"We (should) only care about discovering the truth; we shouldn't care ahead of time which truth it is... if we want something to be true and not something else then we pay attention to evidence which favours that theory and discount evidence that doesn't" @seanmcarroll
🧵👇

Describes a huge problem in sports science/sports medicine that is endemic in the social sciences.

There should be no 'proposing a theory'.

(For one thing scientific method states that we can only begin with a hypothesis or an observation.

It only attains theory status once it has been validated with experimentation and repeatedly shown to predict what happens in reality.)

The point of debate is not to win, or necessarily agree fully with the other party at the end.

It doesn’t need to be adversarial and the objective doesn’t have to be arriving at consensus

🧵👇

The purpose of engaging in debate is articulating our perspective on the topic, presenting the rationale for our position.

The value comes from hearing the other side’s perspective, getting their insight and considering their arguments to stimulate thoughts and update our model

We can share less than 100% agreement and still be okay.

It is even possible to hold completely different views and still respect (or even like) the other party 🤯

Greater humility is warranted when we consider where true expertise resides and where the meaningful insights that move things forward come from.

Spoiler: academic research rarely drives cutting edge practice.

Empirical study is not restricted to the research setting
🧵👇 1/6

The most meaningful work that leads to discovery is often done in the field.

To use the example of injury rehab/return to sport, there is a lag between what is studied in research and practices at elite level that are pushing the boundaries and advancing our understanding 2/6

Moving beyond sport, the inventions and innovations that lead to scientific discovery most often come from the field.

Academic research generally follows (and serves an important function in validating discoveries and practices in the field) more than it leads 3/6

Those of us involved in academic research might benefit from humility in considering where true expertise resides and where the meaningful insights that move things forward come from.
Empirical study is not restricted to the research setting
(mini thread)

The most meaningful work that leads to discovery is often done in the field.

To use the example of injury rehab/return to sport, there is a lag between what is studied in research and practices at elite level that are pushing the boundaries and advancing our understanding 2/5

Moving beyond sport, the inventions and innovations that lead to scientific discovery most often come from the field.

Academic research generally follows (and serves an important function in validating discoveries and practices in the field) more than it leads 3/5

The role of arm action during running tends to be minimised or dismissed entirely, largely based on biomechanical modelling data.

Perhaps we are missing the point. The contribution of upper limbs to lower limb action during flight and stance go beyond what modelling captures 1/5

Coordination of bipedal locomotion (upright walking, running, sprinting) modes still involves all four limbs!

'During bipedal locomotor activities, humans use elements of quadrupedal neuronal limb control'

Link to the full read: link.springer.com/article/10.100… 2/5

Coaching wisdom shared by two of the best track and field coaches I have encountered describes how hip communicates to shoulder, elbow speaks to knee, ankle talks to wrist

(credit to @PfaffSC @fuzzcoaching respectively for those insights)
3/5