Interesting; something off the beaten track.

While i agree that many treat "Traditional Martial Arts" almost like a "Religion" (i.e. The Ancients knew everything and thou shalt not question) we also need to be careful that we don't throw the "baby out with the bathwater". Almost all of current-day martial arts are "Sports" (including MMA etc.) with rules and refereeing in place to avoid serious injury/death. Thus while we have a lot of modern knowledge w.r.t. Anatomy/Physiology etc. much of the mental training needed for "life-or-death" situations have been lost. A technique by itself is nothing; it is the "killing mentality" needed to go with it that is everything. I think that is what we need to refocus on from "Traditional Martial Arts" while at the same time interpreting them in the light of Modern Science/Psychology.

I think most traditional martial arts are also practiced, taught, and competed in as sports these days. They're not gladiators.

Specialized people (military, self defense contractors, etc.) might optimize for lethality. Maybe Krav Maga has a greater focus on that than most. But most of the famous Eastern arts aren't delaying with life and death stuff anymore either. It's not Kill Bill.

That was my point.

The paper bemoans the BS in "Traditional Martial Arts" but misses the point that they are no longer taught with the same level of intensity/seriousness/viciousness/ruthlessness that it was originally developed with. Lacking this training mindset the "Martial" art becomes merely a "Sport". But many of the ancient texts cover these principles quite well and are worth learning and interpreting in modern physiological/psychological terms.

I see. Thanks for the clarification!

I read this paper and it's interesting, even though I'm not interested in martial arts (but I am interested in what the author calls "epistemic vices"). I didn't see where it's saying that "The whole industry gets its ass kicked by mixed martial arts" and it seems very respectful to martial arts masters, also, saying, e.g. that:

So am I advocating scoffing at the word of your sensei or senpai? No. That’s not being an epistemically responsible agent, that’s just being an asshole. All the old constraints on your behaviour still apply. I’m arguing for the importance of being cautious in what you believe.

Instead of saying they are "trapped in their echo chamber, sniffing their own farts". Although I guess you inevitably sniff a few things you wouldn't normally chose to in a dojo (such as other peoples' sweat or foot smell).

Interestingly the author then goes on to quote "the words of the Buddha "copied from their place of honour on the wall of Harry Cook’s dojo":

Do not believe on the strength of traditions even if they have been held in honour for many generations and in many places; do not believe anything because many people speak of it; do not believe on the strength of sages of old times; do not believe that which you have yourselves imagined, thinking that a god has inspired you. Believe nothing which depends only on the authority of your masters or priests. After investigation, believe that which you have yourselves tested and found reasonable, and which is for your good and that of others.

And while that sounds very enlightened to the modern reader, there's at least this guy who thinks it's a mistranslation adjusted to that modern reader's sensibilities:

https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simp...

Anyway an interesting read, so thanks for linking.

I haven't read the whole paper, but isn't one reason MMA wins because it has less restrictions on what moves you can do? Other martial arts have strict rules on what kind of moves you do, so a practitioner of Taekwondo will be at a disadvantage against MMA practitioner, for obvious reasons. This doesn't mean one martial art is necessarily better, they just have different rules. It seems silly to compare them that way.

Imagine a hypothetical new martial arts that allows all the moves of MMA, but with biting and eye poke allowed, so practitioners of this arts is at a definite advantage against MMA. Would you say that this martial art is any better?

I think the generally accepted context most people evaluate martial arts in is "How well does it allow one to weaponize their body to defend themselves?"

In this context, some martial arts are dramatically better than others.

MMA + Eye-poking martial art: Yes.