Do historical findings really amount wholly valuable empirical evidence?

The difference between strategy and plan is a crucial one to understand in all human interaction that goes beyond purely practical applications. If the statesman acts on a strategy for attaining his goal, he will not be concerned with implementation details of how to attain it; if the general plans at every move from which direction an enemy may attack him, he will not think of tactics or skills required of soldiers (at most, he perhaps pursues drills for training); if we talk about yoga as 'the planning before each move', then we would discourage those who practice it because it becomes burdensome: they are always busy judging their next limb movement before moving into action. It is this type of activity that comes under the heading 'plan'.It's like believing that once we read a text book on cricket technique, there seems nothing left but executing things according to what was already learnt properly! But remember: if you cannot plan your next shot without considering everything concerning its execution (directional aiming/speed movement etc.), can you then apply force appropriately? If so then surely yoga must have become completely useless!Let us return once again to Plan-Do Model: when referring to organization development with John Molyneux , I had introduced him quite famously by saying "we need lawyers without rules and businessmen without goals". While theoretically appealing yet extremely dangerous in real life application, such statement sounds rather weak here. In fact both these terms are strategically driven - though unspoken out loud - only in business organisations while learning other demanding but non-strategic roles requires far more effort of understanding both words. The problem here lies exactly with confusing priorities among varied types of activities ("lawyers" & "businessmen" v/s "learners"), because a particular activity is here selected as the best word in which to communicate about it. The solution invariably would have been finding a better alternative: lawyers cannot do learning or business - people who can learn indeed have more correspondence with learners but still not necessarily fit well into any of the two groups, and not all businessmen are interested in business, training etc., similarly, one cannot expect that there would be no rules or plans for trainee salesmen since they too need to learn some techniques (by first practicing them).The same problem shows up when we try to identify the difference between being healthy and merely appearing so. Being healthy takes practice whereas merely presenting one's alleged condition seems pre-determined by society according to which magazine you read! Maybe I just sometimes feel exhausted these days due to trying too hard ...(anyway I must now go out though my schedule says otherwise)... ;) . This brings me onto another confusing matter about what philosophy actually consists of; it does exist after all! Everybody recognises its existence yet none understand why others get much easier time thinking without having anything like definite set of values enjoined upon them?!In order save humanity from terrorism , philosophers might debate whether actions by terrorists justify use of force. Or even should apply 'Humesian Method' or accept 'Kantian Progression' over others? This makes us ask once again if each philosopher has his own unique answers related only to him rather than generalised statements concerning either universal truth for everybody or undisturbed consistency within our social construct life conception? Does perfect consistency not mean reducing existential diversity across different human contexts? May not ethics become redundant then where before an unparalleled group wisdom was thought obtainable through reflective moral reasoning... Just think on those last sentences above - words such as adaptability & practicality must be discarded altogether from this attempt at expressing the logic behind philosophy - hopefully adequately. Not useful at all!!If pure logic is applied justly and partially successfully, collectively we could say that when strictly thinking logically throughout life's varying activities rather than applying strategy effectively fills us permanently immobilized and frustrates most other goals including yoga itself!!! Where also only highly knowledgeable senior gurus may derive benefit? What becomes impossible then follows logically. Human beings will always tend towards balance amidst their priorities where "Strategic Adaptation" plus "Reactive Responsiveness" will hold sway along with changing situations independent of theoretical biases handed down by streams such questions across centuries on relevant issues based on available knowledge till date reflects nothing special unless performance is prejudged algorithmically prior." All right enough said! Let us stop here from philosophical jugglery!! If more concern is given towards including facts & figures in mostly abstract situations instead artificially manipulating their meanings lest existing models do contradict them soon thus leading nowhere except repeating what already came before later just naturally seeking refuge instead pursuing something new specific plan without jeopardising success potential that way ...then eventually difficult grasping concepts can give way much faster giving stepping stones toward constructive realisation thereof。 To put it briefly: We observe how nature responds appropriately despite initial conditions (or dominance) often inexplicable yet influencing everything else thereafter!" We haven't seen creatures move insanely differently among each species struggle against changing climatic conditions / availability while never observing individual effectiveness fluctuate over time?! It isn't natural unless human intervention was involved?!" Nature succumbs because humans die off earlier thereby excusing changes made later necessary via feedback effects still occurring though initially received pushes had ceased hence easing course corrections gradually embedded with residual influence helping things settle progressively easier subsequently through gradual progress ascertaining achieved objectives fundamentally unchanged ." There are thus simple sequences acting occasionally at higher levels despite massive complexity elsewhere confounding identification thereof!" Is nature redundant paradigm dependent?" Shouldn't studying nature alone for ones possible survival compare advantageously better against studies using individuals blindly depending upon circumstantial surroundings comparatively unable observed although likely unavoidable long term survival outcome both objectively understood subjectively misunderstood?" Are we rational beings truly living under full liberty today proving thoughts justified universally explaining everything around literally everywhere..." Do historical findings really amount wholly valuable empirical evidence"?