Please note; this is not an automated posting. This is a cut and paste
from an original PDF file; images, hyperlinks, and other non-ASCII
images (such as Chinese Characters) have not been preserved. I invite
anyone to comment on this document, do so in the knowledge that
positive contributions will be incorporated in future versions of the
Chi FAQ.

-----

2.0 Is Chi a Scientific Theory?

Statement: The process by which Chi operates is unscientific! It is of
no value.

To answer the question, yes. But for those who make the statement, the
short answer is not going to be good enough. To give the issue a
proper analysis let's first define precisely what is being asked for,
so that there is no misunderstanding. If you are the kind of person
who is more likely to make the statement, then you should examine your
motives - as often such a question will be asked by someone who does
not really want an answer, but will only ask because he assumes one
can't be given.

Please don't try to talk about what's "Scientific" and what isn't, that
constitutes scientific evidence and what doesn't. Every time you do so, you
get it wrong.

Some examples:
"The most accurate of proofs in science are observable proofs. When an
apple fell in his garden, Sir Isaac Newton concluded that there was
some force that brought it down."

That turns out not to be the case. The idea that there was some "force"
that pulled things to Earth goes more to Galileo than to Newton. The
"apple" story (if it ever happened at all and wasn't simply something made
up after the fact) is more likely that the apple, falling in the wind,
described a curved path. Newton then extrapolated that higher horizontal
speed would make for a "flatter" curve and that sufficient speed would lead
to a curve that matched that of the Earth. In such a case (ignoring drag)
the apple would circle the Earth indefinitely. That leads to "central
forces forming closed circuits and, the inverse square law for gravity which
produces a single, simple, unified theory that explains both Gallilo's laws
of motion and Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

On Feb 27, 9:11 pm, Renli gmail.com> wrote:

Most gracious. :)

Sorry for the rough start, but "no". No more than force or energy is a
scientific theory. It's something that may be (potentially) described
in terms of scientific theories.

By "unscientific", do you mean "supernatural"?

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:31:28 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
sff.net> wrote:

you

Hal's mind is made up. Don't confuse him with facts.

My nomination for the most content-free comeback of the week.

Um, Hal, methinks you have way too much hands on your time.

No, actually. Never said I did.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:59:18 -0800 (PST), Rich
hotmail.com> wrote:

do you see that if it makes a mild mannered man able to fight like a
tiger it is a real thing?

Hal

On Feb 27, 11:50 pm, h...@nospam.org wrote:

Whereof one cannot speak, Hal, thereon must one remain silent :)

Rich

On Feb 27, 11:58 pm, h...@nospam.org wrote:

You're not very bright, so I'll say it slowly.

The self-deception is real.

The tiger is not.

I can't get the nouns down to single syllables, so you might want to
ask for help there.

:P
Rich

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:00:56 -0800 (PST), Rich
hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:55:52 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
sff.net> wrote: