undefeatable (ha-hah!), or that they didn't spark the imaginations of other posters (awwww...).

So the discussion can continue in violence, offence, and force, or it can die.

But I aint gonna kill it. Instead, I'm conducting a scientific experiement!

Jake

[toli]

But no one's really said who would win...the knight or the samurai.   I was just watching "The Hidden Fortress".  I say if the samurai were Toshiro Mifume, the knight wouldn't have a chance....

[Bastoche]

Bah, I think this thread is still on it's rails since we are more or less debating on the feasability of answering the question mentionned on the first page. Besides, evryone has good points to make I think and the thread is greatly enlightening I think.

[Jake Norwood]

Awww crap.

Now I'm involved.

I love Toshiro Mifune. LOVE.

My money, honestly, is on the Knight, assuming well trained members of each class, circa 1450.

Assumptions:
The knight is German or some other northern race, wearing full-plate of the time, and armed with a bastard sword or similar instrument of about 4' in length.
The Samurai is armed with a tachi (battlefield katana) and armor from the warring states period.
Both are on foot, neither has a missle weapon at their disposal.

Why?
The knight has reach advantages both in build and in weapon (his arm is longer, as is his sword). This is huge advantage in a fight, as boxers, wrestlers, etc. can attest. Smaller was once believed better for Judo, but when the Russian sambo wrestlers entered the mix the Japanese readily accepted the idea of wieght classes.

The knight is accustomed to fighting many different kinds of sword and facing many different kinds of armor, which armor was generally superior in build, materials, and protection. This is supported by the adoption of western armor making materials when the Portugese set up shop at Nagasaki.

Assuming that texts describing national characters are accurate, the samuari is "ready to die," but the knight has no intention of doing so. This could spark a lot of controversy, but the knight is not going to take the same risks, and is going to work harder to preserve his life. The winner of the fight is the guy who goes home at the end of it.

I believe, and this is me, that geometry and western science wins out over "ki."

We all know that God will not allow a righteous man to fail in combat, and that the Japanese were all heathens. (Okay, hah hah, that's a joke for you judicial combat lovers).

The Japanese tachi, while an excellent weapon, was built for fighting different armors than the Knight's steel harness. The knight's weapon, on the other hand, is perfect for both unarmored targets and for working into the weaknesses of superior forms of armor.

The Knight belongs to a genetic line that consumes more meat and protein than the samurai, who--if a proper buddhist--avoids meat. Even if he's not a proper buddhist, meat is not as plentiful on the islands. The edge that such a diet and genetic history give are evident in modern sports.

Lastly, history points to the fact that western modes of warfare, which include the knight, were adopted by easterners who saw that they were more effective. The west has adopted very little from the east where warfare is concerned.

I believe that the knight has more advantages in his favor, given the above assumptions are true. I welcome counters to my arguments and arguments similarly presented in favor of the opposition.

Jake

[Bastoche]

(I would bet on your take Jake ;) )