# Debate on the existence of Chi



## RoninPimp (Apr 14, 2006)

Mine does not. As my style is based on scientific principles. Ki beliefs are not based on science.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 14, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> Mine does not. As my style is based on scientific principles. Ki beliefs are not based on science.



And, of course, as we all know, Science knows everything.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 14, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> And, of course, as we all know, Science knows everything.


-And that helps to prove ki exists how?


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 14, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -And that helps to prove ki exists how?



My reply was not intended to prove that ki exists, merely to comment on your sweeping statement that ki principles are not based on science.  Which is not an entirely exact statement because there is plenty about science we don't know nor understand and if that is the case, and Ki principles have been around for thousands of years and still survive today despite skepticism and many, many frauds, the statement that Ki principles are not based on science cannot be an entirely true statement.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 14, 2006)

From Wikipedia: *Science* (from Latin _scientia_ - knowledge) refers to the system of acquiring knowledge  based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. The term _science_ also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

-There is nothing scientific about ki.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 14, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> From Wikipedia: *Science* (from Latin _scientia_ - knowledge) refers to the system of acquiring knowledge  based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. The term _science_ also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.
> 
> -There is nothing scientific about ki.



According to the knowledge we have now, this depends on the scientist and the development of our scientific knowledge.

Along a similar line of your argument would be:

_"Everything that can be invented  has already been invented." - _Mr. Charles Duell, *1899.*


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 14, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> According to the knowledge we have now, this depends on the scientist and the development of our scientific knowledge.
> 
> Along a similar line of your argument would be:
> 
> _"Everything that can be invented  has already been invented." - _Mr. Charles Duell, *1899.*


-I'm in no way arguing that science will never prove the existance of ki. As I cannot predict the future. I am strictly speaking in scientific knowledge to date. Ki is not based on science.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -I'm in no way arguing that science will never prove the existance of ki. As I cannot predict the future. I am strictly speaking in scientific knowledge to date. Ki is not based on science.


Neither is religion, yet many who refuse to believe in 'ki', insist that angels protect them and an invisible man in the sky awaits them. Interestingly enough, in conversations with some very devout individuals, they have described sensations similar to what I accept as ki. Who's right? Dunno. But I think it exists, there are schools of medicine that accept it as real and work with it, etc.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Neither is religion, yet many who refuse to believe in 'ki', insist that angels protect them and an invisible man in the sky awaits them. Interestingly enough, in conversations with some very devout individuals, they have described sensations similar to what I accept as ki. Who's right? Dunno. But I think it exists, there are schools of medicine that accept it as real and work with it, etc.


-Science is empiricaly right. How does someone's religious beliefs help you prove ki exists?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2006)

Given: Science is flawed.  
Given: Chinese Science says it exists, and they have 1,000 years of empirical evidence to support that theory.
Given: Western Science claims it does not exist as it can not be measured or  proven. 
Given: Science cannot prove that God exists. But people believe in God.

Therefore: Sciences inability to prove or disprove the existence of deity, shows it's shortcomings.
Therefore: Since it cannot prove or disprove the existence of deity, then it is not logical to depend on it as absolute proof or disproof in the existence of ki.

One cannot prove a negative.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Given: Science is flawed.
> Given: Chinese Science says it exists, and they have 1,000 years of empirical evidence to support that theory.
> Given: Western Science claims it does not exist as it can not be measured or proven.
> Given: Science cannot prove that God exists. But people believe in God.
> ...


 
You are wrong. "Chinese Science" does NOT have empirical evidence of Chi. You are correct that a negative cannot be proved. That's why I can't prove Chi doesn't exists. You claim it exists. Therefore the burden of proof lays with you.


----------



## green meanie (Apr 15, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> You claim it exists. Therefore the burden of proof lays with you.


 
And yet... somehow I don't feel burdened...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2006)

It's very possible that what people call "ki" is an anachronistic lable for several of the bodies biological functions.  For example, you can take a sensative voltmeter and anmeter and measure lower resistence at accupuncture points via Ohm's Law (V=IR).  This is bioelectricity and it has been thouroughly tested.

I tested this myself during my undergrad.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2006)

Here are some sources for your reading pleasure...

http://www.somasp.org.br/referencias/1995.htm
http://users.med.auth.gr/~karanik/english/hels/neugen4.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw1hqx2gVII
http://www.emofree.com/Research/meridianexistence.htm


----------



## swiftpete (Apr 15, 2006)

Whatever its known as, ki/qi/energy/intention etc, I know there are a lot of arguments over whether it does or doesn't exist. I can say that I know 100% it does, as I've had it demonstrated and felt it many times over the years I've been training. If you haven't experienced it then i can understand scepticism, I was sceptical too and thought it could be fake. But all you need to do is feel it to know that it does exist. 
I don't see the point of trying to argue over whether it does or doesn't exist though. If you're dead set against believing it, thats your business, but I think its a shame to just close yourself off and dismiss it, for your sake. I'm not saying chi balls and no touch knockouts are necessarily true, I think they've taken it a bit far there with whats possible with chi. But i don't just believe, I know that it is possible to at least influence someones movement without touching them etc, as not only have I seen it done, I've done it myself.

But its everyones own business to believe it or not. If you can experience it in the flesh, non believers minds would be changed straightaway. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it doesn't really bother me too much one way or another whether other people believe or not as I know for myself what is possible.

Anyway to answer the original question, yeah we use it a lot!


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2006)

I understand your point regarding personal experience...and I think that personal experience can be powerful.  That is why science emphasizes repeatable experiments.  However, there is an important element that you are missing.  Empiricism.

The ability to measure a thing, defines a thing.  Chi/ki is no different.  The articles that I posted provide empirical experiments that tested a physical phenomenon that is commonly referred to under the umbrella of chi/ki.  These experiments provide support that this phenomenon exists.

Whether you believe in it or not, is irrellevent.  These experiments have supported a theory about bioelectricity.  Continued skepticism may still be warrented, but at a certain ill-defined point, it becomes rediculous.  This is because the amount of evidence is so great and so compelling that it is nearly impossible not see the studied phenomenon as part of the real world.

The bottom line is that people are free to choose to believe in reality or not believe in reality.  Their belief, however, has absolutely no effect on whether or not something actually exists, though.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 15, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Here are some sources for your reading pleasure...
> 
> http://www.somasp.org.br/referencias/1995.htm
> http://users.med.auth.gr/~karanik/english/hels/neugen4.html
> http://www.emofree.com/Research/meridianexistence.htm


 
Also just about any book by Yang Jwing Ming.

As for testing, I went through this is another post on the same subject.
I will not go through all of that again, but the University of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Beijing is trying to develop something to test Qi/Ki.

One of the professors that is working on this has said that the levels of External Qi someone claims to have is easy to prove or disprove. However the internal type is currently not testable and he feels that although it may or may not exist, most who claim they have high levels of it should not be trusted.

I do think it exists, I have felt it, but I do not believe that science can disprove or prove Qi/Ki by the scientific method at this time.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> You are wrong. "Chinese Science" does NOT have empirical evidence of Chi. You are correct that a negative cannot be proved. That's why I can't prove Chi doesn't exists. You claim it exists. Therefore the burden of proof lays with you.


If it doesn't exist, when would they have over 1,000 years of medical treatments calling for the use, manipulation etc of it?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 15, 2006)

Sorry, forgot something - Chinese medicine view of Chi. if you have high levels of QI you are healthy. If you have low levels of Qi you are sick. If you have no Qi you are taking a dirt nap.


----------



## crushing (Apr 15, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> From Wikipedia: *Science* (from Latin _scientia_ - knowledge) refers to the system of acquiring knowledge  based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. The term _science_ also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.
> 
> -There is nothing scientific about ki.




For centuries, people have been researching ki and acquiring a knowledge of it, and have even done experimentation with it.  If fact, the definition of science you provided doesn't not support your statement that there is nothing scientific about ki, it does quite the opposite.

I'm not arguing whether ki does or doesn't exist, but the experiences of people over the years and the search for patterns and processes to describe these experiences sounds like the wikipedia definition of science.  Maybe, where we are at with the study of ki now is kind of like where we were with the 'ether' of the 19th century?


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> If it doesn't exist, when would they have over 1,000 years of medical treatments calling for the use, manipulation etc of it?


-That ancient Chinese medicine is not based on empiracism. It is based on folklore and metaphysics.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> For centuries, people have been researching ki and acquiring a knowledge of it, and have even done experimentation with it. If fact, the definition of science you provided doesn't not support your statement that there is nothing scientific about ki, it does quite the opposite.
> 
> I'm not arguing whether ki does or doesn't exist, but the experiences of people over the years and the search for patterns and processes to describe these experiences sounds like the wikipedia definition of science. Maybe, where we are at with the study of ki now is kind of like where we were with the 'ether' of the 19th century?


