Wing Chun , history of pseudohistory

Pseudohistory is a form of pseudoscholarship that attempts to distort or misrepresent the historical record, often using methods resembling those used in legitimate historical research. Pseudohistory frequently presents a big lie or sensational claims about historical facts which require the revision (re-writing) of the historical record. Pseudohistory is related to pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology and usage of the terms may occasionally overlap.

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited. The term pseudoscience is considered pejorative because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization

Pseudoarchaeology—also known as alternative archaeology, fringe archaeology, fantastic archaeology, or cult archaeology—refers to interpretations of the past from outside of the archaeological science community, which reject the accepted data gathering and analytical methods of the discipline. These pseudoscientific interpretations involve the use of artifacts, sites or materials to construct scientifically insubstantial theories to supplement the pseudoarchaeologists' claims. Methods include exaggeration of evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, and fabrication of evidence.

Any work that claims to be history, but does not use established historiographical methods; especially one that uses disputed evidence and speculation rather than relying on the analysis of primary sources 

Pseudohistory is purported history which

-          Treats myths, legends, sagas and similar literature as literal truth

-          Is neither critical nor skeptical in its reading of ancient historians, taking their claims at face value and ignoring empirical or logical evidence contrary to the claims of the ancients

-          Is on a mission, not a quest, seeking to support some contemporary political , economical or religious agenda rather than find out the truth about the past

-          Often maintains that history is nothing but mythmaking and that different histories are not to be compared on such traditional academic standards as accuracy, empirical probability, logical consistency, relevancy, completeness, fairness, honesty, etc., but on moral or political grounds

-          Is selective in its use of ancient documents, citing favorably those that fit with its agenda, and ignoring or interpreting away those documents which don't fit

-          Considers the possibility of something being true as sufficient to believe it is true if it fits with one's agenda

-          Often maintains that there is a conspiracy to suppress its claims because of racism, atheism or ethnocentrism, or because of opposition to its political or religious agenda

Pseudohistory should be distinguished from the ancient texts it is based on. The sagas, legends, myths and histories which have been passed on orally or in written documents by ancient peoples are sometimes called pseudohistory. Some of it is pseudohistory, some of it is flawed history and some of it isn't history at all.

Pseudohistory should also be distinguished from historical fiction and fantasy. Despite the fact that historical fiction is often historically accurate, it is not history. Anyone who cites a work of historical fiction as if it were a history text is a practicing pseudohistorian. These are writers of historical fiction who intentionally falsify and invent ancient history.

Films seem to present a special challenge for some people; for, they argue endlessly about the duty of filmmakers to be historically accurate. Unless a film claims to be a documentary, it is fiction or fantasy no matter how accurate or realistic it is. Film makers have no more duty to be historians than do novelists. Anyone who would cite films as if they were historical documents is a pseudohistorian. Rather than demand that filmmakers be responsible historians or citizens, we should demand that filmgoers be critical thinkers. Being "based on a true story" is not a sufficient condition for being non-fiction

Separating facts from truth is extremely hard for pesudohistiruans. Facts are not things that are discovered or created, they are simply acknowledged or denied. When you deny a fact you are incorrect. Facts are things that you cannot argue into or out of reality. Examples of facts: Water is wet, fire is hot. These two things cannot be reasoned out of existence. There is nothing to argue.

But truth is far more fluid. “God is Dead” or “God Exists” are statements of truth, which can be argued and reasoned, and whether they are true or false does not change reality. Water is no less wet if God exists or not, but nonfactual things, such as your view of human nature does change. Much of Pseudo-History is focused on moral and political truth, rather than on historical fact. They are trying to tell a narrative that matches a moral code, which may or may not be good fiction or life perspective, but it’s not good history.

History of Wing Chun today is completely pseudohistory and here are the reasons for that.

-          There is not even one research that is done by professionals of the field (Archaeologists, Historians, and other accompanied fields necessary for full and complete process of research)

-          There isn’t any relevant historical institution like a museum or university that ever conducted research about history of kung fu in general, not to mention Wing Chun.

-          There isn’t any scientific study published in any scientific journal so it can be peer reviewed and discussed by the professionals.

-          Complete absence of physical evidence of any kind, no artifacts, no written documents , no physical remains of the people supposedly involved in the creation of the art.

-          The only source of information is the “oral transmission”. But there are so many different versions of “oral history” that either contradict in key details or completely and often create paradoxes in the timeline. These ‘’sources’ shouldn’t be even considered for serious scientific research because , they are not histories at all and their social and political as well as moral and ethical function is something far beyond presenting historical facts.

-          All the “researchers “ who had done any research about Wing Chun history are not even an amateur historians but people who think that practicing wing chun gives them some special insight and abilities to do the fully scientific research which cannot be more wrong.

-          None of these researches could pass the test of the scientific approach an methods in the process of gathering ,sorting and interpreting the findings.

In fact all the research done by all these people qualifies as pseudohistory and pseudoreserach on first glance, researchers used all the above named method of pseudohistory very obviously from the very beginning.

-          These researches not only lack  knowledge and skills for such research but also they lack resources , money , laboratories , access to significant data bases and of  course complete absence of professionals form various scientific fields who actually do the analysis of specific kind of findings .

-           

Of course , many of these people are devoted Wing Chun practitioners  with great passion for learning all segments of their chosen art. Over the years many valid things were discovered , unfortunately more often than not these information were understood without right context or put in wrong one. There researchers , at least some of them had an honest desire to find out as much as possible about history of the art. Many others just tried to prove them right and put them above all else in political, historical (chronological) and form some reason believed technical sense.

This is the truth about Wing Chun history research without exception. Whatever we know or more accurate think we know about art’s history simply cannot be taken as the truth. True History of Wing Chun will come to light of the day that moment when some serious historical institute starts real scientific research and even then , at the end we may know less than we think we know now.