I accept all you say from a scientific point of view. Thank you for broadening my understanding. However, it has no bearing on the current discussion.
No, I think, and will argue below, that it has
everything to do with the current discussion.
I will say, as fact, our scientific understanding of subatomic particles is much different now than it was 50 years ago and leave it at that. I am not suggesting ki is anthing to do with sub-atomic particles, physics, calculus, asteral projection or any other notion somebody would like to postulate. All I am trying to ask is, why can't we discuss ki, in whatever dimension you like, without using emotive language to dismiss it an BS?
The problem, K, is this, I think. Arguments about the 'existence' of something are inherently linked to the work that is done by positing the existence of that thing. The only entity that we have a priori reason to believe in the existence of is ourselves, because we are aware firsthand only of our own consciousness—Descartes'
cogito. And what Decartes was doing in his famour epigram was making an epistemological point: the only thing whose existence we can be sure of is ourselves, since we have no immediate knowledge of anything other than our own minds. Everything else we posit is a matter of
inference—and we need good and sufficient reason to make that inference. What constitutes good and sufficient reason is, of course, itself a matter of debate. But if we exclude the position of radical skeptics, guys like Berkeley for whom
nothing but our own minds could be assumed to exist, then it's clear that the existence of some entity X receives incremental support as the number of problems its existence eliminates increases. Conversely, if positing the existence of X does absolutely no work at all, then positing it violates the basic premise underlying all of our successful inquiry to date:
an account of the world which multiplies entities which do no work is inferior to an account without such entitites. That's the whole point of Redmond's purple snarg thought experiment that I linked to in my previous post.
Now the problem with Ki, or Qi, or Chi, is that so far, there is not a single thing that the concept seems to do that requires us to posit it. Redmond's examples here are very much to the point:
When asked for examples of effects for which ki would be the cause, the following are usually cited.
High Levels of Martial Skill is sometimes credited to an ability to harness and manipulate hidden flowing energies. However, physical training and other factors are better explanations for which we possess mountains of evidence. There is no way to remove these causes for the effect of good skills in the martial arts, therefore it is impossible to find another cause. In order to assert that ki were to be credited for martial arts abilities, someone would have to demonstrate an effect for which there could be no other cause in order for ki to be a reasonable explanation. For example, if a martial artist could levitate in a laboratory and on demand anywhere anytime, then we might speculate as to the cause of this effect.
Accupunture’s Effectiveness Against Pain is sometimes shown as evidence that there is ki. But, this has been shown to be a physical effect on the way the nervous system behaves. At some point in their history, the Chinese came up with “chi” (or borrowed the idea from someone else) as a life force that flows through the body which acupuncture is able to affect. They were trying to explain the effects of acupuncture and other things, and they were operating in the dark, so they came up with ki as a reasonable explanation. However, we now know the real cause. Thus, this is no longer a reason to believe in ki because of this effect.
Redmond alludes to other possible effects that might motivate ki/Qi/Chi, scrutinizes them, and then concludes:
The point is that there is nothing we observe in our world which calls for ki to explain it.
This concept is difficult to explain, but it all comes down to this: If there is not something that needs ki to explain it, then coming up with ki first and the thing it causes second is usually evidence of invention, hallucination, or deception.
Therefore, it is irrational and unreasonable to believe in ki, since there is nothing that you see in the world as an effect which cannot be explained without using ki to explain it. For those things we do not understand, ki does not explain them. For the effects that ki can supposedly have, there is no effect.
And note that Redmond doesn't overlook the way the 'translation' issue ("Japanese
ki = English 'energy', so what's the big deal??"). As he observes:
When challenged, some point to ki as being not an explanation of any paranormal activity, but rather that it is a handy catch-all term that encompasses the mundane. For example, one instructor said that ki only represents good mechanics and solid training. Another wrote, “It is just your life force that is the manifestation of all the electro-chemical reactions going on in your body. It’s energy - that’s all.”
