You all know when we have these days, good and less optimal.
The last few days where exceptionally fun.
We had an incredible set of feed backs form areas, we never would have expected that fats and that clear in supporting further development of our ideas and offering some great accepted platforms.
The never expected interested from some super critical groups and the openness to start using different options to look further into the level of bio marker observations and integration.
We can not get you all the information's, but over the next few month Andri may get into some more feed backs as well as we may have some great opportunities to show you many more cases and experiments we did over many years , which now will be repeated in one or the other way from accepted groups and institutions.
The feedback is loud and clear.
Sport specific ,physiological assessment versus researched based lab interest. A cyclist is assessed on a bike , a rower on a rowing erg or boat, a tennis player on a tennis court. A figure skater on the ice during an event or real event like trading and so on.
Strength workouts are based on physiological stimulation paired with some load feedback and interval sessions are based on physiological goal setting and therefore the actual discipline paired with live feedback on load duration recovery in between loads and so on.
This type of feedback is a great motivator for all of us interested in moving forward and adding new technology critical but with an openness to our tool set.
The same happens here on our small but very involved regular readers on this messy forum.
The level of feed backs increased incredible on my mail box and nicer even on here. The loud thinking in what ever direction we go is great and we create many great more questions and once in a while hopefully some usable answers or better new directions.
I like to re use a great mail I got from Leslie Shooter PH. D in exercise physiology and a member of the Red bull science ideas as well a former Scientist the Olympic training center in Boulder and ow in Utah. I met Leslie during an invitation I enjoyed in the Red Bull training center in Santa Monica. Leslie was one of the many great brains there with that incredible great feeling of positive critical questions to motivate possible answers I often did not had but a great motivation to dig deeper. Here for people like to read the full article.
The practice of science at the edge of knowledge.
Chronicle of Higher Education;; 3/24/2000, Vol. 46 Issue 29, pB11-
Postmodernism;; Science -- Philosophy;; Theory of knowledge
The writer describes the postmodern view of science and the way in
which science should be taught.
Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
THE PRACTICE OF SCIENCE AT THE EDGE OF KNOWLEDGE
THE PRACTICE OF SCIENCE AT THE EDGE OF KNOWLEDGE
IN RECENT DECADES, postmodernists and sociologists of science have argued that science is just
one of many human activities with social and political aims--comparable to, say, religion or art. They
have questioned the objectivity of science, and whether it has any unique ability to find the truth. Not
surprisingly, such claims have evoked a negative response from proponents of the traditional view of
science;; the debate between the two sides has been called the science wars. In the debate, scientists
have made few attempts to meet the postmodern critique on its own grounds, through serious reflection
on the everyday practice of science. Yet that is the only way to understand the nature of science and
the features that distinguish science from other activities.
The behavior of baseball umpires helps define the issues. There are three types of umpires. The first
type says: "I call balls and strikes as they are." The second says: "I call them as I see them." And the
third says: "What I call them is what they become."
What distinguishes the types of umpires is not the situations in which they find themselves, but the
attitudes that they bring to their work. As a result of those attitudes, they practice umpiring differently.
The first type claims truth;; the second, perspective;; and the third, power.
Philosophers might identify the umpires' different claims as realism, contextualism, and social
constructivism. Realism corresponds to the traditional view of science that links reality directly to
observation. Contextualism suggests that how one looks at things will determine, to some extent, what
one sees. Social constructivism corresponds to the postmodern view, linking reality with power. To
determine which view most accurately reflects what scientists do, let us consider the two central
features of scientific practice: discovery and credibility.
Discovery begins within the context of prevailing scientific beliefs. At the same time, the goals of
discovery assume that previous knowledge is incomplete or wrong. Discovery takes place at the edge
of knowledge, an ambiguous place where no one has been before. At the edge, one must make risky
choices and address hard questions: What should be done first? How does one recognize data,
especially when one is searching for something never seen before? And when experimental results do
not meet one's expectations, is it because one's original idea was wrong, or because the methods used
to test the idea were wrong? Scientists have a saying: Don't give up a good idea just because the data
With this in mind we move forward on what we like most, having fun being here and enjoy our freedom compared to what ever goes on in this world.
What we do here is minuscule to what we should do and of little effect in the bigger picture of life. Let us all always keep this in mind when we try to debate with each other. THnaks so much for all the great support in all directions.
My biggest positive critics are my own kids so when ever I get over board , Andri or Martina or Flurin will very easy direct and fast slow the old man down. There is no holding back in their critic.