|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: McNapoliMcNapoli Date: Feb 27, 2008 18:22
David L. Burkhead wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:20:36 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
>> sff.net> wrote:
>>>>> Your earlier example of old men tossing around young bucks like rag
>>> dolls doesn't fit because arts like Judo and wrestling do that
>>> without invoking "chi."
>> Do you mean a Judoka can throw someone much larger and stronger than
>> they without using ki, or that they learned to throw people much
>> larger and stronger than they without being introduced to the concept
>> known as chi (ki).
>
> Judoka can throw someone much larger and stronger then they without
> using _anything_ other than Leverage, momentum, angles, timings, etc. It
> requires _nothing_ not completely in accord with conventional physics and
> biomechanics.
>
>> Is chi the journey or the process?
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.94Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: RenliRenli Date: Feb 27, 2008 19:06
On Feb 28, 5:31 am, "David L. Burkhead" sff.net> wrote:> 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.
Apparently not - you seem to have forgotten that the feelings
themselves are generally well-known.
> 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.
How would you suggest the introduction be worded? The idea is to
explain what a scientific proof constitutes, by way of explaining why
a proof by observation isn't sufficient (Oops on you - you DID read
the whole thing, right, David? Because it sounds like you were
skimming.....)
|
| Show full article (9.66Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: RenliRenli Date: Feb 27, 2008 19:08
On Feb 28, 6:55 am, "David L. Burkhead" sff.net> wrote:>
> The problem isn't that I don't understand--the problem is that I do.
>
> Renli's statements about science and what makes a scientific theory are
> just plain wrong. Examples drawn from actual science demonstrate the
> difference between what he is claiming and how science actually works.
Then, since you understand, I hope you will make a contribution to the
FAQ in explaining exactly what would be considered scientific proof OR
if you could somehow refute that (push hands for instance) was "a
sophisticated methodological falsification of chi, where by "Falsified
theories are to be replaced by theories which can account for the
phenomena which falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater
explanatory power" (ibid)."
-
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RenliRenli Date: Feb 27, 2008 19:20
On Feb 28, 5:59 am, Rich hotmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 27, 9:11 pm, Renli gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Most gracious. :)
I'll keep an open mind if you do.
>> -----
>
>> 2.0 Is Chi a Scientific Theory?
>
> 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.
|
| Show full article (5.16Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RenliRenli Date: Feb 27, 2008 19:21
On Feb 28, 7:00 am, Rich hotmail.com> wrote:>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:59:18 -0800 (PST), Rich
>
>>>If it's just a visualisation and training method, that's fine but
>>>that's all it is, it's not a Real Thing. Visualising that you're a
>>>tiger or a gold medallist might help you be good at interviews, but
>>>the tiger isn't real, the gold medal doesn't exist. Do you see?
>
>> do you see that if it makes a mild mannered man able to fight like a
>> tiger it is a real thing?
>
> You're not very bright, so I'll say it slowly.
>
> The self-deception is real.
>
> The tiger is not.
> ...
|
| Show full article (0.92Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RenliRenli Date: Feb 27, 2008 19:22
On Feb 28, 8:44 am, "Greendistantstar"
bigpond.net.au> wrote:>> Please note;
>
> clipped
>
> Unscientific, self-serving and ignorant best describe this post.
"a sophisticated methodological falsification of chi, where by
"Falsified theories are to be replaced by theories which can account
for the phenomena which falsified the prior theory, that is, with
greater explanatory power" (ibid)."
Questions, peter?
-
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RenliRenli Date: Feb 27, 2008 19:23
On Feb 28, 10:17 am, McNapoli optonline.net> wrote:> Renli wrote:
>> 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?
>
> snip the rant.
> Oliver , you sure can shovel it! :o)))
|
| Show full article (1.13Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David L. BurkheadDavid L. Burkhead Date: Feb 27, 2008 20:58
Renli wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:31 am, "David L. Burkhead" sff.net> wrote:>> 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.
>
> Apparently not - you seem to have forgotten that the feelings
> themselves are generally well-known.
This statement only demonstrates my point. Whether the feelings being
well-known or not have
|
| Show full article (19.63Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: GreenDistantStarGreenDistantStar Date: Feb 27, 2008 21:04
On Feb 28, 12:22 pm, Renli gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 28, 8:44 am, "Greendistantstar"
>
> bigpond.net.au> wrote:>> "Renli" gmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>> Please note;
>
>> clipped
>
>> Unscientific, self-serving and ignorant best describe this post.
>
> "a sophisticated methodological falsification of chi, where by
> "Falsified theories are to be replaced by theories which can account
> for the phenomena which falsified the prior theory, that is, with
> greater explanatory power" (ibid)."
>
> Questions, peter? ...
|
| Show full article (0.92Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: McNapoliMcNapoli Date: Feb 27, 2008 21:57
Renli wrote:
> On Feb 28, 10:17 am, McNapoli optonline.net> wrote:>> Renli wrote:
>>> 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?
>> snip the rant.
>> Oliver , you sure can shovel it! :o)))
>
> Since I am proposing that "a sophisticated methodological
> falsification of chi, where by "Falsified theories are to be replaced
> by theories which can account for the phenomena which falsified the
> prior theory, that is, with greater explanatory power" (ibid)."
> exists, and you have not spoken to this, i'll assume you are speaking
> from preconception and not actual experience. ...
|
| Show full article (1.72Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
