Explaining "What for" in Motion Analysis Research: A Proposal for a Counterfactual Framework That Is Slightly Different From the Theory of Causation.

Abstract

In motion analysis research, the methodology for estimating the physical processes of human movement is highly developed, but the methodology for interpreting such data is relatively undeveloped. One of the aims of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of developing a conceptual basis for interpreting data about the physical processes of body movement. In this conceptual study, one topic was discussed as a central question: what it means to answer the question what a certain movement technique is aimed for. We first introduced the distinction between explanations from the perspective of causes and explanations from the perspective of purposes as a mode of explaining events, and pointed out the importance of explanations from the perspective of purposes. We next argued that by taking the perspective of whether a given movement technique leads to a desired outcome in comparison to other movement techniques, we can expect to interpret what a given movement technique is for based on objectively observable information rather than the subjective intentions of the athlete. In addition, we discussed how the criterion movement patterns should be defined when assessing the fitness for purpose of a given movement technique in terms of its consequences. In this regard, our argument is that it is necessary to take into account that the exact same movement pattern cannot be performed every time, even for the same motor task, and that there are multiple options for how to define the set of possible movement patterns that can be performed. Our discussion reveals the peculiarity of grasping the meaning of movement techniques, and therefore suggests that there is a substantial need for motion analysis researchers to deepen their conceptual analysis to understand the nature of this issue.