-And my point is that there are not have been any experaments that are repeatable. That's why its has not been proved empiracly.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Here are some sources for your reading pleasure...
> 
> http://www.somasp.org.br/referencias/1995.htm
> http://users.med.auth.gr/~karanik/english/hels/neugen4.html
> http://www.emofree.com/Research/meridianexistence.htm


-Thanks, I will read those when I get a chance. I have heard of accupuncture studies providing evidence for some sort of phenomenon going on and others that show absolutely nothing. Hardly conclusive or empiracle. For it to science it has to be measurable and repeatable.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Thanks, I will read those when I get a chance. I have heard of accupuncture studies providing evidence for some sort of phenomenon going on and others that show absolutely nothing. Hardly conclusive or empiracle. For it to science it has to be measurable and repeatable.


 
As far as bioelectricity goes, THAT has been pretty soundly supported.  Other things that "chi" is supposed to be have not and remain inconclusive.  Further, it can be shown that accupuncture can manipulate these currents, but the actual affects on the body that this causes isn't fully understood.  For more reading on this, try these searches...

Bioelectricity and Accupuncture
Zhang - Popp Hypothesis
Acupuncture and Science

More often then not, studies show that manipulating these electrical currents have effects on the body.  Questions as to why remain.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Apr 15, 2006)

Give up guys. Ronin won't believe you. If he can't feel it in the ring while cuddling a Gracie or Shamrock Wannabe, it aint real to him. He's only here to screw with you anyway.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 15, 2006)

Actually to the Chinese Medical Doctors throughout China it is rather scientific. And in China both western and eastern medicine work very well together.

But thats ok when Western medicine got to China they thought pretty much the same thing about that that was previously stated about Chinese medicine here.

And Edmond once again :asian:


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 15, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> For it to science it has to be measurable and repeatable.



That sentence is incomplete, so I'm not exactly sure what you were saying....

The rub: chi flow changes and the instrumentation we have now cannot measure chi accurately to say the least.  

As a parallel, how about the science of dreams?  We can't be sure of why they happen nor where they come from.  We don't even know why we need sleep, but we accept that we must need sleep because of the ramifications which occur when we don't get sleep.  We can measure eye patterning and brain patterning and other biological functions during sleep which suggest, based upon behavior and performance, whether or not we are getting adequate rest.

However ... we do dream.  Dreams are not measurable nor intentionally repeatable.  Do we doubt that they exist?  Do people who have never remembered a dream in their lives never actually dream? or do they forget them?  Moreover, does the fact that some people have never experienced (according to their conscious memory) a dream indicate that dreams do not, in fact, exist?

Science is wonderful, though it is based on our very limited senses and instrumentaion and involves only the realm of our physical being.  There are many other factors which weigh into observation - one's psyche, ego, intentions, experience, doubt patterns, belief patterns.

OH, and here's another thing that is very hard for many science fans to appreciate:  sometimes science fails.  All the people who received every form of chemotherapy there is for cancer yet died anyway evidence this.  All the people who survive, even thrive despite the odds evidence this.

Science is not the be-all-end-all to the experience of living and the causation of being, healing and harming.

Not to strawman, but to put forth other, widely accepted non-scientifically proven elements of daily living.

Edmund, I am not out to convert others, merely to state my opinions.  Hard-learned ones at that.   If folks find themselves compelled to re-think their position, learn more, grow a little in tolerance, then my prayers have been answered. :asian:


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Give up guys. Ronin won't believe you. If he can't feel it in the ring while cuddling a Gracie or Shamrock Wannabe, it aint real to him. He's only here to screw with you anyway.


-Are you going to add anything to the discussion? Or are you content to snipe and insult? Sound like you are here to try and screw with people. Mods???...


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

> The rub: chi flow changes and the instrumentation we have now cannot measure chi accurately to say the least.


-The rub is that science begins when you can measure. That's why belief in Chi is NOT based on science.



> Science is wonderful, though it is based on our very limited senses and instrumentaion and involves only the realm of our physical being. There are many other factors which weigh into observation - one's psyche, ego, intentions, experience, doubt patterns, belief patterns.
> 
> OH, and here's another thing that is very hard for many science fans to appreciate: sometimes science fails. All the people who received every form of chemotherapy there is for cancer yet died anyway evidence this. All the people who survive, even thrive despite the odds evidence this.
> 
> Science is not the be-all-end-all to the experience of living and the causation of being, healing and harming.


-Science is constantly adding and subtracting things. That's how it works. Science's inability to explain everything in the universe does NOT in any way help your argument for the existance of Chi.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 15, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -The rub is that science begins when you can measure. That's why belief in Chi is NOT based on science.



It's based on experience which is part of empirical evidence by the definition you linked to on  Wish-apedia.



			
				RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Science is constantly adding and subtracting things. That's how it works. Science's inability to explain everything in the universe does NOT in any way help your argument for the existance of Chi.



Nor does it yours. Have a nice day!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -The rub is that science begins when you can measure. That's why belief in Chi is NOT based on science.
> 
> 
> -Science is constantly adding and subtracting things. That's how it works. Science's inability to explain everything in the universe does NOT in any way help your argument for the existance of Chi.


Ok, so then by your definition, God doesn't exist either.  She'll be very upset to hear that.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Ok, so then by your definition, God doesn't exist either. She'll be very upset to hear that.


-God is not provable by science either. How does that help your argument for the existance of Chi?


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 15, 2006)

Neither are dreams, but you keep avoiding that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -God is not provable by science either. How does that help your argument for the existance of Chi?


Very simple grasshopper. Billions of people believe in god, without his/her/it's existence being signed off on by some educated dude in a lab coat.

By that same token, as I and others have said, the Chinese, Japanese and others in that part of the world have their own science systems which do focus on it's existence, and to their satisfaction have proven it's existence, even if they can't put it in a box or a display somewhere.

My doctor cannot measure it or explain it, but she thinks it exists, and she does things using it that seem to be effective. I'm as skeptical as anyone, but when something works, it works. I don't need to see it's FDA ok.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Apr 15, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Neither are dreams, but you keep avoiding that.


Dreams can be detected using certain equipment. However, we cannot see the dreams, only the effects of dreaming.  So, therefore they must not exist. Can't prove it.

Then again, the one I had last night was a doozy. Can't describe it here...but it did involve multiple attackers. Well, sort of. :wavey:


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Neither are dreams, but you keep avoiding that.


-Like I said, Science's inability to explain everything in the universe does not help your argument for the existance of chi.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Very simple grasshopper. Billions of people believe in god, without his/her/it's existence being signed off on by some educated dude in a lab coat.
> 
> By that same token, as I and others have said, the Chinese, Japanese and others in that part of the world have their own science systems which do focus on it's existence, and to their satisfaction have proven it's existence, even if they can't put it in a box or a display somewhere.
> 
> My doctor cannot measure it or explain it, but she thinks it exists, and she does things using it that seem to be effective. I'm as skeptical as anyone, but when something works, it works. I don't need to see it's FDA ok.


-I'm not telling you you shouldn't believe in chi, god , or the Easter bunny. I'm telling you that if you do, it's not based on science. The FACT remains that there is not a single person or culture anywhere on the planet that has empiracle evidence of chi.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2006)

Science also cannot create life, yet here we are.


----------



## green meanie (Apr 15, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Dreams can be detected using certain equipment. However, we cannot see the dreams, only the effects of dreaming. So, therefore they must not exist. Can't prove it.
> 
> Then again, the one I had last night was a doozy. Can't describe it here...but it did involve multiple attackers. Well, sort of. :wavey:


:rofl:


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Science also cannot create life, yet here we are.


-Like I said, Science's inability to explain everything in the universe does not help your argument for the existance of chi.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2006)

And doesn't  help yours for the non existence.
We are at an impasse.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

And once again you want me to prove a negative. Nobody on the planet can do that, just like nobody on the planet can prove the existance of chi. Do you still not understand that the burden of proof lies with you? The impasse is due to your lack of understanding of 7th grade science.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 15, 2006)

Burden of proof only exists if they wish to convince you that it does, I doubt that is what they are doing.

Like God, people can choose to believe that it exists without scientific proof, since the belief is not founded on scientific proof, citing the lack of such proof is likely not going to change anyones mind....



			
				RoninPimp said:
			
		

> And once again you want me to prove a negative. Nobody on the planet can do that, just like nobody on the planet can prove the existance of chi. Do you still not understand that the burden of proof lies with you? The impasse is due to your lack of understanding of 7th grade science.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Burden of proof only exists if they wish to convince you that it does, I doubt that is what they are doing.
> 
> Like God, people can choose to believe that it exists without scientific proof, since the belief is not founded on scientific proof, citing the lack of such proof is likely not going to change anyones mind....


