savagebeast
New Member
I believe this is my first post in a "Vince thread." I must admit, I am both frightened
and excited 
at the same time. Well, here goes nothing...
I've read Karl Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations." Basically, Popper's main point is that the main criterion for a scientific theory is its ability to be tested and proven wrong. If a theory has no means by which it can be refuted, then that theory is not scientific. A theory's strength comes from being repeatedly tested and from scientists trying to prove that the theory is false, and their continued failure to demonstrate fallacy in the theory. Popper believes that a theory can never be proven true, only false. The best theories, he says, are the ones that despite repeated testing, have never been proven false.
For examples, he uses Einstein's theory of relativity and the psychological theories of Freud and Adler (I think it was Adler, it could have been someone else, though). He argues that the theory of relativity is science because it makes specific, objective claims about the universe. He says something about how it predicted that light would bend due to gravity, and this assertion was upheld when an eclipse allowed for this phenomenon to be observed. Freud and Adler's theories, on the other hand, could be adapted to fit any situation; their theories could be manipulated so that they could explain everything. Therefore, their theories could never be proven wrong, which makes them unscientific.
Vince, I guess your point in mentioning this is that by questioning the HST method & principles, you will eventually accomplish one of two things: prove them false, or strengthen them and make them more valid. I suppose that's a noble goal. But just because no one has given you a satisfactory defense of HST doesn't mean that no satisfactory defense has been given. To be honest, Vince, I'm not sure what sort of response you're looking for. I firmly believe that no matter what anyone says, no matter what studies or scientific articles someone posts, you will still be unconvinced. True scientific discussions involve not just dishing out criticism, but taking it as well.
And another thing: this debate is occurring on two different levels. Your evidence is your own experience, while the evidence presented by everyone else consists of scientific studies and physiology (along with some individual experience here and there). For the purpose of this debate, the two different sides might as well be speaking different languages.
Vince, you reference an article about science, yet you're not really dealing with science. Sure, you have your own muscle experiments, and in the end that's all that really matters for you. But in the grand scheme of science, experiments with n=1 prove absolutely nothing (as I remember Aaron as having said in the past). If you can't reproduce the same results in others, then it means nothing.
Also, if you want to try to discredit HST, then you might consider actually trying HST. Technically, if you want to discredit HST, you'd have to get a bunch of people to try it while controlling as many variables as possible, because, again, n=1 proves nothing. But the most futile endeavor you could possibly engage in is to use unscientific logic to try to disprove HST from a scientific standpoint.
And to wrap things up, I'd just like to say that HST is more flexible than you give it credit for. If you want to do high volume, you can! If you were to give HST a try, you could figure out how many sets you are currently doing each week and set up your HST cycle so that you do the exact same total number of sets. The only difference is that with HST they would be spread out over several workouts.
Aside from organizing and conducting a scientific study on HST, the only way to disprove it is to attack the principles upon which it is based. In order to do this, you have to analyze the validity of the research and the conclusions that were drawn from it. Otherwise, you're not going to accomplish much of anything.
at the same time. Well, here goes nothing...I've read Karl Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations." Basically, Popper's main point is that the main criterion for a scientific theory is its ability to be tested and proven wrong. If a theory has no means by which it can be refuted, then that theory is not scientific. A theory's strength comes from being repeatedly tested and from scientists trying to prove that the theory is false, and their continued failure to demonstrate fallacy in the theory. Popper believes that a theory can never be proven true, only false. The best theories, he says, are the ones that despite repeated testing, have never been proven false.
For examples, he uses Einstein's theory of relativity and the psychological theories of Freud and Adler (I think it was Adler, it could have been someone else, though). He argues that the theory of relativity is science because it makes specific, objective claims about the universe. He says something about how it predicted that light would bend due to gravity, and this assertion was upheld when an eclipse allowed for this phenomenon to be observed. Freud and Adler's theories, on the other hand, could be adapted to fit any situation; their theories could be manipulated so that they could explain everything. Therefore, their theories could never be proven wrong, which makes them unscientific.
Vince, I guess your point in mentioning this is that by questioning the HST method & principles, you will eventually accomplish one of two things: prove them false, or strengthen them and make them more valid. I suppose that's a noble goal. But just because no one has given you a satisfactory defense of HST doesn't mean that no satisfactory defense has been given. To be honest, Vince, I'm not sure what sort of response you're looking for. I firmly believe that no matter what anyone says, no matter what studies or scientific articles someone posts, you will still be unconvinced. True scientific discussions involve not just dishing out criticism, but taking it as well.
And another thing: this debate is occurring on two different levels. Your evidence is your own experience, while the evidence presented by everyone else consists of scientific studies and physiology (along with some individual experience here and there). For the purpose of this debate, the two different sides might as well be speaking different languages.
Vince, you reference an article about science, yet you're not really dealing with science. Sure, you have your own muscle experiments, and in the end that's all that really matters for you. But in the grand scheme of science, experiments with n=1 prove absolutely nothing (as I remember Aaron as having said in the past). If you can't reproduce the same results in others, then it means nothing.
Also, if you want to try to discredit HST, then you might consider actually trying HST. Technically, if you want to discredit HST, you'd have to get a bunch of people to try it while controlling as many variables as possible, because, again, n=1 proves nothing. But the most futile endeavor you could possibly engage in is to use unscientific logic to try to disprove HST from a scientific standpoint.
And to wrap things up, I'd just like to say that HST is more flexible than you give it credit for. If you want to do high volume, you can! If you were to give HST a try, you could figure out how many sets you are currently doing each week and set up your HST cycle so that you do the exact same total number of sets. The only difference is that with HST they would be spread out over several workouts.
Aside from organizing and conducting a scientific study on HST, the only way to disprove it is to attack the principles upon which it is based. In order to do this, you have to analyze the validity of the research and the conclusions that were drawn from it. Otherwise, you're not going to accomplish much of anything.
