Why i think it's possible for a Swordsman to take down a gunman

It's popular modern belief that a gunman can easily take down a charging swordsman with just the click of a trigger. While this may be true in many cases, it doesn't always work. Here's a few myths on guns and swords:

Myth: "A gunshot can immediately kill a target"

People die from blood loss which takes many minutes. There have been cases where people are still able to move and react despite being shot multiple times. The idea of a gunshot immobilizing a rushing person only works in the movies.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/man-continues-drive-car-despite-being-shot-twice/nnsbt/

Myth: "Guns are deadlier than Swords"

Because a hand-gun relies on poison through gunpowder and blood loss, it's less deadly than a sword. A sword can cut through flesh, cut arteries, sever limbs, damage internal organs, and so forth.

Myth: "Swordsmen must land a powerful killing blow to stop a target"

As I've learned in Sword-fighting, the goal is not to kill but survive. Usually, slashing an opponent will not kill. It's alot easier and safer to simply incapacitate an enemy than land a fatal blow.

With this in mind, imagine a gunman face-to-face to a knifeman. Who do you think will react quicker? It depends on so many factors such as who is more adapt to the environment, training, reaction time, distance, speed, the types of weapons, etc. One would expect the gunman to react faster as opposed to the knifeholder. According to the 21 foot rule, this isn't the case for officers. Officers must stand within 21 feet in order to stay safe from a knife-attack. Stand 15 feet near your attacker and you won't have time to pull out your gun. Officers have very little time to react and despite standing 21 feet, it is still dangerous.

Now imagine a swordsman charging in. The sword covers more distance and take into account what i said earlier. It only takes a few feet for a swordsman to quickly strike their opponent. Depending on how mobile your sword is, i'd say it's possible to strike a gunman from a distance.

How would the Swordsman get a slight chance of approaching the gunman without being stopped?

There's no way to "dodge" bullets. There's a huge chance your going to get shot and probably die from a gunshot wound. However your survival depends on many things such as speed, distance, agility, mobility, where you attack, balance, reflexes. Once the trigger is pulled, there is little hope of dodging bullets. Nevertheless, it's possible for someone to improve reaction time to guns. Who knows how this would turn out in a real life application, but it could minimize the number of gunshot wounds.

Guns move faster than humans, but a gunman does not. Thus there are many ways that can hinder him or her from firing an accurate shot. Moving too quickly decreases accuracy. Getting knocked off balance, distractions, or getting sand in your eyes can cause a gunman to miss shots. Shooting a moving target is even more difficult as opposed to someone standing still.

A study was done to determine whether or not running in a zig-zag pattern was more effective than rushing in a straight line. While running in a zig-zag pattern didn't make a much of a difference, it was slightly more effective than running a straight line. It surely made it less likely for a shooter to hit vital areas. This makes all the difference in landing a strike on a gunman.

There are certain shooting patterns that people have and are essential in moving out of the way before the trigger is pulled. If your a gunman, you surely don't want to miss your first shot if your not using an automatic. If your a swordsman, you don't want to dance around avoiding bullets. You also don't want to miss your first strike either.

Remember what i said about swordsmen not needing to delivering fatal blows? Assuming the gun-man has no formal training in hand-to-hand combat or martial arts, the gun-man stands little chance in avoiding a blade. Cutting the muscles in a gun-man's forearm will almost certainly force him to let go of his firearm. Severing an artery in the abdomen can cause the gun-man to collapse, giving you time to disarm him. Once he's on the ground, you have the upper hand.

