[no_mind_golfer]

nmgolfer

The two words "can be" was just my grammatical method of stating that a theory that can be tested can be deemed to be a scientific theory, and thereby implying that a theory that cannot be tested cannot be deemed to be a scientific theory.

Homer Kelley's TGM theories regarding the golf swing are testable, and have been tested. In fact, he probably spent endless hours testing his theories, and he probably then used his test results to refine his theories. In that sense, he was quintessentially a scientist working according to the fundamental tenets of "good scientific practice". By contrast, most golf instructors have "opinions" that are not even coherent enough from a cognitive perspective to represent a testable theory.

I regard the term "thesis" and 'theory' to be interchangeable.

I also don't like using the term "centrifugal", but that doesn't automatically disqualify Homer Kelley's golf swing theories. That's only one "word" used to express a concept, which is still conceptually relevant!

Jeff.

Jeff,

I'd be "pleased as punch" if you could site just one example from the book that was tested Homer and has verifiable data trail supporting the stated conclusions. That would imply he at least knew what the term scientific stands for. Most of these guys (book believers) do (know what scientific stands for).

Take Clampett for instance. In his book he talks of a "study" he did wherein he measured how far in front of the ball the divot is for hackers and pro's alike. He did it to support is hypothesis that pros hit down and hackers don't. The data supported the hypothesis he elevated it his hypothesis to a theory or thesis and now scientifically claims we should hit down (damit)... Then he stretched the theory to the driver.... but failed to support that stretch with data... (thats called extrapolation.. a no-no) Oh well.. at least bobby c was on the right (scientific) track.

We take a guess at the solution to the problem (or veracity of the conjecture). That is the "hypo"thesis. Hypo meaning "insufficient" (as in hypothermia meaning not enough heat) by definition it means not "good enough" (not yet proven) to be a thesis or theory. I shortened hypothesis (step 3) to thesis in my previous posts and should not have done that. Yes thesis or theory are the same, (a hypothesis) that has not been falsified, fits the data and conforms with the known facts. When I said thesis I meant hypothesis. my bad.

I'm not knocking Homer's effort. Lots of logic and useful conjecture in there. But there are parts he got flat out wrong and CF is one of them. The question is it useful or detrimental to learning the game (CF concept that is). I argue its the latter but then I'm a "root cause seeking" sort of person.