There has been some debate recently in the Wing Chun community about the nature of history and anthropology, in relation to the ongoing “quest” for our roots. I’d like to share my feelings (er… rant…) on the matter. As background, I received my Associates Degree from John Abbott College with a focus on history and anthropology (and went on to do my B.Sc. in geology from McGill University).

There is a reason why cultural anthropology, history and the like are typically (at least here in North America) in the arts and not the sciences field. This is due, in no small part, to the opinionated, biased and empirically lax or immeasurable instances of supposed data.

That being said, I do not look at arts being better than science nor vice versa, simply that both areas are subject to differing allowances of critical information relevant to a topic. Although I agree with that a reference point can, for example, be very useful to track similarities and evolution of a set choreography (such as Siu Lien Tao), this would only provide a “feel” for its evolution. As correct as any conclusion from that may be, that is not science for the critical reason that you cannot “recreate” results based on feel alone. That is why it is imperative for researchers of history, cultural anthropology and others to welcome a large gambit of opinions and points of view so as to come to a “fuzzy” idea of what may have occurred.

Now, I’m aware some countries, institutions, and/or individuals may in fact deem history or cultural anthropology a science, yet those that do would have a hard time explaining to me how the study of a cultural or spiritual ceremony for example can be equated as being as undisputable in certainty as the biological make up of one’s DNA. No contest, in my opinion.

What is sad is that people equate science as being great and arts as substandard. Nonsense. They differ by necessity and not because of inequality.

That’s my rant and I am outta here.