Pseudoscience & Pseudohistory in the Martial Arts

Pseudoscience and the martial arts have enjoyed a long history together. Traditional martial arts are full of tales and mythology from Qi/Chi to incredible feats of prowess. Even modern martial arts have their fair share of myths concerning effectiveness and tactics. There seems to be something about the martial arts that just attracts pseudoscience and, unfortunately, many of its practitioners do not think critically about the claims being made.

Qi/Chi has been looked at in a lot of places (like Bad Martial Arts) and all I want to say here is that Chi cannot be measured, contradicts everything that we know about the natural world and can easily be explained by other, natural, explanations. To use Occam's Razor: what is the simpler explanation? That magic exists and people 2,500 years ago discovered its secrets? Or, that 2,500 years ago people found that by training and concentrating they could do stuff that other people couldn't?

I've also noticed that this acceptance of mystical energies also opens the door for alternative medicine which is also rampant in the martial arts. Many people think that acupuncture, for example, is the flip side of martial arts and can be used for healing. Despite zero evidence supporting the effectiveness of acupuncture (among many other studies) for healing, many martial artists think that because a pressure point can cause tremendous pain when hit a certain way, that they can harness these "energies" for good. This is particularly rife in the Oriental martial arts where many masters are involved in Traditional Chinese Medicine or some other kind of alternative medicine. Calls for evidence and trials seem to fall on deaf ears. Pointing sham acupuncture and other controlled trials doesn't seem to garner much interest either. It's almost as if the Orient does not need evidence to substantiate its claims.

The laws of the natural world apply as much to the dojo/training hall as they do outside.

Pseudohistory is another thing that the martial arts suffer from a great deal. Hapkido, Bujinkan and Daito Ryu are examples of having controversy in their lineage. We will probably never know for certain about the true origins of these arts. A lot of this stuff happened a long time ago when people weren't so keen on writing things down. Also, many things were transmitted as part of an oral tradition, thus making verification extremely difficult. On the other hand, how much does it really matter? Modern martial arts are not immune from this either: the origins of Sambo are unclear, was it Oschepkov or Spiridnov? Imi Lichtenfield was clearly the origin of Krav Maga, but who runs it now, is it the IKMF, Commando Krav Maga, Tactical Krav Maga? I think that it's important to keep in mind that the lineage of a particular art is secondary to the quality of the training. Gauging the quality of training is something very personal and which will depend on the goals that you have for training. But if you can't ask questions or ask for evidence, then you're probably in the wrong place. The bios of the indivudual instructors are also very important, as they will be giving you your regular instruction, not Ueshiba Morihei or Carlos Gracie. Are they interested in the same sorts of things that you are interested in? Do they train regularly with their own masters?

So, for example, this is good, this is not so good.