Lance
Thanks for your reply.
I need to confess 2 things. One is that you are right that sometimes i do some extremism about negate science but i´m no more than play the devils role. Second is that i´m not the kind of the blind, deaf and dumb guy that refuses to based any idea in science knowledge.
Lance. One thing that science teaches us is not to be preconceived – that means to take for granted – before really knows the concept. Or to be preconceived is to classify someone or something with our pre-concepts, that we take a long ago, to eliminate the possibility that someone is right just by the fact that he thinks differently than you.
But with all respect and politeness that I have for you Lance – people like you that are so preconceived and science addicted to consider that´s what I say that´s classic and traditional way of coach – which I think that you includes me - and a modern one based in science – you need my extremism. This is a very preconceived way to see things Lance, that´s science that´s modernity and that experience is that basic and traditional. But science is also based in experience, trial and error, all science is based in thesis + hypothesis e + synthesis and this scientific method comes from the ancient Greecs in logic. Thus science as seen as a method that´s very old, older than running training. Older coaches are more much more recent than science practice.
I hope that one day you will see me as modern and not old, because my ideas are ahead of the science and also ahead of the past coaches. If that´s not science or classified as that – that´s a pitty – but in the limit or they are right or they are wrong. I know that for you this is basic – but that´s the true. Do you want to know why called “traditional coaches” they disagree often than in science. One of the reasons is because in the so called science mostly we agree with he can´t prove by yourselves. We need to be trust in the other. This is no distant than what you think from the coaches that based their methods in trial and error unlike you may think. This is even worst – someone believe in a concept that never experienced and simply did read in anywhere.
To break preconceives that´s not basic or old or traditional, that´s what the science need now. That could be simple to your mind, but that´s not simplistic – that´s the best way to improve training and coaching knowledge. Please lance, don´t refuse this or my ideas, just think of them without catalogue that. A basic idea is by the meaning of the word – something that sustains during a long period, and not for a couple of ideas as most of the science ideas. The base that´s first premise of everything that´s correct, that haven´t nothing with of simplistic – just simple. Very deep and right ideas are very simple and basic or you don´t agree? Or only the complex ideas are that
That´s very curious that in my country i´m considered a very complex coach, because a few times I see things different than the mainstream. Te call me a “man of science” that investigates always deep and that try to break past concepts. No one in my country would say that i´m traditional or basic or simplistic or that i´m anti-scientific coach. But when I say the same ideas in a different context – a foreign country – i´m considered a man of experience and trial and error.
You are right once again. I really use scientific method because I ALSO use "scientific" trial and error, observation of what works, search for training knowledge, experiments, tests, hypotheses, etc. not I JUST use. But most of what people says that´s science they don´t use that. You ant to know their method. They learned form the school or the university or they read the articles and instead of going to test, observation, etc they simply take that as granted. In the true science you can´t be confident in what the other says, need to test. I see so many people that thisnks that they base their knowledge in science and they simply REAPEAT what some told him. Everybody uses the lactic acid meter – but they simply read what the propaganda says about that and they think that´s a scientific attitude, that the training is more scientific, but isn´t. the need to test the machine, or according their own scientific rules something that you didn´t perceived (or experienced by yourself) can´t be considered science, Or am I wrong? I know that the meters are fallible and not accurate because I followed the samne experience that they did with lactic acid meter, but someone that simply did read in an article that´s worst than the coach basic that simply uses what you call basic – at least he experiments and takes conclusions by what´s perceived by his own. Of course that i´m not doing a pamphlet against science, but you need to review lots of the science items. Science also have a big margin of unknown – no one have full knowledge.
Besides science is a discipline or a knowledge method but that´s also a way to make opinion makers and and power – institutions, academic power etc.
Don´t forget that we are follow a discussion about meters machines and science support. I´m no such a naïve that I tink that all science is virgin and lives in purity, and that´s an exception in the all the rest of the society. Running that´s a sport but also an industry. Lactic acid meters are a product to buy and to sell. Scientists aren´t independents in their analysis, if the money that´s in the game. Money talks. There are scientists that they are payee to say that that product that’s the best – with all “scientific data support. Academics they have interests in follow some conveniences. I know what´s are most of the past East German scientists….
Now to finish. don´t tink that coaches disagreement that´s different than science disagreement. Coaches they easily agree each other more than the physiologists as an example. The scientists they discuss and fight the same subjects for years and years and decades and decades with no final conclusion. Most of the times you think that´s definitive and without that a new knowledge arises it comes someone with a different theory from the same scientific subject. To tell you the true that´s nothing different than the coaches that based their knowledge in the experience. The different is that when I some to my own conclusion that´s wrong I change quickly than a scientist. To be considered science you need science community agreement and acceptance and that´s are lobby groups and lobby of interests and power, not science in his purity.
I also think that diversity of opinions that´s benefit to any issue improvement. As I think that to co-exist several training methods and coaches with different opinions in the same training issue that´s very interesting and I would not judge that as a mess. But science looks for the unanimity of thinking. All science is based in the simplistic If AB then A isn´t =B. Isn´t that “basic” ?. Training is more complex than science and we need to use our “feeling”. Everything that deals with human beings and relationship – as to coach – needs more than science. And training can´t use science logic or science method exclusively.
I would be happy that you or anyone else knows my deep sincere opinion - not that you agree with me. My only intention about this post is that you make you know what i think that you don´t know about me, but now i think that you kno a lot about my position about this science issue, let´s talk about run. I´m preparing a little post about the all time american best cross country runner, now that´s the WCC champs will b in 2 weeks. What´s the name of the male all time american best cross country ? I guess that you agree with me. We don´t need no science for that, that´s basic, but that´s true (LOL).