Ty Webb wrote:But real focus of energy and effort to bring about remarkable, but realistic, physical feats is possible and I've seen it performed by people I know and trust.

No offense, but isn't this the opposite of the scientific method? Anecdotal evidence revealed in personal experience with people you are already inclined to believe, as opposed to conventional randomized, double-blind testing?

rayj wrote:there are also some unfortunate limits to classic scientific inquiry

No, there aren't. This is well-covered territory. It is by definition unlimited and open-ended.

lars wrote:

rayj wrote:there are also some unfortunate limits to classic scientific inquiry

No, there aren't. This is well-covered territory. It is by definition unlimited and open-ended.

OK, poorly worded statement there. I meant that our current body of scientific study is not fully equipped to explain every phenomenon that seems to exist.

Maybe that's not very well worded either. Do you get my drift, though?

rayj wrote:

lars wrote:

rayj wrote:there are also some unfortunate limits to classic scientific inquiry

No, there aren't. This is well-covered territory. It is by definition unlimited and open-ended.

OK, poorly worded statement there. I meant that our current body of scientific study is not fully equipped to explain every phenomenon that seems to exist.

I accept that there are or could be phenomena that can't (so far at least) be measured or tested or verified scientifically. Chi can't be verified scientifically, but how can it be verified at all? In other words, how do proponents of Chi know that it exists? I've asked this several times, and don't recall getting a response.

newberry wrote:

rayj wrote:

lars wrote:

rayj wrote:there are also some unfortunate limits to classic scientific inquiry

No, there aren't. This is well-covered territory. It is by definition unlimited and open-ended.

OK, poorly worded statement there. I meant that our current body of scientific study is not fully equipped to explain every phenomenon that seems to exist.

I accept that there are or could be phenomena that can't (so far at least) be measured or tested or verified scientifically. Chi can't be verified scientifically, but how can it be verified at all? In other words, how do proponents of Chi know that it exists? I've asked this several times, and don't recall getting a response.

Good question. With no answer. At least not one that doesn't involve the same answers you get from Xian nutjobs...

steve wrote:That there isn't a calibrated scientific explanation for something is no reason to believe in magic.

Meaning that if something can't be explained by science as it is today, it must be bullshit?

Bernardo wrote:

steve wrote:That there isn't a calibrated scientific explanation for something is no reason to believe in magic.

Meaning that if something can't be explained by science as it is today, it must be bullshit?

No, it just isn't magic. Everything that was ever thought to be magic was later found not to be magic. Chee hasn't been shown to exist, much less be inexplicable. In any case, magic isn't the answer.

If anyone wants to go through some scientific studies of at least acupuncture, here's a great resource:

google scholar - acupuncture

I remember there was some hoopla a while back (years?) about a study of chi masters in a clinical environment, with heat sensing cameras showing them throwing their energy. I have no idea as to the veracity of the study, or my own memory, but maybe someone else knows what the heck I'm talking about. I think it was on a show on Discovery Science, maybe.

I'll withhold my thoughts on chi for now, except that I don't believe it is "magic", but that if it is a real phenomenon, it has a rational explanation. I do have personal experience with acupuncture curing my husband's 6 month+ long headache that several doctors were at a loss to fix.

newberry wrote:

They say it is an energy.

If it's an energy that can be drawn from the Earth and air, why can't it be measured? Or can it be?

That's what I'm asking. I'm reading from many of these responses that people think I'm arguing for something I'm not (again). I'm not saying there is Chi. I'm asking what others think (and jolly interesting it is too)

newberry wrote:

Those who are instantly dismissing chi often seem to be coming from the standpoint that science has discovered all there is to know and so anything that hasn't got an instrument to measure it yet can't possibly exist.

I very highly doubt that anyone here arguing against Chi believes that "science had discovered all there is to know". Anyone who believes that doesn't know anything about science.

I highly doubt it too. But the way some are talking suggests that this is how they might think.

newberry wrote:

Also let's not forget that the scientifically realised nature of the fabric of the universe (with quantum theory as far as it can be understood) does seem to have been pre empted by, oh, thousands of years by deep thinkers, meditators in the far east - who weren't using 20th Century instruments.

Could you please elaborate on this--what do you mean by "preempted"? Maybe you could provide a specific example?

There are several books out there that discuss the parallels between ancient oriental philosophy and the discoveries of modern science regarding the nature of 'reality'(The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra is probably the most well known) .
By pre empted I mean Lao Tzu was sat on his mountain about 2000 years ago (?) that's almost 2000 years before them fellas in suits gathered together at the beginning of the last century and started seriously looking at the quantum world.
My point being that somehow these oriental fellas seem to have 'got it right' regarding the nature of things. It took us western types thousands of years to catch up.
Isn't it at least feasable that these same fellas figured out other stuff that we have yet to catch up to?

newberry wrote:"Science inquisition"? Is asking for definitions and evidence an "inquisition"? Is questioning the reality of Chi heretical?

I think you have taken the opposite meaning from what I was saying. The question should be - is talking about Chi as though it is something real heretical in the eyes of scientists?

newberry wrote:

Christians tend to be emotionally stunted immature freaks - my mam and dad included.

You lost me there.

You don't know my mam and Dad.

Okay, maybe just the Christians I know.

newberry wrote:

But real focus of energy and effort to bring about remarkable, but realistic, physical feats is possible and I've seen it performed by people I know and trust.

I agree with the above. What does it have to do with Chi? How do you know Chi is involved?

I think the best reason anyone has to think it might be Chi is that the people doing this remarkable things say it is. Not very scientific but why dismiss them out of hand?

And I am not saying a fella walking on light bulbs proves Chi I am just saying that, with my limited understanding of these things, that a fella walking on razor sharp blades and not being cut is remarkable and worthy of inquiry. Notice that? 'Remarkable' not 'Magic'?

steve wrote:

Glittering Prizes wrote:This guy is very impressive (wait for the end; and don't say anything about camera tricks).

The Orient's answer to Doug Henning. Very impressive, but can he jizz in Nicole Kidman's hair?

Not much time to think here...

I blew a disc at work. Couldn't walk for a couple of months (it was a serious injury with some permanent damage). Everyone raved about acupuncture's benefits for just such an injury...

I found a doctor I trust on a personal level who was into it (an acquaintance's wife).

Synopsis: I definitely felt 'something'...however, I don't have any clue if it helped or hindered my recovery. Other than stimulating the injured area, I am inclined to think that it did very little, if anything. For the record, I am very open to 'alternative' methods of treatment...I'm just also as skeptical of snake oil salesmen (prevalent in both popular and alternate brands of medicine...more blather on the subject later, if you guys are into that sort of thing). This is also not the sort of thing you are willing to do an A/B experiment on...obviously...