About Scientific Research
What matters in science is clarity, repeatability, and logical reasoning—not how fancy the tools are. You can verify or disprove many things using:
-
Simple, controlled experiments – even basic setups can isolate variables and test cause and effect.
-
Observation and logical deduction – if something consistently happens under the same conditions, that’s a form of empirical evidence.
-
Basic measurements and comparisons – like using a stopwatch, ruler, or camera to track movement or timing.
-
Real-world applications – if a technique or principle consistently works (or fails) under real conditions, that’s powerful evidence too.
Sophisticated setups are useful when studying very complex systems (like particle physics or brain imaging), but for body mechanics, martial arts, or practical sciences, simple but well-thought-out methods can be just as valid.
Are you trying to verify a specific technique or concept in your work?"
Join my online course to fix your Wing Chun now. Visit https://mydukaan.io/smartresearch/products/smart-research-wing-chun-snt?sku_id=51732643
---
My reply to a mainstream Wing Chun debater:
"Krzysztof Toczyski I came across this so many times. Lol 🤣
May I ask you, before you posted that, have you confirmed that it's a must to have the above to confirm a finding? Ask AI whether it's a must. The answer is no.
When something is easy to prove or disprove, sophisticated tests or settings are not needed.
Let's use one example: Human can't fly. Can I prove it to you without any sophisticated settings? Of course. Your body doesn't have any parts that can help you fly. 😂
Now, applies the same logic when you analyse mainstream Wing Chun. Is it helpful to jam the arms in the center? No. The body becomes Disjointed when you do so."
---
A response to some mainstream Wing Chun practitioners:
William Dowding You mean debunked by his improper Chat GPT post? How are we supposed to use Chat GPT for research? We are supposed to guide it or research with it. All AIs default answers are based on existing or convenient information(superficial). So, when we use them for research, we should internationally instruct it to apply scientific and logical reasoning. That's not good enough, we should also give in more descriptions and information. For example, you can tell it what people are observing about Wing Chun or what you can see and feel. Then, get it to analyse what's happening. Most importantly, after AIs give your their analyses, you should check whether they reflect what you are seeing.
Jimmy Thatcher Han Yeoh Ebmas Central
Observed effects: Mainstream Wing Chun causes weak arms, misalignment and instability. These are detectable through sight, touch and so on. (Scientific Observation)
Cause: It's known that if you position your arms or legs or body incorrectly, the above conditions may occur. And it's known that Mainstream Wing Chun instructs you to jam the arms in the center Artificially. Some people even use arm rings to do this.
This leads to Disjointedness. And we know mainstream Wing Chun doesn't work no matter how long you are trained in it. So, the conclusion of mainstream Wing Chun is Pseudoscientific is confirmed.
What else are you expecting? What are you trying to defend?
---
William Dowding You mean debunked by his improper Chat GPT post? How are we supposed to use Chat GPT for research? We are supposed to guide it or research with it. All AIs default answers are based on existing or convenient information(superficial). So, when we use them for research, we should internationally instruct it to apply scientific and logical reasoning. That's not good enough, we should also give in more descriptions and information. For example, you can tell it what people are observing about Wing Chun or what you can see and feel. Then, get it to analyse what's happening. Most importantly, after AIs give your their analyses, you should check whether they reflect what you are seeing.
Jimmy Thatcher Han Yeoh Ebmas Central
Observed effects: Mainstream Wing Chun causes weak arms, misalignment and instability. These are detectable through sight, touch and so on. (Scientific Observation)
Cause: It's known that if you position your arms or legs or body incorrectly, the above conditions may occur. And it's known that Mainstream Wing Chun instructs you to jam the arms in the center Artificially. Some people even use arm rings to do this.
This leads to Disjointedness. And we know mainstream Wing Chun doesn't work no matter how long you are trained in it. So, the conclusion of mainstream Wing Chun is Pseudoscientific is confirmed.
What else are you expecting? What are you trying to defend?
--
William Dowding You mean debunked by his improper Chat GPT post? How are we supposed to use Chat GPT for research? We are supposed to guide it or research with it. All AIs default answers are based on existing or convenient information(superficial). So, when we use them for research, we should internationally instruct it to apply scientific and logical reasoning. That's not good enough, we should also give in more descriptions and information. For example, you can tell it what people are observing about Wing Chun or what you can see and feel. Then, get it to analyse what's happening. Most importantly, after AIs give your their analyses, you should check whether they reflect what you are seeing.
