Reality-based self-defense (a.k.a. RBSD) is all the rage these days. It's like the evidence-based medicine mantra that proliferates discussions in health care today whenever effectiveness of care and eligibility for reimbursement come up.
At least in medicine, I have confidence that "evidence-based" means something. Often that label is given by someone only after countless randomized trials are conducted. The results of these trials are then submitted as articles for publication in peer-reviewed journals where the best in the field can reject the nonsense and argue about the details.
In self-defense, we have a much lower threshold. There really isn't a laboratory whereby we can submit maybe a couple hundred prisoners to a scenario and randomly ask groups of them to respond this way or that. Instead we are left with a historical record from which we try to make sense of what has happened. It's equivalent to epidemiological studies in medicine, where researchers notice patterns and try to make sense of them. Associations can be found, but causality cannot necessarily be attributed without the more controlled settings. In self-defense though that's all we have.
And people run with it. People propose new training methods based on these studies, and label them "reality-based." If that's the best we have, well fine. But should we be skeptical? If I'm going to put my science hat on, well I will be. And that's very healthy, even if we get a few noses out of joint in the process. Ultimately the best among us are only seeking truth. And in some cases, that can be a very elusive thing.
More later.
- Bill