heretic888
Senior Master
akja said:
Why Multiple Sclerosis Occurs
Also, there's a difference between "cannot explain" and "has not fully explained yet".
Laterz.
The Existence of Chi
- Thread starter Jade Tigress
- Start date
Why Multiple Sclerosis Occurs
Also, there's a difference between "cannot explain" and "has not fully explained yet".
Laterz.
I wouldn't trust that site for the "complete" truth. But you are right and my point was still made. MS is mysterious. My wifes had it for 15 years and she's not that bad while others are not that lucky.heretic888 said:
I would look at a site with better info. like this.
http://www.mossresourcenet.org/ms.htm#whatis
What Causes MS?
Scientists have learned a great deal about MS in recent years; still, its cause remains elusive. Many investigators believe MS to be an autoimmune disease--one in which the body, through its immune system, launches a defensive attack against its own tissues. In the case of MS, it is the nerve-insulating myelin that comes under assault. Such assaults may be linked to an unknown environmental trigger, perhaps a virus.
heretic888
Senior Master
While this may be getting off-topic....
The general consensus seems to be that multiple sclerosis, like schizophrenia, probably has no one definitive cause and is most likely the product of a number of both genetic and environmental variables.
Of course, qi can be explained quite easily be science if we jettison the mystical mumbo-jumbo that gets attributed to it by New Age writers (t'would be better to go with the traditional Chinese medicinal paradigm, methinks). A lot of people have gotten the weird idea in their skulls that qi is something like "the force" in the Star Wars films, which is definitely not how I was taught the concept in my taiji and chigung classes.
Laterz.
The general consensus seems to be that multiple sclerosis, like schizophrenia, probably has no one definitive cause and is most likely the product of a number of both genetic and environmental variables.
Of course, qi can be explained quite easily be science if we jettison the mystical mumbo-jumbo that gets attributed to it by New Age writers (t'would be better to go with the traditional Chinese medicinal paradigm, methinks). A lot of people have gotten the weird idea in their skulls that qi is something like "the force" in the Star Wars films, which is definitely not how I was taught the concept in my taiji and chigung classes.
Laterz.
I see Qi as being simple also. It just is and it comes to the surface through our methods of training.heretic888 said:
Brother John
Senior Master
KenpoTess said:
Isn't that the 'locker room'?? the "Cheeky" area?
hahaha...
Your Brother
John
Well, This guy obviously has KI. http://www.kyusho.be/Daochiamac.wmv
heretic888
Senior Master
RoninPimp said:
That depends entirely on how you define "scientific evidence".
As important as they are, there is more to science than biology and chemistry.
Laterz.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
For what its worth
Dr Yang gives a fairly good description of what he believes Qi is in his Qi Gong Books. And to be honest its bad and it is based on electric current and electrical conductivity. And I am not surprised, he is an Engineer as well as a CMA teacher and author.
I would not call it scientific proof, but it is a believable description.
Dr Yang gives a fairly good description of what he believes Qi is in his Qi Gong Books. And to be honest its bad and it is based on electric current and electrical conductivity. And I am not surprised, he is an Engineer as well as a CMA teacher and author.
I would not call it scientific proof, but it is a believable description.
RoninPimp said:
Scientific evidence isn't needed for anything in the martial arts. Chi exists. You don't understand it becuase you either don't have it or you're style dosen't use it.
Many people "deny" that which they don't understand. Yes the clip was outrageous but it would be ignorant to think that someone dosen't have chi and it can't exist because "ones" fighting style does not use or understand it.
Either you have it or you don't.
heretic888
Senior Master
RoninPimp said:
My point is that "science" is specifically characterized by certain principles of inquiry and validation/rejection. It is not the special property of a few select fields (such as physics, biology, chemistry, etc). You're not just doing "science" in the test tubes of a laboratory.