Jimmy Thatcher Han Yeoh Ebmas Central
Observed effects: Mainstream Wing Chun causes weak arms, misalignment and instability. These are detectable through sight, touch and so on. (Scientific Observation)
Cause: It's known that if you position your arms or legs or body incorrectly, the above conditions may occur. And it's known that Mainstream Wing Chun instructs you to jam the arms in the center Artificially. Some people even use arm rings to do this.
This leads to Disjointedness. And we know mainstream Wing Chun doesn't work no matter how long you are trained in it. So, the conclusion of mainstream Wing Chun is Pseudoscientific is confirmed.
What else are you expecting? What are you trying to defend?
---
Jimmy Thatcher lol. You have an incomplete prompt because you aren't analysing what's happening in the real world (scientific observation) and you are describing observable facts to it. So, it gives you a response which isn't based on full facts.
Here's Chat GPT's analysis (counterarguments). Notice that I asked it to analyse and counter yours objectively.
"Here’s an objective, bullet-point refutation of the claims — **only addressing the points that are biomechanically or logically invalid or misleading**. The aim is not to dismiss them outright, but to clarify their limits within a scientific and martial context:
---
### **Refutation: Does jamming arms in the center still cause disjointedness?**
---
**Claim**: *Isolated arm techniques can be effective in self-defense without full-body engagement.*
- **Refutation**:
- **Effectiveness ≠ Efficiency**. A technique can work in a limited context (e.g., surprise hit), but that doesn't mean it's biomechanically sound or scalable.
- Disjointed movements may **work in low-resistance situations**, but fail under high resistance or speed — which **limits reliability**.
- Most high-level arts aim for **repeatable efficiency**, not just one-time effectiveness.
---
**Claim**: *Not all martial arts prioritize full-body engagement. Some arm techniques work regardless.*
- **Refutation**:
- This is **context-dependent**: forms like Karate or even Taekwondo have **specific techniques** that isolate movement, but they also **train body integration for power**.
- Saying “some techniques work in isolation” doesn’t disprove that **jamming the arms in the center restricts the natural use of kinetic chains** — the claim under scrutiny.
- Effective arts **don’t jam arms artificially**; they allow arms to flow from shoulder alignment.
---
**Claim**: *In real-world situations, instinctive arm actions may work without full-body use.*
- **Refutation**:
- True, **gross motor actions** can be effective under adrenaline — but this supports **natural, not constrained** movement.
- Jamming arms artificially is **unnatural under stress** and can delay reactions or compromise positioning.
- Realistic response = **freedom of motion**, not limiting structure.
---
**Claim**: *Biomechanical exceptions exist in sports where upper-body motion is dominant.*
- **Refutation**:
- Examples like basketball and boxing are **not valid comparisons**:
- In boxing, even jabs involve **hip turn and ground force**.
- Basketball players use core, legs, and shoulder mechanics constantly.
- What seems like “just arms” is actually **coordinated, full-body timing** — proven by slow-motion biomechanical analysis.
---
**Claim**: *Skilled martial artists can use arms independently and still be effective.*
- **Refutation**:
- **Skill can mask flaws**, but doesn’t invalidate biomechanics.
- Martial artists who appear to use only arms are often **subtly coordinating** their torso and footwork.
- High-level skill enhances **integration**, not disjointedness. Autonomy of limbs ≠ isolation from the body.
---
### **Conclusion:**
While the argument highlights **valid edge cases**, it doesn’t disprove the biomechanical truth:
**Jamming the arms into the center artificially disrupts natural joint alignment, reduces kinetic efficiency, and increases disjointedness.**
Success in spite of this doesn’t mean the method is biomechanically correct — it simply shows **compensation**, not optimization."
---
Jimmy Thatcher and if you read the response which Chat GPT is giving you, it doesn't really reflect reality. Lol 😂 You are asking for refutation for the sake of refuting, so it's returning nonsense to entertain you. Read your text carefully.. hahahaha
This is from me, not Chat GPT.
Most sports or combative activities require the full involvement of body unless you are partially paralysed. Do you agree or disagree?
---
Sarah Carabot What I'm saying is true.
Let's analyse this situation. Is kinesiology proven? Yes. Is the study of body mechanics proven? Yes. Are these subjects understood by AI? (AI is trained)
So, when we ask AI whether jamming the arms in the center leads to disjointedness, we're actually posing a question that falls under the domain of kinesiology or physiology—specifically, body mechanics and biomechanics. There's no need to get published papers or do further scientific research.
William Dowding Han Yeoh Kevin Bonnick Abraham Mata Jimmy Thatcher Tim Franklin Ebmas Central Nathan Gaspoz James Philip Mike Gray Chris West Chuck Lee Luke Wade Lothar Bjorkman Larry Brink Jonathan Leclerc
Comments
Post a Comment