-You are correct. They believe in something unknowable and unprovable by scientific means. I would go away if they would admit it and say just that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -You are correct. They believe in something unknowable and unprovable by scientific means. I would go away if they would admit it and say just that.


Evidence? There's documented proof of chi on qigong and meditation and yoga, and all their benefits in reference to chi on the human body. Go look it up.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 15, 2006)

While I do believe their are benefits to those activities on the human body, and that those benefits have likely been demonstrated, I don't think I have come across any scientific evidence gathered from them that point to the existance of chi in a scientific sense.

In my mind Chi is simply the method of explaining those benefits and visible effects, not actually a "real" entity.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Evidence? There's documented proof of chi on qigong and meditation and yoga, and all their benefits in reference to chi on the human body. Go look it up.


-You are mistaken or lying. There is zero scientific proof of chi. If you have some, there are a lot of scientists with Phd's that would want to speak to you.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2006)

I am neither. The information is out there. Try google.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 15, 2006)

I think a bit of clarification is needed on word meaning here.

Definition of empiricism    

The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge. 
Employment of empirical methods, as in science. 
An empirical conclusion. 
The practice of medicine that disregards scientific theory and relies solely on practical experience. 

Definition of empirical    

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. 
Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. 
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine. 

1) First to step way back, Chinese medicine is based on empiricism not on folklore and metaphysics so you are off base there. The fact that it is viewed as folklore and metaphysics is based on a very narrow view, which tends to be the standard view of many from the west. 

Next

2) That aside I have been through this entire post and although I do not agree with RoninPimp on most things I have to say what he is saying is that Science, and I am making an assumption he is talking western science, has not and currently cannot prove the existence of Qi/Ki. If that is the case he is correct, Science cannot currently prove its existence.

As I have said Professors at Beijing University of Traditional Chinese medicine that teach Qi Gong say this and they are currently working to find away to scientifically test for it. They also believe it exists but they also believe many who claim they have high levels of it are not being totally truthful. 

So, yes I believe Qi exists, it has been working for the Chinese for thousands of years, and yes it has not been proven to exist by science.

This does not mean that it does not exist and once again I do not think RoninPimp is trying to say it doesn't exist because science can't find it, he is just saying science can&#8217;t find it. If he were saying it does not exist because science cannot find it and that&#8217;s it, in that case then there are several things in existence today that science would have not bothered to try and prove because they could not at one time prove them. Plate tectonics comes to mind for 1 example. 

There are also things that were one time excepted as scientific fact that were latter proven to be false by science itself due to advancements in science. 

Hell I don&#8217;t think Science could find Hoffa and that does not prove or disprove he currently does not exist.

Now I have admitted it, let see if the other side of the bargain is upheld.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I think a bit of clarification is needed on word meaning here.
> 
> Definition of empiricism
> 
> ...


-So until those Chinese scientists have proof, the default position is one of skepticism. And what do you mean "working for the Chinese"? They cure infection with it? Or cancer? Mend bones? That is what definition #2 is referring to. Repeatable medical results. It doesn't fit thany of those definitions.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Apr 15, 2006)

Pimp, do you understand anything about Traditional Chinese Medicine?


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Pimp, do you understand anything about Traditional Chinese Medicine?


-I understand the basics on a layman level.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Apr 15, 2006)

Then if there was no proven basis for the concept of chi, why would they include treatments based on it's existance?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2006)

The talk of science as an entity is interesting, because what we are really talking about is a body of knowledge.  Scientia means knowledge.  This is an important distinction, because if we are saying that science "cannot find" or "cannot prove" or "cannot support" a concept like chi, then we are saying that it is NOT science...not knowledge.

The body of knowledge portrayed by scientific literature is comprised of repeatable, empirical evidence because that is the only way that we philosophically "know" anything.  Chi may yet exist outside of this body of knowledge, but as far as any real description that defies anyone's beliefs goes, we really do not know what it is.

My suggestion that chi is far more biologically and physically complicated then the "simple" principle it is presented as bears consideration, IMHO.  I think that it is an anachronistic umbrella term for a number of very real phenomenon like bioelectricity or the placebo effect (which is another umbrella term).  This is just speculation of course, yet I think that it is important that people on *both sides* of the argument keep an open mind.  

It is very possible that all of the phenomenon described by chi will eventually be described by scientific literature.  The familiar concept known known as "chi" may change because of it, but in the end, both sides will be assured that _something_ *is* actually occurring.  Take a look at the research done on bioelectricity.  I think that is a good starting point to unraveling this mystery and I think that this argument will make a lot more sense afterwards.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 15, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Then if there was no proven basis for the concept of chi, why would they include treatments based on it's existance?


-I believe traditional metaphysics and folklore. Others here disagree. No matter, that's not the issue. If the Chinese have this proof of Chi, where is this Chinese revolution in medicine based on Chi theory? The Chinese export billions of products every year to the west. Chinese culture has been exported around the world. Why wouldn't they export proof of chi? It's because it is unproven using the scientific method.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2006)

Here's 2 threads that might be of interest.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3345
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5485


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 16, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -So until those Chinese scientists have proof, the default position is one of skepticism. And what do you mean "working for the Chinese"? They cure infection with it? Or cancer? Mend bones? That is what definition #2 is referring to. Repeatable medical results. It doesn't fit thany of those definitions.


 
So basically you are looking for an argument, not agreement or a solution or understanding, just an argument. This is what I suspected. 

"If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes."

They cure infection with it?  Yes very well actually, do some reading on it, expand your narrow view of the world

Or cancer? Occasionally as does western medicine

Mend bones? Yup regularly

That is what definition #2 is referring to. They have repeatable medical results. You are obviously grossly uneducated in TCM and have no desire to learn. 

Just to assist you on your road of denial; repeatable medical results. It doesn't fit those definitions the Chinese have had repeatable results in their medicine for thousands of years

Your view is correct to you no matter how much proof you get to the contrary. You are looking to win, force your opinions on others and that is it.

And no I am not going to waste my time supplying proof to you because it would be a complete waste of my time to do so. Do some reading on your own from reliable sources, it is not my job to educate you on the subject. 

China is one of the most populated countries in the world with lower incidents of cancer than the US. Western medicine has only been there for a very short time and they have had great success with TCM for thousands of years prior to Western medicine arrival. Western medicine and Western science do not the world make. 

I tried to work with you, but you only wish to argue, and I will no longer waste my time discussing anything with you. Now go ahead cry for the moderators to intervene and give me another bad rep point, except this time at least admit you did it. This is the wonderful world of the web, it truly doesn&#8217;t matter at all. 

"Sorry, but this is not the right room for an argument."
"You want room 12A, just along the corridor."



			
				RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -I understand the basics on a layman level.



And this is a gross over statement. You do not have any understanding of TCM at all.

And even if it were true, you are still arguing the point as if you are an expert, which you are not. 

And am I an expert? no,

 Do I have access to someone that is? Yes. Possibly one of the top 10 authorities on the subject in this country and very highly regarded in China were it counts.



			
				RoninPimp said:
			
		

> --I believe traditional metaphysics and folklore. Others here disagree. No matter, that's not the issue. If the Chinese have this proof of Chi, where is this Chinese revolution in medicine based on Chi theory? The Chinese export billions of products every year to the west. Chinese culture has been exported around the world. Why wouldn't they export proof of chi? It's because it is unproven using the scientific method..



And if you bothered reading my Previous thread, which you obviously didn&#8217;t, you would have seen I have already addressed this issue. 

See ya
Thank you drive through
Have a nice day.


----------



## barriecusvein (Apr 16, 2006)

Right, lets look at a belief in science: the wavefunction.

There is no actual physical evidence that a wavefunction really exists. there is, however, a massive amount of evidence that shows it to be an accurate way of describing the quantum properties of matter (eg quantum interfearence patterns). Based on this the majority of scientists belive in wave mechanics.

now lets look at a belief in chinese science: chi.

Again there is no (to my knowledge) actual physical evidence showing that chi exists. however, there is a massive amount of evidence showing it to be an accurate way of describing the body (eg accupuncture). So many people believe in chi.

The purpose of this is to show that while there is no diffinitive experiment (at least not yet) to prove without doubt that wavefuntions or chi exist, people can use them to achieve things. While there may not be some mystical energy that flows around our bodies, the application of the theory that says there is works. While there may not be actual waves dictating the properties of a quantum particle, the application of the theory that says there is works. So whether or not either really exists is essentially irrelevent.

So who cares if chi really exists, it helps people, whether that be medically or martially. Thats a fact, and the only fact that really matters.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2006)

barriecusvein said:
			
		

> Right, lets look at a belief in science: the wavefunction.
> 
> There is no actual physical evidence that a wavefunction really exists. there is, however, a massive amount of evidence that shows it to be an accurate way of describing the quantum properties of matter (eg quantum interfearence patterns). Based on this the majority of scientists belive in wave mechanics.