Well, that’s fine. I believe in all of that. However, I don’t feel the need to dress it up in a fancy suit by using the Japanese word for “energy.” Besides, it reads like excuse-making to me. It sounds like someone has been using the term ki in their karate instruction, the same way they heard it, and they are not quite ready to admit to themselves that using it has not been a good idea. It reads to me like political weaseling, “I voted for that bill, but only because I believed it would not pass.”
“I say ki all the time in my classes, but I don’t mean anything other than the normal expression of energy that you said you believe in.”
Fine. But then why not use the English word?
I think it is unwise to use a paranormal sounding term, especially a term that many people firmly believe to refer to supernatural activity as some sort of verbal shortcut. The real explanation is no more difficult than the initial training in jargon, so there is no true gain in efficiency...
This seems to be an apology for the use of the vague, meaningless term “ki”, which in Japanese means “energy”, as in “I feel energetic” (ki ga tsuyoi) vs. “I feel tired” (ki ga nai). There is no English equivalent for the catch-all idiomatic expression “ki”.
We have English expressions for efficiency, being in the zone, psyching up, digging deeper, and other things like this from our own sports. I believe using the term “ki” leads to these false explanations and beliefs in magic energy forces tapped by acupuncture needles and then broadcast out over the airwaves to convince us that we never really went to the moon and that Elvis is alive.
I think Redmond's points here are 100% on the mark. There either is something that the word ki points to which is not explained by our best physical theories, or there isn't. If there isn't, than Ockham's razor kicks in automatically and pitilessly. If there is, then, as Redmond quite correctly insists on,
the burden of proof lies on those who are urging the existence of whatever it is that this sense of ki denotes. That means, showing what work ki actually does—what
specific results it yields.
And this is the reason why my previous posts about postulating as yet unobserved subatomic particles is completely germane to the point. Because the only reason for positing such particles is that—as in the case of the Higgs particle—the existence of such entities reduces the apparent complexity and patternlessness of the world. Only such particles have been posited in modern physics which have this explanatory yield, and the explanatory payoff that confirmation of their existence would give us is the reason why they have been investigated so relentlessly. What Ninjamom, Redmond and many others are saying is that there is nothing even remotely comparable for the concept 'ki' to do
beyond what is done by the very prosaic sense of 'energy' (defined as the capacity to do work, i.e, impose structure beyond the random equilibrium state) . And if saying,
X occurs because of energy isn't very illuminating as it stands, then substituting
ki for 'energy' isn't going to be any
more illuminating.
Most people would refrain from posting on the subject for fear of being labeled irrational or stupid or whatever. Nobody can disprove ki just as nobody can disprove a divine being (not that I'm equating the two).
K, if something can be neither proved or disproved, then the question of its existence is inherently meaningless, because, by its very nature, it can have no material interaction with the world. That's why a nonfalsifiable hypothesis simply doesn't get a place at the table. I don't
need to disprove the existence of
ki, as Redmond's essay nicely underscores. The burden of proof is on someone who's
positing ki to show that it yields a more satisfactory picture of the world (i.e., does more work, by accounting for specific, replicable results of observation) than assuming that there is no such thing. Again, my comments in my previous post are exactly relevant here: that's the whole reason why people have posited the Higgs particle, and why they are moving heaven, earth and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN to create the conditions in which it should, if it exists, reveal itself. I hate to keep repeating the point, but read what Redmond has to say about invisible purple snargs, and where the burden of proof lies, and why it lies there.
All I am asking is for those people who would like to discuss what they believe to be ki, to be able to do so without people, who don't believe in ki, derailing the discussion. If you want a discussion on the existance of ki I will start a new thread for you all to get together and confirm your scepticism. :asian:
Regardless of whether you want to listen to what those of us who ask for basic standards of proof to be met are saying, everything that transpires in any discussion between 'ki-believers' is subject to the same conditions that I've been talking about above. If people want to get together to talk about invisible purple snargs without the objection that the concept receives no support from anything like a replicable body of results, that's fine; it doesn't change the fact that the concept receives no support from anything like a replicable body of results.
And please note that
the OP actually was trying to posit a 'scientific' model for ki, so that issues of scientific methodology, in all its unapologetic harshness, are 100% relevant to this thread.
