The quest for wisdom

One of the greatest lessons we can learn from philosophy is that wisdom represents the highest level of practice. Importantly, philosophy tells us that wisdom should never be considered purely as some higher form of intellectual thought. As Descartes says, in his 1637 Discourse on the Method: ‘It is not enough to possess a good mind; the most important thing is to apply it correctly’.[13] It is important to keep in mind that effective practice is not formulaic; it must rely on sound and skilful judgment, honed by years of practice – what the Greeks called phronēsis or practical wisdom[1] – and this should be the goal of the philosopher coach.

So how do we get to phronēsis? Well, the first thing we need to do is repeat Aristotle’s words that wisdom is ultimately practical and must not be based purely on higher levels of thinking. Wisdom can be thought of as lying at the top of a hierarchical pyramid (see Figure 1), where at the base level we have data, at the next level we have information, at the next level knowledge, and sitting on the top is wisdom. This concept of the hierarchical pyramid is important, moving as it does from data to informed action. Given that the goal of the philosopher coach is ultimately action, moving up this pyramid in the quest for wisdom is a path to master our craft, as the words of Francis Bacon neatly summise: ‘The great end of life is not knowledge but action’.

Today we are inundated with data, but a key question must be how much of this data is informing action. Simply having data is of no use if it doesn’t address the key questions we need answered, or if it cannot be processed into information that can help guide actions. This processing requires the development of effective models. At the data level, scientific and statistical tools are important, but as we move up the pyramid, we need further models to enable us to understand the meaning of the information we are generating. To rely on a single model, no matter how powerful, is hubris and inviting problems.[3] As a result, analysing data and generating information needs to entail more than simply adopting a statistical approach. A philosopher presented with data is trained to ask: Where does the data come from? What does it mean? What follows from it?[3]

Simply asking these types of questions of data helps makes sense of their meaning and also throws light on some of their potential drawbacks. Consequently, any information generated is more critically analysed. Moving further up the pyramid, knowledge organises information and is again based on models.10 Importantly, these models will have multiple uses: some will be used to explain, some will be used to predict, some to inform and some to guide actions – but importantly no one model will ever likely be sufficient for all scenarios.[10] As a result, knowledge needs to be based on a latticework of models and ideally drawn from a range of perspectives. Atop the hierarchy lies wisdom, the ability to identify and apply relevant knowledge.[10] Given that all the wisdom of the world will never be found in one academic department,[5] wisdom again requires many-model thinking drawn from multiple disciplines. It also importantly requires extensive experience, ensuring it entails the crucial feedback loops of trial and error. The wise philosopher coach understands clearly that effective practice can never be a priori, and effective action should never be simply based on logic – no matter how sound it looks on paper. Any inferences drawn and actions taken should reflect previous experiences enabling its practical soundness to be assessed – experience plays a crucial role in the path to wisdom. Coaches instinctively know this: ask any coach what most influences their decisions and few would say an academic paper – most would reflect on their own experience and of that shared with other coaches.

In today’s incarnation of strength and conditioning are we moving away from this experiential model to one where scientific evidence plays an overly dominant role. Philosophy has always espoused the value of experiential wisdom and advised against an overly scientific approach. Aristotle wrote in the fourth century BC that we should ‘pay no less attention to the unproved assertions and opinions of experienced and older people than to demonstrations of fact; because they have an insight from their experience which enables them to see correctly’.[2] Limiting our perspective risks foregoing the upper levels of the wisdom pyramid and becoming mired in the data. Crucially, we do not have to choose between objective, indisputable fact and mere opinion – outlooks, values and beliefs can be more or less reasonable, more or less objective.[1] As TS Eliot says: ‘Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?’ – to which the philosopher Scott Page suggests we add, ‘Where is the information we have lost in all this data?’[10]

UKSCA-IQ

Strength and conditioning: what is specificity?

This content is available free to registered users

Additional resources