You've talked about "Appeal to Authority" many times and in the interview you bring up "Appeal to the Man". Something I've noticed which is like that I used to call the "conspiracy theory of health". It's pretty much the opposite of the appeal to authority where people dissmiss EVERYTHING from those supposed to be authorities and embrace everything "alternative" to that. So that basically science becomes a conspiracy to hide the "truth" from us and anyone who claims the opposite is automatically a pervayer of truth. I think much of that is of course bread and butter with logical fallacies, etc..
This is a huge marketing method in the "alternative" medicine industry. Just say that "the man" is keeping the truth about this or that herb from the public and you've got a guaranteed sale.
However, I think it is important that people be clear on what thinking for yourself is versus what embracing logic and science as a replacement for that. Sometimes logic itself can become a replacement for self-regulation. So that what seems to be choices based on logic gives you a locus of control that is external. In order to "stick to logic" we therefore use "self-control". When this fails we again see an external means of explaining and responding, fail to learn self-regulation, and get deeper and deeper into a failure spiral. When self-regulation itself is a logical way of dealing with the world.
Learning how to think is the key. Not learning what to think.
Matter of fact I would argue that having modes of thought would be a characteristic of the action oriented person as opposed to having many preconceptions based on seeming logic…which I would associate with the state oriented person.
None of this is meant to counter logic and the scientific process! I'm only bringing up a pitfall of misunderstanding it.
As a for instance many people talk about "optimal" training. Their views on training are driven therefore, in their minds by the scientific method. But is it logical to assume that there is an optimal way to train? Logically we must define optimal. Since there is no universal definition of optimal in regards to training then there is no overlying logic in optimal training. It's easy to fall into a trap of finding what's true for everyone rather than what is true for ourselves and that opens the door to the gurus!
I caught the 5 questions article over at FLzine yesterday. Good stuff Coach Hale.
The other article is great as well!
The strength trainee says "Why sacrifice intensity when I can sacrifice volume"
The bodybuilder says "Why sacrifice intensity when I can sacrifice form"
"We are not sport, when there is a sport issue, we are not so good. The boxer is much better than us at boxing. But he will have to protect his balls if he wants to punch us."