 
The wavefunction is different.  The set of equations that use this can predict physical phenomenon to a very high degree.  To this date, there has *never* been an experiment that has contradicted the findings of quantum mechanics...*ever*.  Comparing the wavefunction to chi is like comparing the space shuttle to a bi-plane.

Here is why...



> now lets look at a belief in chinese science: chi.


 
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  When it does, people experience positive effects.  This, IMO, warrents study.  I think the lack of efficacy is due to the incomplete explanation of the physical phenomenon that are actually occuring.  



> Again there is no (to my knowledge) actual physical evidence showing that chi exists. however, there is a massive amount of evidence showing it to be an accurate way of describing the body (eg accupuncture). So many people believe in chi.


 
I would agree with this.  There is evidence that something is occurring.  Thus far, all of these physical effects have been called chi.  But lately, studies of biofeedback, bioelectricity, and the placebo effect have been providing more detailed, more repeatable, and, ultimately, more useful explanations for the very same phenomenon described by chi.  As scientists study this more and more, I think that it will become increasingly apparent that this cultural construct is just an anachronistic way of describing phenomenon that are not fully understood.  

I think that in the future, science will eventually validate many aspects of chinese medicine and we will see things like qigong, acupuncture, etc as regular preventative care.  Of course we will also see some of the mystical stuff fall by the wayside, but just as the "jedi love taps" that some fradulent martial artists claim to do have been debunked, it will, in the end, be a positive thing overall.


----------



## barriecusvein (Apr 16, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The wavefunction is different. The set of equations that use this can predict physical phenomenon to a very high degree. To this date, there has *never* been an experiment that has contradicted the findings of quantum mechanics...*ever*.  Comparing the wavefunction to chi is like comparing the space shuttle to a bi-plane.


Admittedly the analogy could have been better, i couldnt think of anything else at the time. But i think it conveys the idea that lots of people do belive in things that there is no direct physical evidence for.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There is evidence that something is occurring. Thus far, all of these physical effects have been called chi. But lately, studies of biofeedback, bioelectricity, and the placebo effect have been providing more detailed, more repeatable, and, ultimately, more useful explanations for the very same phenomenon described by chi. As scientists study this more and more, I think that it will become increasingly apparent that this cultural construct is just an anachronistic way of describing phenomenon that are not fully understood.



this is what i was trying to get at. i dont believe in a mystical energy. I think chi and the theory around it are a way of describing how the body works, in exactly the same way as physical science is a way of describing nature. so i dont think it matters if chi exists or not, things like accupuncture do work for lots of people, for whatever reason (the placebo effect etc) so it is a useful thing to have knowledge of. as far as i know there is no better description, so we go with what we have (for now).​


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> So basically you are looking for an argument, not agreement or a solution or understanding, just an argument. This is what I suspected.
> 
> "If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes."
> 
> ...


-No, I don't really care about TCM. I never claimed to be an expert in TCM. This thread nor the original one was about TCM. TCM does not cure cancer or the TCM practicioners are about to revolutionize medicine in the entire world. TCM's ability to set broken bones is not because of chi, reguardless of the TCM metaphysical explanation. My only point was that chi has not been proven using the scientific method. This fact remains true. Due to the nature of science, this is subject to change.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2006)

Then I guess you know something that the Chinese don't. Based on numerous articles, as well as a few books that I've read surrounding the practice of Qigong, there may be a TCM based cure for some cancers, as well as many other diseases, Many of those treatments involve chi.

It may not show up on a "chi-detector", but it, like so many other things that Western Science cannot explain, exists.


How Chi Gong Works on Cancer
[Excerpt from Paul Dong's book, Chi Gong: The Ancient Chinese Way to Health, Paul Dong and Aristide H. Esser, 1990, Marlowe and Company]
http://www.healthyfoundations.com/guolin_article.html

Can Yoga Help Cure Cancer?
Expanding upon Western understanding of the importance of flow, yoga may soon be an accepted alleviator of the pain and mental stress of cancer.
http://www.californiapsychics.com/features/article.aspx?ContentID=64

Deploy Internal Medicine to Cure Cancer 
http://www.damo-qigong.net/cancer.htm

Qi Gong: The Power to Cure Cancer
By Wen Mei Yu and Theresa Marie Hoff
http://www.cfwenterprises.com/article.asp?s=cfw&mimid=DJQ575FTXDWJ8M8NW3JLFBVDW9KGDS57&content_id=34


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Then I guess you know something that the Chinese don't. Based on numerous articles, as well as a few books that I've read surrounding the practice of Qigong, there may be a TCM based cure for some cancers, as well as many other diseases, Many of those treatments involve chi.
> 
> It may not show up on a "chi-detector", but it, like so many other things that Western Science cannot explain, exists.
> 
> ...


Repeatable results using the scientific method???


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2006)

Chinese Scientific Method? Probably.
Why don't you open your mind and read the articles?


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Chinese Scientific Method? Probably.
> Why don't you open your mind and read the articles?


-The Chinese have their own scientific method that differs from the rest of the scientific community? I don't think so...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2006)

Considering that their system of science predates that of the West....
And their system of medicine as well....


----------



## Captain Harlock (Apr 16, 2006)

I have lurked long and watched this debate unfold. The ignorance of some is offensive to one who has walked the path far longer than they have been drawing breath.

The Chinese system of medicine is far older than that of the West. It's concepts have been field tested for centuries. It's principals have healed illness and disease for centuries. To dismiss it or it's components because one cannot read it on a meter, or somehow document it according to the limited and primitive means that such a limited mind may comprehend is simply proof of such a limited mind.

There are many things that the West cannot measure, or explain. Yet you accept them without question. Do you truly not believe, or are you simply here to cause unrest, This One wonders.

http://www.acupuncture.com/
http://qi-journal.com/
http://tcm.health-info.org/

Much of what you need to know is there.
I pity you. Your cup is full. Worse yet, you have it sealed.

Empty your cup.

Chi exists, as certain as the universe itself.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Considering that their system of science predates that of the West....
> And their system of medicine as well....


Chinese history is a rich and wonderful thing, but it is not the issue. You fail to realize that there is one and only one scientific method.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2006)

Some things cannot be analysed by the western method.
That is why there are other methods.
You fail to accept that.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Some things cannot be analysed by the western method.
> That is why there are other methods.
> You fail to accept that.


-I accept that there may be people investigating unexplained phenomenon. That does not constitute scientific proof of chi. Why do you refuse to accept this fact?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2006)

Because I don't subscribe to a narrow singular view of science.


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 16, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -I accept that there may be people investigating unexplained phenomenon. That does not constitute scientific proof of chi. Why do you refuse to accept this fact?


 
RoninPimp let me ask you a question in every post you want every one to agree with you why are you all in mighty, do you not have the insight to be able to see what you do not understand. For myself whether or not if I believe does not matter, what matters to me is whether I can open my mind to see if  it is a possibility. People thought the world was flat, but yet is is round, people thought we could not go into space but yet we sent a machine to mars, people say they pyramids was created by aliens, who's knows. The point is it does not matter whether you believe or not just that you can accept the possibilities of it. I know I'm openng myself up for you and I said I was not getting involved, but you just need to open one eye to see other points of views you are not the all and mighty last word on every subject on this forum.
Have a nice day.
Terry


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Because I don't subscribe to a narrow singular view of science.


-That makes no sense. You seem to not understand what science is.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> RoninPimp let me ask you a question in every post you want every one to agree with you why are you all in mighty, do you not have the insight to be able to see what you do not understand. For myself whether or not if I believe does not matter, what matters to me is whether I can open my mind to see if it is a possibility. People thought the world was flat, but yet is is round, people thought we could not go into space but yet we sent a machine to mars, people say they pyramids was created by aliens, who's knows. The point is it does not matter whether you believe or not just that you can accept the possibilities of it. I know I'm openng myself up for you and I said I was not getting involved, but you just need to open one eye to see other points of views you are not the all and mighty last word on every subject on this forum.
> Have a nice day.
> Terry


-I have stated a dozen times on this thread that science is subject to change. Chi may some day be explained scientificaly. It has not to date been.


----------



## Captain Harlock (Apr 16, 2006)

Or perhaps your view of the world is simply too narrow to understand.

I will waste no more words that this on you. You are incapable of comprehending them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -That makes no sense. You seem to not understand what science is.


Science: "the study of the natural world"
Also: "systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge."
Also: "The body of related courses concerned with knowledge of the physical and biological world and with the processes of discovering and validating this knowledge."

