Rjhartu posted Maybe I can explain it from my archaelogical background. Lets say that I state that Stonehenge (Ancient monument) was used as a religious ceremonial site. That is that I am stating it as a fact. Then I have to be able to prove that claim based on evidence. In fact very good evidence and so the burden of proof lies with me. And maybe after many years of providing evidence I manage to do that and it becomes an academic fact i.e that most if not nearly all academics pretty much accept it as a proven fact based on very good evidence. However if then someone else comes along and tries to prove that (as Rjhartu posted) that the claim is wrong then they also have to produce very good evidence to prove that my evidence, my theory is wrong. In other words there is usually a new theory, even if that theory is that "Stonehenge was not a religious site". So where does the burden of proof lie? Well I have already produced very good evidence that has pretty much been accepted by the scientific community. Pretty much like the established fact that the Romans came to Britain and built Villas. In fact if you now stated that the Romans did not come to Britain, i think you might get more than a few academics rolling in the aisles. So in this case because the fact has been established through very good evidence and accepted by academics and the scientific community it is for the most part down to the challenger of this idea (that Stonehenge is not a religious site) to produce evidence, and thus the burden of proof lies with him. However the case of faith is slightly different. If I for example take the figure of King Arthur, and I claim that he really did exist as a fact. Well the problem is that I can't really prove that. The only evidence I have is a few documents written 400 years after Arthur was supposed to exist, and thats it. So no real evidence. Now of course if I then publish in an academic journal that King Arthur really did exist then the academics are going to say "Prove it". In fact the article would not even make it into an academic journal through lack of evidence. However if then another Academic stated that my claim was just wishful thinking it would be crazy for me to say "Oh yes, well prove me wrong" This is the kind of argument that fundamentalist Christians use when talking about the subject of god, or even creation. And which has now spawned the atheists using the Spaghetti monster analogy as an example of how silly this argument is. In other words I state that "The invisible spaghetti monster is orbiting the earth, Prove me wrong". Well of course the whole point of this is that you can't prove me wrong. But this does not prove the existence of the Spaghetti Monster just because you can't prove me wrong. And this is the whole problem when we turn this argument to the Togakure Ryu that we will see like the above example that much of our belief in this Ryu is based on faith. It is not an established fact. We have no evidence past Takamatsu that this Ryu was actually in existence and was passed down to Takamatsu from his supposed teacher. If it was an established fact accepted by academics that the Togakure Ryu was hundreds of years old, i.e through through evidence such as historical documents that had been radio carbon dated, and proven to be hundreds of years old then the burden of proof would not necesarily be on the pro togakure Ryu guys, as it had been established that they had very good evidence to prove their case but on the person trying to disprove the established fact i.e that the documents were false and that Takamatsu made up the Togakure Ryu. The problem is that the Togakure is not proven fact accepted by academics. In fact like King Arthur, the belief in God, or the spaghetti monster it is very much based on faith. So for all intent and purposes the burden of proof does not lie with the person that says "Prove that togakure Ryu is older than Takamatsu" but with the people claiming that it is. the problem is that with the Togakure Ryu we have now evolved it into the spagghetti Monster idea i.e that " I believe that togakure Ryu is hundreds of years old, prove me wrong" well of course like te spagghetti monster we can't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and just because we cannot find any evidence for Togakure ryu before Takamatsu as the pro Togakure Ryu guys will point out it does not disprove the theory. And neither does this kind of argument disprove fairies at the bottom of my garden, ufos, the belief in god, the spaghetti monster or my claim that i am visited nightly by Sandayu Momochi who is teaching me the secret art of Ninjutsu. Oh and if you don't believe me on that last point. The burden of proof is with you to prove me wrong I hope this makes sense. NB (I know people are going to say that in science there is no such thing as fact only theory. So I have used the word fact in its loosest connetation. Of course any theory that becomes an established theory i.e evolution, the belief of the world being billions of years old, or that the world orbits the sun can be challenged, but the burden of proof I am sure you will agree pretty much lies with the chalenger and not with the scientific community to defend their claims) Garth
Good post So in both the cases of Jinichi Kawakami and Togakure Ryu the burden of proof lies with the claimants and until verifiable evidence surfaces both are just fanciful stories. By the way, carbon dating can be faked.