In other words, even if there were no physiological correlate to "qi" whatsoever --- and there most assuredly is --- then if a body of practitioners can demonstrate reproducible practices or methodologies for generating "qi" that can be replicated, can point to a relatively stable or consistent body of results or data gathered from these procedures, and can demonstrate a fair degree of agreement or consistency among those that have undergone the aforementioned procedures (i.e., "peer review"), then there is more than ample "scientific evidence" for this subject's existence.
And, it just so happens, this is exactly the case in traditional Chinese disciplines.
Laterz.
heretic888
Senior Master
akja said:
I would argue vehemently against this point. Martial arts, whatever their particular purpose, are nothing without "scientific evidence".
As I stated previously, the characteristic features of "science" are a set of principles related to experiential inquiry and communal validation/rejection. If, for example, a martial art whose purpose was self-protection consistently produced practitioners who died violent deaths in the field, street, or warzone, then it most clearly has not passed the test of validating its theories of combat. To put it in scientific terms, we would then "reject the hypothesis" offered by said martial art system.
If this martial art were produced during, say, the Warring States period in feudal Japan, then it is highly unlikely its adherents would have survived to pass on the system to their descendents.
To give another example, if a martial art whose stated purpose was health and longevity consistently produced practitioners who lived slovenly, unhealthy lives and died prematurely due to health hazards, then it most clearly has not passed the test of validating its theories of health and longevity. To put it once again in scientific terms, we would then "reject the hypothesis" offered by said martial art system.
So, yes, "scientific evidence" is very important to the martial arts. It is the only way of testing and subsequently improving upon the methodologies that we practice. Without such criteria, the martial arts are nothing short of lifeless dogma, practiced for the sole purpose that "my sensei said so".
Laterz.
You're points are "acceptable" BUT saying it is the "only way of testing" would be implying that all training is scientific.heretic888 said:
If the systems fails in battle it does not take away from the system. One would have to take in to account the actuall situation and who the combatants were before failing the system.
heretic888
Senior Master
akja said:
All good training is "scientific".
Look at it this way: what I specifically mean by "scientific", in this context, is a truth-claim that anybody can "experiment", or test out, for themselves. In all true science, a methodology or paradigm must be replicable; it must be repeatable (for either confirmation or rejection) by a communal body of adequately-trained "peers".
If your martial arts training does not contain this "scientific" quality to it, then it is little more than lifeless dogma. In many significant ways, your teacher would closely resemble a cult leader.
akja said:
Absolutely. One negative result doesn't suddenly "disprove" a theory. It's a bit more complicated than that.
What I am talking about, however, is a consistent body of data (i.e., practitioners dying "in the field") that has been gathered over a somewhat substantial stretch of time. This is not a one-time deal (accidents and/or anomalies happen in science all the time, after all). Rather, this would be the case of an enduring rejection of the theory's premises that has bared the test of time.
At which point, you would either modify the theory (i.e., the martial art system) to fit the incoming "data" --- or your would reject the theory altogether. Science is self-correcting.
Laterz.
I think I'd have trouble with the idea of a machine that produces chi. ???
Also, I have to agree with Heretic's statements about testing the validity of a given martial art system, technique, and so forth. The failure or outright refusal of many teachers and even entire systems to present their systems, techniques (and the principles upon which they are based) to scientific scrutiny has led to the development of various ineffective systems that often tout themselves as "lethal" and even "traditional"...
A good instructor should not only be able to teach a student HOW to perform a given technique or whatever, but he should be able to explain, in detail, exactly how and why it works.
Also, I have to agree with Heretic's statements about testing the validity of a given martial art system, technique, and so forth. The failure or outright refusal of many teachers and even entire systems to present their systems, techniques (and the principles upon which they are based) to scientific scrutiny has led to the development of various ineffective systems that often tout themselves as "lethal" and even "traditional"...
A good instructor should not only be able to teach a student HOW to perform a given technique or whatever, but he should be able to explain, in detail, exactly how and why it works.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
[Updated] Temu Code For $100 Off [acu639380] For Every Customer
- Latest: samaryakil1980
-
Exclusive Temu 40% Discount Code [acu639380] For Free Stuff
- Latest: samaryakil1980