It would seem that in 1,000 years, that the Chinese would have done actions that would fit those definitions.  That their methods in healing and health that surround the concept known as "Chi", would have been arrived on based on experimentation, observation, and study.  After all, when one sees "Dr. Wu" and he sticks you in the butt with a couple of needles, he is doing so on points that have long been charted, examined and the results reproduced, over centuries by numerous educated individuals.  Not just random jabs in the fat.

It's science.  It's Scientific.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

Captain Harlock said:
			
		

> Or perhaps your view of the world is simply too narrow to understand.
> 
> I will waste no more words that this on you. You are incapable of comprehending them.


-You're entitled to you opinion. But I didn't really ask for your opinion of my "view of the world". 

Back to the thread topic...Do you also refuse to concede the fact that chi is unproven scientifically?


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Science: "the study of the natural world"
> Also: "systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge."
> Also: "The body of related courses concerned with knowledge of the physical and biological world and with the processes of discovering and validating this knowledge."
> 
> ...


-Research to see if chi exists could certainly be called science. The fact remains that its existance is unproven. Why does this fact bother you so much?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2006)

A lot of things are unproven by so called science. That doesn't bother me at all, as I subscribe to a broader view of the universe.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> A lot of things are unproven by so called science. That doesn't bother me at all, as I subscribe to a broader view of the universe.


-So you have a belief in something unproven. That's a fair statement if you would actually say that. Most people believe in things unprovable. That kinda makes the world go around. But it aint science.


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 16, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -I have stated a dozen times on this thread that science is subject to change. Chi may some day be explained scientificaly. It has not to date been.


 
Are you kidding me, I never said it was what I said if you can understand is why do you have ahard problem in seeing other people views about there beliefs, why is it your way or the hiway!!!!
Terry


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me, I never said it was what I said if you can understand is why do you have ahard problem in seeing other people views about there beliefs, why is it your way or the hiway!!!!
> Terry


-I haven't attacked anybody's beliefs. I haven't told anybody to not believe in chi. I have simply repeated again and again that hasn't been proven in any scientific way. Its not my way, because I certainly didn't invent the scientific method.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2006)

And numerous people here have indicated that your understanding of science is narrow, as the Chinese science of medicine does accept it.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> And numerous people here have indicated that your understanding of science is narrow, as the Chinese science of medicine does accept it.


Anybody can accept it if they want. Accepting it is not proving it scientifically.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2006)

Well, over 2 billion people accept it as proven. Considering the number of medical treatments that use it such as reiki, acupuncture, acupressures, qigong, etc, dating back centuries, with plenty of observation, analysis, etc, I feel it is safe to say it exists.

You just can't stick it in a bottle and put in on a shelf at Walmart.


----------



## DuneViking (Apr 16, 2006)

Originally posted by *RONINPIMP*:

"My only point was that chi has not been proven using the scientific method. "
End Quote


1. So, prove your point. You assert, intentionally or unintentionally, the premise that "chi has not been proven using the scientific method." . You provide no disseration whatsoever. 

2. You assert knoweldge of science and the scientific method. Again, you provide no dissertation whatsoever. 

3. I support your call for the mods in the early postings to the response that added nothing but cuts to the discussion-shame on them. 

4. If, by definition, chi is a "life force all posses" (may the force be with you all!) I submit it may be proven, scientifically with empirical evidence, purely from Western Society.

Consider :
Exhibit A) will to live. One may not measure this in any desired units, but like binary language it can be present or not-thus measurable. It has also been repeated many times. Critically injured or infermed patients who ought to have died did not, for no other reason than the will to live. 

Exhibit B) superhuman strength. A person with a trapped loved one able to move otherwise impossibly heavy objects to save them. One may not measure this in any desired units, but like binary language it can be present or not-thus measurable. It has also been repeated many times.

Exhibit C) Scientific Method. If any scientist whishes to prove a theory, as you assert, chi has not been proven using the scientific method, then the scientist goes at it. SCIENTIFIC METHOD seeks to disprove a theory, if that fails it is considered proof. Scientific Method does not seek to prove a theory in any other way because someone might come along and disprove it. 

5. Your contributions lack a genuine appearance of understanding of the principles involved in both science and the scientific method as well as presenting a prima facia case and accepting the burden of proof which is yours, but instead using a fallacy of logic to place that burden on others.
Shame on you, if intenntional. :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2006)

Dune,
  1 side point.  Ronin is well aware of how to properly report a problem with a thread. It's on par with watching a house burn and complaining that no one called the fire department, while holding a functional phone in their hand.  If you think there is a problem with anyones (including my) posts, report it. Don't wait for it to be found, even if mods are involved in a thread. We're human too.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Well, over 2 billion people accept it as proven. Considering the number of medical treatments that use it such as reiki, acupuncture, acupressures, qigong, etc, dating back centuries, with plenty of observation, analysis, etc, I feel it is safe to say it exists.
> 
> You just can't stick it in a bottle and put in on a shelf at Walmart.


-Two billion? Please. What alternate universe did you pull that number from? All those things you listed have theory based on chi existing. Results with those treatments aren't repeatable consistantly in a controlled enviroment. That's why, guess what.....it doesn't prove the existance of chi.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 16, 2006)

DuneViking said:
			
		

> Originally posted by *RONINPIMP*:
> 
> "My only point was that chi has not been proven using the scientific method. "
> End Quote
> ...


-You can't be serious. You don't understand the scientific method either it appears. For yet another time... I cannot prove a negative. People here claim chi exists. To prove that scientifically, the burden of proof lies with them. Wikipedia is your friend. Or any 7th grade science teacher.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Two billion? Please. What alternate universe did you pull that number from? All those things you listed have theory based on chi existing. Results with those treatments aren't repeatable consistantly in a controlled enviroment. That's why, guess what.....it doesn't prove the existance of chi.


TCM is the dominant form of medical treatment in China and it's satellites.
What is the population of China? 
1.3 Billion according to the CIA.

Sixty percent of Europeans are using TCM, according to information at the first Western Pacific Regional Forum for the Harmonization of Herbal Medicines (FHH) in Shanghai.
http://www.china.org.cn/english/China/108026.htm

Traditional Chinese medicine has been accepted by more than 120 countries and regions in the world, according to a conference held in Beijing recently.
http://www.china.org.cn/english/scitech/148672.htm

As to Wiki, it is only as accurate as those who edit it. Biases and politics creep into it's entries regularly, so it is not safe to rely on as a sole reference.
Again, I have repeatedly rebutted your limited and simplistic view of science and the universe, without success.

But, I agree with Harlock. Continuing to debate this with you is futile.
I'm done.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 17, 2006)

We run, again, into the premise that RoninPimp's idea of science is ONE kind of science - western science.  And of course, that's all that matters because western science is the newest science and we are far better outfitted scientifically to prove things scientifically and if we can't do it, then the fault obviously lies with either the attempting prover or the thing being studied, NOT the method.

Actually, RoninPimp, YOU are putting FAITH in the WESTERN SCIENTIFIC METHOD to define your parameters of living and existence.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> TCM is the dominant form of medical treatment in China and it's satellites.
> What is the population of China?
> 1.3 Billion according to the CIA.
> 
> ...


-How can you say the entire population of China believes in chi? That is absurd. And LOL @ the Shanghai Daily as a source. I am well aware of Wikipeias potential problems. The scientific method is not a contoversal or political topic there, only here. Check any 7th grade science book. You have NOT rebutted the scientific method. You have only refused to accept it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

As I said, Continuing to debate this with you is futile.
I'm done.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> We run, again, into the premise that RoninPimp's idea of science is ONE kind of science - western science. And of course, that's all that matters because western science is the newest science and we are far better outfitted scientifically to prove things scientifically and if we can't do it, then the fault obviously lies with either the attempting prover or the thing being studied, NOT the method.
> 
> Actually, RoninPimp, YOU are putting FAITH in the WESTERN SCIENTIFIC METHOD to define your parameters of living and existence.


-There is only ONE scientific method. I believe in the scientific method because it is empirical. Not because of faith. If you have a problem with the scientific method, you should take it up with Newton, Einstein, and Hawking. They also believed in the scientific method.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 17, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -There is only ONE scientific method. I believe in the scientific method because it is empirical. Not because of faith. If you have a problem with the scientific method, you should take it up with Newton, Einstein, and Hawking. They also believed in the scientific method.



I don't know about the other two, but Einstein also believed in God.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I don't know about the other two, but Einstein also believed in God.


-Newton was a very religious man too. How does that prove the existance of chi?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

Last comment.

I guess Chinese scientists aren't real scientists then.