I wouldn't say fanciful stories. more like theories without evidence to back up there claims (Yet). Depends what you mean by faked. If the sample is taken properly and subjected to controlled tests Radio Carbon Dating (Carbon 14 dating) should be very difficult to fake. However with any document C14 should not be enough. The type of paper, the type of writing, the analysis of the ink, the language should all come in to play to determine if the document is genuine. By the way it always makes me laugh on Star Gate the movie when they say that the star gate has been proven to be X number of years old through Carbon Dating. i guess no one told the writers or director that you can't radio carbon date stone. Garth
Garth ..... do you know what is the accuracy or "tolerance" of Carbon 14 dating??? Are we talking about getting results within years .... or decades ..... or are we talking about the nearest century or even thousands of years??? What I'm trying to ask is ..... can Carbon dating tell the difference between a scroll from 1850 and 1950?
All of these things can be found with a quick browse and some patience on the net. To get the most accurate reading items should ideally be atleast 300 years old, but 100 year differences can be determined. The Carbon dating for two identical items at the same age will be different if one is stored in a nuckear power plant, or if it is within certain proximity to say.. a nuclear explosion. But carbon dating is the best we have, and as per Garths reference to Theory not fact in science, and his mention of Carbon Dating backing up (or being backed up) by type of paper type of ink, style of writing etc... Carbon Dating is approximate and is ideally used in the same way we can guesstimate a mathematical solution to determine if our actual maths is accurate.
We really need to give up on the burden of proof talk, it isn`t useful and is often fallacious. Garth we basically agree just, differing camps I might have mis-read your original post.
Hendry posted Its accurate enough to determine whether the scrolls are older than Takamatsu. Try Colin Renfrews "Before civilisation" Garth
The Iga-Ryu Ninja Museum states that Jinichi Kawakami is the last and only heir to authentic Ninjutsu: http://iganinja.jp/en/faq/index.html They also state he is called the "Last living modern Ninja": http://iganinja.jp/en/exp/learning.html Banke Shinobinoden (affiliated with Jinichi Kawakami) state that they are the last practitioners of historically authentic Ninjutsu left in the world: http://www.eonet.ne.jp/~bankeshinobi/ (follow the English link) The Book on Banke Shinobinoden's website also confirms this: http://www.eonet.ne.jp/~bankeshinobi/news.html On the same webpage it shows a link for the government of Shiga Prefecture, Japan. The link shows Banke Shinobinoden doing a seminar for Shiga Prefecture. http://www.pref.shiga.jp/h/m-doboku/konanIC/ibento.html The Iga-Ryu Ninja museum is a public museum. It's purpose is to study and preserve ancient Japanese documents related to Ninjutsu. Part of the museum is for tourism but the other part is actually a real museum. They have many ancient documents related to authentic Ninjutsu. Again, they state that Jinichi Kawakami is the last inheritor of historically authentic Ninjutsu. *The people you might meet at the museum demonstrating techniques and such are just actors. They are in no way connected to Banke Shinobinoden or Jinichi Kawakami. Banke Shinobinoden is a completely different entity.* Banke Shinobinoden is well-documented in Japan. Why the confusion over who carries on historically authentic Ninjutsu? Why do so many people (outside of Japan) seem to believe Masaaki Hatsumi is related to authentic Ninjutsu? There has never been any proof of this..........why so much confusion?
Lol Silv, Why wouldnt they? Hes been around since the 60-ies, have released several books on the subject, he has taught principles and techniques to many, many students, he has held lectures on the subject, et cetera, et cetera. So of course people believe he is related to ninjutsu. Why are you confused? Well, Ive never heard about that ryu-ha before so if this is true I figure it is from recent years /year. Please elaborate on this. Are there any books on this ryu-ha or any scholars who have looked into it ? Regards / Skuggvarg
There's been some discussion of Kawakami on e-budo in the past. Part of his obscurity is that for a very long time, he had just one student, who I assume is Kiyomoto.
