The Importance of Evidence

There are a few things that I've already covered that touch on this subject, but I think a bit more detail is useful. When I made the argument that some claims of ancient knowledge being of questionable value, the reason for this comes down to one of evidence. Contrary to most people's strong wish, there is no such thing as absolute certainty.

Still, there are degrees of certainty. You can be reasonably certain that if you jump from an airplane way above the clouds, you probably want a parachute because otherwise you'll fall and hit the ground in a decidedly unfriendly way. I can say with extremely high confidence that you have probably not done this yourself (I mean without the parachute), but still you have a pretty good idea what will happen. It seems kind of silly, but why? The evidence is overwhelming! Everything falls. Rocks. Sticks. Blocks. Socks. Hammers. Pens. Feathers. Cars. Trucks. You name it. Though you may not have fallen a few thousand meters without a parachute lately, you understand the consequences of falling for much shorter distance, more than likely having experienced it some time in your life. Unprepared, a distance of even one meter can be quite devastating if your land improperly. In addition, you can ask anyone, and they will tell you that falling a few thousand meters is a bad idea if you value continued existence. With all of this, you have every reason to know exactly what will become of such a fall, and it just isn't pretty. It is no wonder that some people have a hard time feeling comfortable on an airplane. It seemingly defies gravity. When you know something about aviation, though, you are presented with yet another piece of evidence for the universal affect of gravity. A plane that isn't moving and isn't generating thrust will obey the same 9.8 m/s² as everything else.

Not everything has so much evidence behind it. Actually, most things don't. It is difficult to know exactly that to believe and what not to, but it is a fundamental tenant of critical thinking to use the evidence (from observation) to make conclusions, as well as demanding evidence for extraordinary claims. A martial artist concerned with the aspects of self-defense can only use the weight of data presented to act. If confronted by an angry opponent, the martial artist cannot simply hope that the opponent won't attack. Reality does not conform to our wishes, so we must adapt to reality. If your senses are telling you that someone is about to attack you, then you need to pay attention to them. If you see a bulge in the opponent's jacket, you can't just decide to believe that such a nice looking man would never carry a concealed gun. You have evidence that danger exists, so you must act accordingly.

You can't choose your reality. There seems to be an undercurrent of this kind of attitude sweeping across modern societies. One of the most powerful scientific theories around today is the concept of evolution in biology. The weight of evidence behind evolution is enormous, but there are people that choose to discount the Theory of Evolution¹ based on preconceived notions. To some, the conclusions that evolution tells us about our species are simply not comfortable concepts, such as our decent from a primate ancestor. Just like believing a nice old man would never carry a gun, you can't bend reality to suit your needs. Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean you can simply not choose to accept it. I personally don't like the fact that jumping from an airplane will result in a horrific landing (pun intended), but that doesn't mean I choose to believe otherwise. If someone tells you something that goes against the grain, then the burden of proof is on them, such as if you are told that you can break a brick with your pinky using a specific ancient technique. Be skeptical. Use evidence to base your decision to try it or not, and not slick sounding arguments.

Charles Darwin used observations of the natural world to develop the Theory of Evolution

From a self-defense standpoint, this is very important. Techniques are only useful for self-defense if they work. How do you know techniques work? For example, someone tells you that touching someone on the forehead in a certain way can make them unconscious. Hopefully, you would be at least a bit skeptical, and at very least demand some kind of explanation. No matter how slick sounding the argument, whether or not you accept the technique can be effective should be based on evidence. It might be comforting to think you can incapacitate anyone with a single touch to the forehead, but that belief is probably a great way to get quickly pulverized. What can the person do to back up his claim?

The vast majority of techniques in martial arts are things that can be practiced in a sensibly safe way while providing reasonable confidence of effectiveness. This is where the evidence comes in, as the martial artist can practice throws, locks, punches, and such in a way that provided a reasonable level of certainty that a particular technique will work. If you can knock the stuffing out of a sturdy kicking bag, then you can extrapolate that the same kick on a person would be very unpleasant. Remember, there is no way to know absolutely. The only thing you can say is that the technique has a high probability of working (the factors being the strength of the opponent's defense, your offense, and the myriad environmental factors). Practice gives a martial artist confidence because it provides evidence to backup the premise that the techniques can be used for self-defense.

You can tell the difference between reality and flim-flamity by the evidence. A great example of this is dowsing. Though claimed as a real "power" by thousands of people, not a single properly designed double-blinded test has ever proved dowsing is anything other than random chance. When it comes down to it, the real evidence does not bode well for dowsing (though excuses and special circumstances are in full bloom). Science is about degree of certainty, not proof.

The best way to stay safe is to side with reality. It has the virtue of always being there when you need it. Things like special ancient powers and wonder-pressure points may be neat-o, but a punch to the solar plexus always works.

Martial Arts are heavily based on respect and trust. They can't exist without them, but there is also a common problem when its application is unquestioning. If you loose all of your ability to discern what is, quite frankly, useless from what isn't, then your concepts of self defense will be based on this shaky foundation. Questioning an instructor isn't a bad thing per se. It is often not good etiquette to verbally question him or her (unless you like pushups or whatever their favorite punishment is). However, as a critical thinker you should also always be questioning everything, and that includes your instructors. Sure, the answer to your questions may always be "the instuctor's probably right", or "the instructor knows what he's talking about," but if you stop asking those questions then you can't possibly discern what is right and what isn't, or what works and what doesn't. When you respect someone, changes are that you are much more likely to accept what they are saying, but you should still run everything through your own series of questions. This doesn't mean you can't respect them, or believe everything they say. You are simply aware, which is part of critical thinking.