> "Chi refers to the vital energy present in all living things. Thus, Chi Kung literally means &#8220;the working of air or breath&#8221;, but it is more complicated than this, because it refers to the working of the invidible vital energy of the human body. Chi is the vital energy which animates all organisms; you cannot live without Chi. It is found wherever there is life: from the moment of conception to the moment just before death, Chi is present, being consumed and constantly being replenished, It is present wherever there is movement. Chi is the source of growth vigor in all living things, including plants, animals, and micro organisms. There is no exact equivalent to the concept of Chi in Western science, but Chinese scientists regard Chi as a substantial material that has been objectively verified to exist. Chi Kung is the internal function of conscious thought which is the highest stage of activity in the cerebral cortex."
> Sheng Keng Yun
> 
> Sheng Keng Yun learned Chi Kung when she was very ill. Her health improved so dramatically that she became completely involved in working with Chi Energy. She has spent nearly forty years researching, mastering, and teaching Taoist, Buddhist, and Medical Chi Kung, as well as Tai Chi Chuan. She has taught English and Russian at Yunnan University, is a member of the prestigious CHinese Chi Kung Scientific Academy, and author of Key to Spoken English.



and



> "What is very fascinating with Dr. Yan Xin's work, is that he is using modern scientific methods and tools to prove (to the Western mind) that the focusing of chi onto substance such as DNA can be measured. Besides conducting studies, he has given Chi-Emitting Lectures to millions of people. In these lectures, he sends out healing energy to the audience, in which people may be healed of an affliction, and he teaches them a form of meditation in which they can learn to heal themselves."
> 
> Dr. Yan Xin
> 
> ...



and



> Dr. Yan Xin on Scientific Qigong Research
> 
> How Does Chi (Qi) Relate to Science, and What Do Leading Scientists Think about Chi (Qi)?
> 
> ...



Hmm....now, those are interesting reads.
And, it looks to meet the so called "scientific" criteria that you specified Pimp.  Guess you aren't as up on science as you claim.  I took it for several years in high school and collage, not stopping at 7th grade.

So, now that we have some scientists that have done it "correctly", maybe we can move on from debating it's "existence".


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 17, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Newton was a very religious man too. How does that prove the existance of chi?



It doesn't.  It proves that even very scientific men accept things which cannot be proven scientifically because even the utmost echelon of science itself can do what you cannot - or will not - accept that science does not and cannot possibly prove everything that is ... is.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 17, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> It doesn't.  It proves that even very scientific men accept things which cannot be proven scientifically because even the utmost echelon of science itself can do what you cannot - or will not - accept that science does not and cannot possibly prove everything that is ... is.



Which further proves that while you try to make a scientific argument, all you are really doing is arguing for arguments sake ... stirring up the garbage ... which is indicative of trolling ... which is against the rules on MartialTalk.

Oh - and it also means ... you're wrong.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> It doesn't. It proves that even very scientific men accept things which cannot be proven scientifically because even the utmost echelon of science itself can do what you cannot - or will not - accept that science does not and cannot possibly prove everything that is ... is.


-You are defending your belief. I have not attacked your belief. I have only said your belief has not been proved scientificaly.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Which further proves that while you try to make a scientific argument, all you are really doing is arguing for arguments sake ... stirring up the garbage ... which is indicative of trolling ... which is against the rules on MartialTalk.
> 
> Oh - and it also means ... you're wrong.


-Arguing with the scientific method is trolling?


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 17, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Arguing with the scientific method is trolling?


You can read. Go back and do it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -You are defending your belief. I have not attacked your belief. I have only said your belief has not been proved scientificaly.


I think you missed my post dude.  Short bits:

"There is no exact equivalent to the concept of Chi in Western science, but Chinese scientists regard Chi as a substantial material that has been objectively verified to exist."

and

"What is very fascinating with Dr. Yan Xin's work, is that he is using modern scientific methods and tools to prove (to the Western mind) that the focusing of chi onto substance such as DNA can be measured."

So, it has been proven. Scientifically. By Scientists.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> So, it has been proven. Scientifically. By Scientists.



... who believe in God.  :ultracool


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 17, 2006)

I think everything is basically theory. How many times have theories changed through the years. What is or was truth (the earth is flat!) will be fiction later. Chi has studies which are science based, and have thoeries. One day, possibly, these will be "proven". It comes down to belief, IMHO. Just like religion and the existance of god. If you beleive, than it exists. It's your word against theirs. Neither side can prove anything either way.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Last comment.
> 
> I guess Chinese scientists aren't real scientists then.
> 
> ...


-None of that presents any scientific data. It is opinion. It does NOT prove the existance of chi.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

I keep wishing it really was like Star Wars though....I like the idea of casting lightning from my fingers or reaching out and crushing someones throat with my mind....then again, I'd probably be more Dark Helmet than Darth Vader. LOL!


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> You can read. Go back and do it.


-So continuing discussion with an unpopular opinion while arguing for the scientific method is trolling?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

I highly doubt you could understand the scientific papers that are behind those statements. Or can read Chinese. Since you couldn't understand it, it would remain 'unproven' to you.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I keep wishing it really was like Star Wars though....I like the idea of casting lightning from my fingers or reaching out and crushing someones throat with my mind....then again, I'd probably be more Dark Helmet than Darth Vader. LOL!


 
You mean "Your Schwartz is as big as mine?"


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I keep wishing it really was like Star Wars though....I like the idea of casting lightning from my fingers or reaching out and crushing someones throat with my mind....then again, I'd probably be more Dark Helmet than Darth Vader. LOL!


-Dark Helmet was quite possibly the greatest sci-fi villain ever.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I highly doubt you could understand the scientific papers that are behind those statements. Or can read Chinese. Since you couldn't understand it, it would remain 'unproven' to you.


-If they have papers that prove chi, it will be international news.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -None of that presents any scientific data. It is opinion. It does NOT prove the existance of chi.


Summaries of papers going back to 1988
http://www.xs4all.nl/~icircle/dcircles/yanxin/21R.HTM


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Summaries of papers going back to 1988
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~icircle/dcircles/yanxin/21R.HTM


-I will read that and post. Tomorrow.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

"Dr. Yan Xin (&#22196;&#26032, a doctor of both Western and Chinese medicine as well as founder of the relatively popular Yan Xin Qigong school, suggests that in order for qigong to be accepted by the modern world it must pass the test of scientific study. Without such studies, Yan maintains that qigong will be dismissed as "superstition". In the mid-1980s he and others began systematic study of qigong in some research institutions in China and U.S. More than 20 papers have been published."

Most of what I find is in Chinese. I can't read Chinese. The English articles indicate that this particular individual is highly regarded (an "ataboy" from Former President Bush was listed) in the scientific community.  If I find more articles, I will post them. But, the argument of it's scientific validity is in my opinion, settled.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 17, 2006)

I'd want to see a independent, non-biased group reproduce those studies before I called it settled.

Scientific validity is a hard thing for it to get, that would take several groups reproducing the same results.  That hasn't happened, so it is still up in the air.

Oh well, most of Quantum mechanics theory has yet to be "proven", (it and Relativity just don't jell... hence the search for a theory of everything) so believe it or not at this point.

Either way, both it, and relativity theory are useful, despite the fact that both can't be 100% correct.

Chi is the same, true or not, some elements of the theory are useful.  (Other's just get silly though  )


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 17, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -If they have papers that prove chi, it will be international news.


 
Sir let me ask you a question, you say everything has to be scientifcly proven: here is my delima about your scientific proof, GOD has never been scienticficly proven to exsist but yet we all believe for the most part and if so why can't chi be there has well. One does not have to see to believe, the mind is a great tool for those that have a vision to see past what is on paper.

I'm not trying to change your beliefs in this subject, it would be nice to see you conclude that the possibilities could exsist, for every paper saying yes I can show another paper saying no, when scientist said we could go to the moon and wrote countless paper about it, there was countless other paper saying it was impossible.

Your lack of vision someday will get the best of you, I hope that your journey in life will be guided by blind faith.

Sincerly 
Terry


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Apr 17, 2006)

In this thread, it has been brought up that many of the people in the world believe in God.  I really don't think that is a good or appropriate analogy to use.  Yes, hundreds of millions, if not billions, believe in god, but that is not evidence of his existence.  Personally, I don't begrudge anyone their belief system, but it's not proof.  Same carries over for Chi/Ki.

My own thoughts on the matter is that Chi is not one thing.  Probably a combination of several different things.  Some, such as bio electric energy are a proven fact.  Others may have yet to be found by modern science.  Yet others could be the body using things we know about in ways we don't understand yet.  I think the jury is still out on this and will be for quite some time.

All reasoning aside, the world would be much more interesting if Chi, as written about by the masters, did exist as written about.

