| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Further Discussion on Chi Energy | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Further Discussion on Chi Energy |
| Posted By: The Last Random Hero Posted On: Jan 2, 2005 Views: 696 | Further Discussion on Chi Energy I've re-started this posting under a more intelligent title. I asked: "What suprises me is that with so many demonstrations of chi energy in the martial arts world, I can't find anything scientific about what chi energy is. I wonder what does the scientific community think about chi?" The following was posted by Brian Madden MD (the real one not the crazy one) -------------------------------------------------- I'll take a stab at answering the question about chi, and particularly why there is little scientific evidence that 'describes' it. When you look at how scientific evidence is accumulated, it is by and large a product of statistics. Statistically, we claim a result had less than 5% chance of error that the result was due to random chance. Thus you have two groups of data points, displayed on a bell curve, and you are claiming that the different 'shift' of the bell curve means that there was a significant difference that did not occur for any other reason than that of your intervention. Now take chi. If we wanted to quantify chi, where would we start? How could you design a study to show that 'with chi' and 'without chi' would result in two significantly different outcomes? There is so much variability, even among those who 'practice chi' - skill at focusing it, using it, manipulating it, etc; that it would be nearly impossible to gather a reliable set of patients to study, let alone control for the necessary variables to determine the difference was entirely due to 'chi' and not something else. So we are left with anecdotal data; like the example by my namesake that prompted me to come here. I believe 'chi' exists - after all, I'm alive - and I can try and use 'chi' in my patient care (we generally call it the 'placebo effect' for lack of a better understanding); but until our measurement tools become more subtle and sophisticated we simply are too crude to measure its effect reliably. Thus when you investigate TCM's role in Western medicine, it focuses on the neurological effects of acupuncture and the biochemistry of its herbs, but ignores 'chi' as the foundation for its efficacy. This legitimizes the role of MD-Acupuncturists; and implies anyone with a background in anatomy could do the job equally well. Personally, I've seen the difference, but I wouldn't be able to rest my degree on it. - Brian Madden MD |
| Posted By: The Last Random Hero Posted On: Jan 2, 2005 Views: 695 | RE: Further Discussion on Chi Energy Here's a quote from the article I found about chi... "It is a widespread belief that one who has trained extensively in Chi gong can produce effects that take place outside the body and often seem to defy the laws of science. Unfortunately for believers, these feats are rarely, if ever, performed under properly controlled conditions. To the best of my knowledge, these effects have not been proved to occur in such a way that they cannot be explained by our current understanding of science. In some cases, for instance, when martial artists break concrete or wood, they may believe that they are using Chi when in fact the feat is quite explainable within physics as we understand it. Invoking Occam's razor, that the simplest solution consistent with the facts is more likely to be true, we are once again left without evidence of Chi." China, Chi, and Chicanery - Examining Traditional Chinese Medicine and Chi Theory http://www.csicop.org/si/9509/chi.html (CSICOP - Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) It is a very good article, well worth reading. And for the record, I do strongly believe in the existence of Chi. |