With the shaolin monk and the drill, there's no way you can physically condition your skin to prevent a drill bit from cutting through the skin.
Riiight, but watching that section, the entire reason the guys were impressed by it was because he was applying a signifigant amount of pressure to the handle of the drill, which they reasoned must be focussed against his stomach, neck, and temple.
For some reason, they completely ignore the fact that his other arm is placed on the stabilizer of the drill, and is clearly straining.
So again, the question remains, is the guy honest and taking 200 lbs of pressure on a spinning drill bit against his skin, or is he using that arm which is clearly straining against the drill to take the pressure, and letting the bit push slightly against his skin, where it would likely chew up the top layers of skin, but not bite in. Which is exactly what it does...
Again, I might be biased, but when the choice is between trusting performers doing unbelievable things, or considering that they may be dishonest, I tend to opt for dishonesty. Put another way, a guy shows you a magnificent, shiny trophy and tells you he won it in a secret deathmatch tournament in the Philippines, do you believe him, or consider it more likely that he just bought the thing from Century Martial Arts? (Do they sell trophies, I don't really know...)
I mean, I can't tell you why or how every impressive, supposedly "science-denying" claim is likely explainable without Qi. I'm not even claiming that every claim
is currently explainable without Qi. (Although I would guess that yes, they are...) However, when a guy who makes comic books about superheroes starts a TV show about superheroes, I don't take it as 100% when some nice chap on his show tells me, off the cuff, that "science can't explain it."
The sheer enormousness of the body of knowledge attained through the myriad disciplines of science is vast, and a real scientist in any field will be the first to tell you that they don't know enough about other fields of science to proclaim absolutely that "science" can or cannot explain a phenomena. Which is why, when the claim that science cannot explain something comes from Stan Lee on a TV show about superheroes, I don't take it at face value...
You are telling how it can be done, but it doesn't explain how he's doing it.
I'm saying that I, off the top of my head, can think of at least one way to do that as a trick. I'll be honest, I didn't analyze every moment of every guy playing with electricity, but my point is this:
Electromagnetism is a complex thing, and there are many ways to safely do things that seem horrifically dangerous, like Tesla channeling what looked like lightning bolts through his body, etc, etc, etc...
If there are a number of non-magical, non-supernatural, non-Qi-based ways to do something as a trick, and I see someone doing something that looks remarkably like said trick, I tend to lean on the side of, "it's a trick," rather than, "well, it sure looks like a trick, but I guess it's magic/Qi/force/whatever."
It wasn't too long ago that science said there wasn't water on Mars...
Regarding what "science" does and does not "know," there's a common misconception here. "Science" is either a process or basically the way in which every area of rational study conducts itself, depending on your definition. It is
not and never has been, a concrete body of knowledge.
There are many areas of scientific disciplines which are in flux, and many areas in which certain aspects of related knowledge are relatively settled.
As far as I know, the enourmous body of cosmologists, planetary scientists, astronomers, terrestrial scientists, etc did not all sit down and agree that there was no water on mars. The Daily Mail or CNN or Fox News may have aired segments with titles like, "Scientists say No Water on Mars," but that doesn't mean the scientific community had reached a consensus on the subject, it means that, say, the Daily Mail issued an article with an extremely lax, sensationalist version of something that probably should have read more like, "In latest exploration, group finds still little to no evidence for liquid water on Mars."
People seem to have this idea that, as popular outlets follow a few key findings on the more palatable and publicly interesting aspects of scientific research, "Science" as a whole, oscillates and say "Red meat is good!" and then ten years later, "Wait, it's bad!" and then a bit later, "No, I guess it is good!" but that's not what happens.
Research plugs along in whatever discipline, slowly, plodding, largely boringly, and yes, mindsets shift, and yes people in the field hold various and contrary opinions, but generally is a gradual building of a body of evidence and explanation. As more and more knowledge is gained, opinions become more similar, cohesive, and accurate.
So yes, there very likely were scientists of varying fields saying that they didn't believe there to be water on Mars, and yes, finding water will have disproved there viewpoint, but it's not as though the bulk of the research community was utterly convinced that there was no water anywhere to be found. If they had, why would the search have been so long and funded and staffed?
Many people expected water on Mars, had theoretical, hypothetical, and empirical reasons to believe that there might be or should be water on Mars, and they searched for water on Mars until it was found. The difference with Qi being, it tends to be more of a faith-based belief, while it
can explain some things, there are nearly always other explanations.
Am I ruling out that "science" will ever find Qi? No, but currently it's not something for which there is a body of evidence, aside from anecdotes with completely plausible and verifiable alternative explanations.
------------------------------
So in short, can I rule out that the drill guy wasn't making his skin like iron? No, although I wonder why he chose to harden some layers of skin but not the top few. Incidentally, even wood bits will awkwardly bite into hardened steel, so his skin would have to be considerably
harder than steel. I have enough experience with tools to know that.
However, I also can't rule out that he was neutralizing the force applied to the handle with his right hand, equal force applied in the opposite direction with his left hand on the stabilizer, rather than actually taking that force with his stomach, throat, or temple.
And, while both options are on the table, I am inclined to go with the second.
Which is more likely, that a man should turn his flesh harder than steel, or that a performer should seek to deceive his audience?