Jeff


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> "Dr. Yan Xin (&#22196;&#26032, a doctor of both Western and Chinese medicine as well as founder of the relatively popular Yan Xin Qigong school, suggests that in order for qigong to be accepted by the modern world it must pass the test of scientific study. Without such studies, Yan maintains that qigong will be dismissed as "superstition". In the mid-1980s he and others began systematic study of qigong in some research institutions in China and U.S. More than 20 papers have been published."
> 
> Most of what I find is in Chinese. I can't read Chinese. The English articles indicate that this particular individual is highly regarded (an "ataboy" from Former President Bush was listed) in the scientific community. If I find more articles, I will post them. But, the argument of it's scientific validity is in my opinion, settled.


-Did you read that article at all? It provides zero data to support its claims. It proves nothing.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> Sir let me ask you a question, you say everything has to be scientifcly proven: here is my delima about your scientific proof, GOD has never been scienticficly proven to exsist but yet we all believe for the most part and if so why can't chi be there has well. One does not have to see to believe, the mind is a great tool for those that have a vision to see past what is on paper.
> 
> I'm not trying to change your beliefs in this subject, it would be nice to see you conclude that the possibilities could exsist, for every paper saying yes I can show another paper saying no, when scientist said we could go to the moon and wrote countless paper about it, there was countless other paper saying it was impossible.
> 
> ...


-I never said everything had to be proven scientifically. I even stated that science can't prove god exists. And nobody attempted to prove we couldn't go to the moon. That would be trying to prove a negative.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

The articles I've found describe the basics of their experiments in simple terms. They cite the appropriate scientific journals, which you are free to look up, have translated, then explained to you by your on-staff egghead. These are not some kids webpages, but published journals in the scientific community.

(1) LASER RAMAN OBSERVATION ON TAP WATER, SALINE, GLUCOSE AND MEDEMYCINE SOLUTIONS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE EXTERNAL QI OF QIGONG.
(This paper was published in Ziran Zazhi (Nature Journal) in Chinese, Vol. 11, pp. 567-571, 1988)

(2) OBSERVATIONS OF THE EFFECT OF THE EXTERNAL QI OF QIGONG ON THE ULTRAVIOLET ABSORPTION OF NUCLEIC ACIDS
(This paper was published in Ziran Zazhi (Nature Journal) in Chinese, Vol. 11, pp. 647-649, 1988. 

(3) THE EFFECT OF THE EXTERNAL QI OF QIGONG ON THE LIPOSOME PHASE BEHAVIOR
(This paper was published in Ziran Zazhi (Nature Journal) in Chinese, Vol. 11, pp. 572-573, 1988)

(6) THE EXTERNAL QI EXPERIMENTS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO BEIJING (CHINA) BY YAN XIN
(This paper was published in Zhonghua Qigong (China Qigong) in Chinese, Vol. 1, pp. 4-6, 1993)

etc.  

I'm sorry, would it be better if I found a complete paper and gave you that?  Would you understand it? It's at a higher than 7th grade level, using some rather big words. (Hell, I don't know what half the summaries mean, word wise.  Whats Laser Ramen? That like chicken or Beef Ramen? lol)

Seriously, I've taken the time to find what you claim didn't exist: Scientific Research that Proves it.  The fact that CNN or TIME didn't run a story is irrelevant. Maybe they did, but you just missed that bit.

Here is 1 summary complete:
(5) THE INFLUENCE OF THE EXTERNAL QI OF QIGONG ON THE RADIOACTIVE DECAY RATE OF 241Am
(This paper was published in Ziran Zazhi (Nature Journal) in Chinese, Vol. 11, pp. 809-812, 1988)

Conclusions: The decay rate of a radioactive source is usually extremely stable and cannot be altered even by such physical or chemical processes as high temperature, high pressure, high electromagnetic field, strong acid, or strong base. However the Qigong experiments showed that the count rate of 241Am radioactive decay significantly changed while the radioactive 241Am source was being treated by the external Qi of Qigong emitted by Yan Xin. The amplitude of the changes was, on average, about 1% of the total count rate, but in one instance, it reached a maximum of 10%.

The Qigong experiments were conducted at ambient temperature and pressure, and the external Qi was emitted from a distance of 100 meters to 1900 kilometers. Since no known physical or chemical processes existed in these experiments that could cause a change in the decay rate of a radioactive source, except the effect of external Qi emitted from long distances, researchers could only attribute the significant changes in the 241Am decay rate of a radioactive source to the effect of Yan Xin's remote Qi treatment.

What additional data would you like, and can you understand?

A list of his publications is here: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/DrYan_Pub.htm


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -I never said everything had to be proven scientifically. I even stated that science can't prove god exists. And nobody attempted to prove we couldn't go to the moon. That would be trying to prove a negative.


Oh man.....there are people alive today, who insist the moon landings were done in a tv studio, who are quite vocal about it as well. And, no, befoer you ask, I am unable to name any scientists, papers, etc. Use Google if you want that information. I'll stick to my belief in aliens, and guys names "Spock". :rofl:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Oh man.....there are people alive today, who insist the moon landings were done in a tv studio, who are quite vocal about it as well. And, no, befoer you ask, I am unable to name any scientists, papers, etc. Use Google if you want that information. I'll stick to my belief in aliens, and guys names "Spock". :rofl:


ok.  I found you a paper, all 164 pages worth, with all that egghead gobbldy gook in it.

A summary of 1 small part (there is alot more in it)
"In a 1991 Chien & al. report that they found the following biochemical effects when
studying the influence of a qigong master, generating Psi-field, on a culture of human
fibroblasts: a 1.8% increase in cell growth rate in 24 hrs; 10-15% increase in DNA
synthesis and 3-5% increase in cell protein synthesis in a 2 h period.
When the master emitted &#8221;inhibiting&#8221; intention and corresponding VRM, the cell
growth decreased by 6%, while DNA and protein synthesis decreased by 20-23%,
respectively 35-48%."

Here is the link: http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/ful.../pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0103031
Enjoy.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The articles I've found describe the basics of their experiments in simple terms. They cite the appropriate scientific journals, which you are free to look up, have translated, then explained to you by your on-staff egghead. These are not some kids webpages, but published journals in the scientific community.
> 
> (1) LASER RAMAN OBSERVATION ON TAP WATER, SALINE, GLUCOSE AND MEDEMYCINE SOLUTIONS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE EXTERNAL QI OF QIGONG.
> (This paper was published in Ziran Zazhi (Nature Journal) in Chinese, Vol. 11, pp. 567-571, 1988)
> ...


-None of that provides any of the data that led then to their "conclusions" or "summraries". The big words are thrown in there to throw people off that can't grasp that they are providing ZERO data. I don't know what tto tell if you can't see that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

What part of "Summary" are you choosing to ignore?
The paper is referenced so that you can look up the data yourself. 
These papers are cited by others (as I said, use the Google Ronin.) (You have to imagine a old ghostly jedi voice here, otherwise it loses it's effect)
Details of the experiment are cited.

These papers are -huge-, 100+ pages, with all those charts, diagrams, references, and a small amount of 'who is who'.  See the 1 I did find an english link to (different person, but cites Dr. Yan Xin's work.)


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> ok. I found you a paper, all 164 pages worth, with all that egghead gobbldy gook in it.
> 
> A summary of 1 small part (there is alot more in it)
> "In a 1991 Chien & al. report that they found the following biochemical effects when
> ...


-I did NOT read all that. Neither did you. The termonology and math are way over my head. Do you understand anything you're linking? Scroll down to page 136 of that paper..."We put foward a conjecture". All of that and in the end its CONJECTURE.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> What part of "Summary" are you choosing to ignore?
> The paper is referenced so that you can look up the data yourself.
> These papers are cited by others (as I said, use the Google Ronin.) (You have to imagine a old ghostly jedi voice here, otherwise it loses it's effect)
> Details of the experiment are cited.
> ...


-No data has been presented by you. Chi remains unprove scientifically.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 17, 2006)

1900 kilometers?!  wow


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -I did NOT read all that. Neither did you. The termonology and math are way over my head. Do you understand anything you're linking? Scroll down to page 136 of that paper..."We put foward a conjecture". All of that and in the end its CONJECTURE.


So you are admitting that any data presented on this matter is over your head.
Fine, it's over mine too.
So we have to rely on the summaries and conclusions.
Which I have repeatedly posted and referenced, yet you dismiss.

You dismiss the proof because you cannot understand it, yet you call for proof.  If you seek an advanced scientific paper, written at the 7th grade level, you will be waiting a long time. I doubt they exist.

You stated that there had been no scientific research into it.
You were presented with scientific research.
You stated that it was not done properly.
You were presented with evidence to the contrary.
You stated there was no proof.
Proof has been provided.

Each step of the way, your argument has been dismantled.
It is not my job to educate you so that you can understand it.