I'm just speculating. Who knows if this will work in a real life situation. Regardless, i hope perhaps one day i can test this theory. Nonetheless, swords should not be underestimated in our modern age. Despite the advances of modern technology, a sword can be a devastating weapon.

http://readingwithavengeance.tumblr.com/post/87716139612/does-a-person-die-immediately-when-theyre-shot

http://prepcabin.com/2013/11/13/running-zig-zag-pattern-actually-effective/

http://www.nextlevelgamer.com/game-strategy/can-you-dodge-a-bullet

http://writeworld.org/post/39568468890/a-summary-of-how-people-die-and-dont-in

Scientific observations

Scientists make observations to use for data in an experiment. It's not simply seeing, but also formulating ideas and paying attention to detail. The most vital questions are:

* Ask the who, what, where, when, and why - Who are the subjects participating in the study? What do they look like? What are they doing? How are they interacting with each other if at all? What's the environment like? Is the environment affecting their behavior?

Observations must also be able to answer the questions you ask. When tests need to be reproduced, observations need to be compared among different observers. Measurements involve comparing and recording different observations at different times by different people according to a standard shared by all participants. Counting how many standard units are comparable to the object. Measurement reduces observations to a lower recordable number. Two observations resulting in the same number are equal according to measurement.

There are two types of observations

1. Quantitative data - Observations requiring measurement of numbers.

2. Qualitative data - Descriptions of the observations you make.

There are several ways to record observations:

1. Data Tables

2. Lab illustrations

3. Description of a story

4. Digital camera

5. Notebooks

6. Spreadsheets

These are only a few ways of recording observations. There are various tools scientists use to do so.

Observations are essential in scientific hypotheses, experiments, and theories. They are the core components of the scientific method.

Scientific hypothesis

We all may be very familiar with a scientific hypothesis. Some may even think of it as a guess but a scientific hypothesis has a more precise definition. A scientific hypothesis is an explanation about natural phenomenon in the world. There are several distinct features within a hypothesis:

1. It must be falsifiable -  Scientific tests must be done in order to prove it's validity. A hypothesis can be tested but if it's not falsifiable, it's not scientific. Take the hypothesis "There are U.F.O's with aliens among us." We can capture them and use tools to study them, proving them to exist. This can only be proven right but it cannot be proven wrong as the possibility that there are U.F.O's still stands.

2. It must be testable - Scientific hypothesis follow an "if-then" statement with the idea being able to be proven right or wrong depending on the evidence or observation.

3. It must lead to more knowledge - A hypothesis must be able to explain further phenomenon in the future.

Coming up with a scientific hypothesis is like coming up with a poem. It requires a wild imagination and creativity. As Einstein once said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Take a moment and write down a list of questions, observations, and comments you have about the natural world. Be wild and free with your ideas so that you can test them later on. Scientists base their hypotheses on what is already scientifically known. Simple hypotheses are preferred among the scientific community.

 Hypotheses are either accepted or rejected based on evidence. But because hypotheses can be wrong, they can still be rejected later when new evidence arrives. In some cases, scientists simply reform the hypothesis according to new information. Here, hypotheses are not wrong, simply incomplete without the latest information.

Now what if two different hypotheses are supported? Scientists generally pick the simpler one.

Scientific hypotheses are an essential part of the scientific method. Scientific hypotheses help us better understand the world through models that we build. Those that are supported further our knowledge and those that aren't still give us insight into what is uncertain or wrong.

Basic assumptions of science

Just as there are assumptions in philosophy, there are also assumptions in science although these are different. Scientific assumptions are used when performing experiments. They are as follows: 

1. There are natural causes to the world - If we observe for example a mutation in an animal, there must be an explanation for why that is so. 

2. Evidence helps us learn about causes - We can do experiments and create models helping us to understand the world such as testing the effects of a certain drug in the human body and what causes them. 

3. Causes are predictable - The same causes can occur repeatedly in many situations. For example, observations of gravity in one setting can also be applied to another. 

4. Nature has order - There is structure to the universe around us. Nature has a pattern repeating itself. For example, Darwin noticed variations between finches and theorized that there was an underlying cause for why this was so. The theory of Evolution is widely applied to explain many sorts of natural phenomenon because of it's order in biological life. 

5. We can know about Nature - We can use our senses to make conclusions about how nature works. 

6. Nothing is obviously true - Meaning that we should not believe something because it's just common sense. If i told you that sneezing kills your brain cells, would you take my word for it or test this idea? It's essential to assume that our ideas can be wrong and to do tests in order to see if they are or not. 