The concept of Chi is accepted world wide, in over 100 nations, and is used in government approved treatments. Scientists are doing ongoing research into it, and have been able to measure it's effects on various materials. They have published numerous papers in respected journals on these experiments. The details of those experiments, the hard data, etc, are available to anyone who chooses to look up those papers, and read them. They are of course written at the scientific level, not "joe-bagadonuts in the street" level. The average "joe" in the street cannot understand physics, medical biology, or higher mathematics, yet have no problem with accepting them. 

You continue to say "No Data has been provided by you."
What data do you want?
My own personal, measurable data from my own research into this?


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> So you are admitting that any data presented on this matter is over your head.
> Fine, it's over mine too.
> So we have to rely on the summaries and conclusions.
> Which I have repeatedly posted and referenced, yet you dismiss.
> ...


-I did NOT state there has been no research into it. You have NOT provided "numerous papers in respected journals". You have provided links that argue their point with zero data and a long winded paper that in the end only provides CONJECTURE on the subject. You have NOT dismantled my argument. My argument remains as valid as it was on the first page of this thread. Chi has NOT been proved by scientific means. You believe in chi. That's fine, but it is NOT based on any scientific evidence of chi.


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 17, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -I never said everything had to be proven scientifically. I even stated that science can't prove god exists. And nobody attempted to prove we couldn't go to the moon. That would be trying to prove a negative.


 
Sir you are saying chi needs to be proven scientifically, to be real allI'm saying is why when we have not proven everything else by science. And yes sir back when we talked about going to the moon some said that woul;d never happen for it was impossible to prove it at that time and then years later we was there. Science is a great tool for some but blind faith and trail and error is the biggest part of science, if not for ideals or imagination or blind faith the world would be left to ruins.

Your obvious lack in vision on this subject is only subject to your lack of faith in life or it seems to be( it please do not get this confused with religion) we are talking life in general. I believe there is a higher power than myself and no not GOD although he is, I'm talking about that sense you get when you are able to accomplished something that everybody says was impossible, day javue, that feeling everything is going to be alright but do not know how there is energy in everything around us and some can draw that energy at will others only in the right moment do I believe in Chi or Ki power who knows do I don't that it exsist no it is there just like you and me here today.
Terry


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

> Sir you are saying chi needs to be proven scientifically, to be real


-No I am NOT. But "blind faith" has NOTHING to do with science.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

Long Winded?  What do you think real scientific papers look like? A 3 page book report? Again, you only prove that you are incapable of accepting real scientific reports, after numerous demands for it.
The data is in there. I am sorry that you do not understand it.

It hasn't been proven?  Ok, so what if not chi, was it that was effecting the results in those cited experiments?

Other Papers, with all the charts and funny numbers.

The bioenergy analysis of Tai *Chi *Chuan: a longitudinal case study[SIZE=-1]
CMJ Cheng, HS Tho - Proceedings of the. SD Asia Congress, 2003 - 140.127.119.11 
*...* originating china then researchers have done in-depth studies on important topics
such as the physiological changes during *Qigong* and Tai *Chi* Chuan practice *...* 

[/SIZE]*Qigong *Practice: A Pathway to Health and Healing[SIZE=-1]
R McCaffrey, NL Fowler - HOLISTIC NURSING PRACTICE, 2003 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 
*...* One component of *Qigong* is T'ai *Chi*, an exercise modality that uses gentle
movements. Research has demonstrated that *Qigong* and *...* 

[/SIZE]Certain Physical Manifestation and Effects of External *Qi *of *Yan Xin *Life Science Technology - group of 7 »[SIZE=-1]
X Yan, F Lu, H Jiang, X Wu, W Cao, Z Xia, H Shen,   - Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2002 - accessv.com 
Page 1. Certain Physical Manifestation and Effects of External *Qi* of *Yan*
*Xin* Life Science Technology X IN Y AN Chongqing Institute *...* 
Summary: "Focusing on Yan Xin Life Science Technology research results in the areas of physical science and technology, we have come to the following conclusions: 
The external *qi emitted* by Dr. Xin Yan *has been detected by physical detectors and its physical existence has been confirmed.* External qi emitted by Dr. Yan has been found to interact with and affect matter at different levels from molecular to nuclear levels. Specifically, the external qi from Dr. Yan significantly affected the molecular structure of liquid water and other water solution as well as the half-life of radioactive isotope 241 Am."

[/SIZE]External *Qi *of *Yan Xin *Life Science Technology Can Revive or Suppress Enzyme Activity of   - group of 2 »[SIZE=-1]
X Yan, ZQ Xia, H Shen, A Traynor-Kaplan - BULLETIN OF SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY, 2002 - ecpc.ucsd.edu 
*...* External *Qi* of *Yan* *Xin* Life Science Technology Can Revive or *...* Certain physical
manifestation and effects of external *qi* of *Yan* *Xin* Life Science Technology. *...* 
"Summary: In summary, _*these studies indicate that qi emission of YXLST can be detected*_ using biochemical techniques and can modulate enzyme activity in two directions. Furthermore, because the effects are not uniform and apparently entail feedback suggests that the nature of xternal qi of YXLST is analogous to bidirectional transfer of information. The data presented are consistent with the hypothesis that xternal qi of YXLST can alter molecular vents in vitro and thus deserves further study. "


[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> Sir you are saying chi needs to be proven scientifically, to be real allI'm saying is why when we have not proven everything else by science. And yes sir back when we talked about going to the moon some said that woul;d never happen for it was impossible to prove it at that time and then years later we was there. Science is a great tool for some but blind faith and trail and error is the biggest part of science, if not for ideals or imagination or blind faith the world would be left to ruins.
> 
> Your obvious lack in vision on this subject is only subject to your lack of faith in life or it seems to be( it please do not get this confused with religion) we are talking life in general. I believe there is a higher power than myself and no not GOD although he is, I'm talking about that sense you get when you are able to accomplished something that everybody says was impossible, day javue, that feeling everything is going to be alright but do not know how there is energy in everything around us and some can draw that energy at will others only in the right moment do I believe in Chi or Ki power who knows do I don't that it exsist no it is there just like you and me here today.
> Terry


It has been proven through the Scientific Method (principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses). There are over 200 papers on the subject. They just happen to be complex reads.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Long Winded? What do you think real scientific papers look like? A 3 page book report? Again, you only prove that you are incapable of accepting real scientific reports, after numerous demands for it.
> The data is in there. I am sorry that you do not understand it.
> 
> It hasn't been proven? Ok, so what if not chi, was it that was effecting the results in those cited experiments?
> ...


-Unlike you I will actually read those studies and post when I get a chance.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

I did read them. The last 2 in detail. I do not pretend to understand the math or many of the particulars.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 17, 2006)

I wasted some time reading those "studies". They are crap. It's more pseudo science babble. Maybe that's why you can't understand them. They prove nothing. I am content in the fact that chi is still unproven in a scientific manner.

I am done with this thread. I will not post on it any more. And unlike you, I mean that.

Some reading for you. Scientists reviewing what is and is not known about chi.

Main Qi search page: http://www.csicop.org/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi?q=qi

Recommended: http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/qigong.html

Also recommended: http://www.csicop.org/si/9509/chi.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

So, anything you can't understand is crap.  Ok.  Bout what I figured.
Be content in your ignorance.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2006)

So, you reference articles written by a writer. Um, where is all the data you keep demanding? The ones I provided had data. Yours is a collection of stuff from other writers it seems. 

No matter. I'll stick to stuff done by real researchers, who have papers published in respectable journals and subject to peer review and commentary. You stick to stuff written by guys with no scientific background at a "for the average public" level.


----------



## crushing (Apr 18, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> Some reading for you. Scientists reviewing what is and is not known about chi.



From one of the links at csicop.com:

"If a patient is feeling weak and lethargic, then a healer will embark on a course of action that he or she feels will increase the patient's flow of Chi. He will do this according to carefully taught ancient techniques.  Treatment options might include changes in diet, a prescribed course of exercises, massage, herbal or other organic medicines, and perhaps techniques like acupuncture [...]"

I'm not sold on the existence of chi, but those 'healers' sound like they may be on to something.  Either that, or those healers haven't learned to deal in prozac and ritalin yet.


----------



## barriecusvein (Apr 18, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> I'm not sold on the existence of chi, but those 'healers' sound like they may be on to something.  Either that, or those healers haven't learned to deal in prozac and ritalin yet.


:rofl:


----------



## DuneViking (Apr 23, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -You can't be serious. You don't understand the scientific method either it appears. For yet another time... I cannot prove a negative. People here claim chi exists. To prove that scientifically, the burden of proof lies with them. Wikipedia is your friend. Or any 7th grade science teacher.


 
1- Bob- thanks-understood.

2- Ronin- Actually, I have 2 science degrees, worked in an analytical lab, and teach.  My explination is correct. Furthermore juris prudence states that one who makes the assertion, as you did in your first post, has burden of proof.


----------