The scientific method

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/aug/24/2

Scientists have developed a way to create an out of body experience. This can create a virtual reality for gamers and has many applications in the future. How did they do this? If there are many questions in your mind, keep reading.

The scientific method is more than a process, it's a whole new way of looking at the world. Think deeply about any questions you have around the world we live in such as where did we come from as a species? What are we made out of? How do we function? What is the sun made out of? How did life originate? Science is about investigating the world around us. It's about being a critical thinker and exploring new ideas. Once you are motivated to investigate and learn about reality, you are ready to become a scientist. How do you become a scientist? Every scientist in different branches follows a general but essential method known as the scientific method.

1. Make observations - We can make many observations with our natural senses but to get an even deeper glimpse into the intricate details of the universe, scientists use various tools. Scientists keep track of everything they can observe and pile it into data. Observations are used to either support or refute a hypothesis. You cannot simply observe without providing an explanation for that observation. Making observations and keeping consistent track of them are essential throughout the scientific method.

2. Asking questions - Science requires alot of creativity. When curiosity is sparked, it is a great idea to write down all the questions you have in a notebook concerning an observation such as what are the differences between men and women? How did life originate? How hot is the sun? What is it made out of? Can we travel through time inside black holes?

3. Scientific arguments - These aren't disagreements, but lines of reasoning deducing a conclusion based on three components: hypotheses, expected observations, and the outcomes. Hypotheses follow an if-then statement and is examined by many scientists. The questions you should be asking are the following:

a. What would we expect to see based on what we already know?

b. What do we observe now?

c. Do our expectations match the observations made?

4. Performing experiments - An experiment is a test designed to manipulate some factors to alter the outcome. They involve controlling factors in order to isolate the exact cause of the test results. There are lab tests and real world tests such as removing a species from it's environment to see how the ecosystem would function. Natural experiments are observations of the universe performing a test for us.

All experiments require making assumptions of nature which can be justified. Additional tests can be done to justify these assumptions. Some assumptions aren't tested because knowledge of a field determines it is safe to be assumed. If an expectation not supported by a test is formed by an idea, it can be right or wrong but even if it is right, it can be attributed to false positive test results.

5. Reviewing test results - Scientists evaluate several ideas on how something works and figure out which one has the most supportive evidence. Evidence may support an idea over another. It may rule out some other hypotheses. Evidence may also require revision in a hypothesis. It can also reveal a faulty assumption which causes the scientist to possibly redesign the experiment. Evidence can also lead towards another hypothesis and research. If hypotheses are equally plausible then the evidence is inconclusive. If an assumptions is shown to be faulty, the scientist may need to redesign the experiment. New questions and new research may arise from existing evidence.

Science is all about knowledge built upon by creative thinking. Science requires an open mind and rigorous procedure to ensure that we learn how things work. This is a basic overview of the scientific method. There is still much to learn.  

Why i quit debating

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?pagewanted=all

It's been commonly assumed that debating helps intellectual thinkers advance in society but a very interesting new theory says otherwise. It's purpose according to a cognitive psychologist is that it's purpose was for one group to defeat another. I suppose this makes sense as it takes place in a social setting. Humans do have a need to belong and some seek on reforming beliefs of others. Debating also introduces confirmation bias or choosing evidence that supports your beliefs while ignoring the rest. Reasoning helps win an argument, but not find Truth. Hugo Mercier also provides evidence demonstrating that humans are bad at reasoning. Logical reasoning alone can provide justified beliefs, but not the best ones. Collective group thinking is more favored towards finding the Truth because we are better at evaluating arguments rather than producing them individually.

Why i stopped debating is because it's focused too much on semantics and confirmation bias. People are more worried about boosting their debating skills than seeking the Truth. There are millions of possibilities out there and debating typically restricts them to a few positions. Debating may have been useful in Socrates day, but science has now taken over the world.