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. :)
> -----
>
> 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.
> Statement: The process by which Chi operates is unscientific! It is of
> no value.
By "unscientific", do you mean "supernatural"?
> 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. Thus, the concept of gravity was
> born.
Gravity was born of astronomical observations, not apples. :P
Similarly, it was astronomical observations that helped disprove
Newton's model and prove Einstein's.
> Therefore to state that
> all swans are white because a black swan has not been observed is not
> a scientific proof.
No, but it can act as evidence for a model.
> Likewise, attempting to prove chi by presenting
> anything which is solely explainable by chi is an exercise in
> futility.
Absolutely not! Presenting such would show a gaping hole in current
paradigms that any subsequent paradigms would have to address.
> Note that requiring any such observation to be explainable solely in
> terms of chi (for example, to not have a known scientific explanation)
> is in and of itself a logical fallacy.
Not at all, it's very much the aim to prove that chi *is* something
unique, and to isolate it from other variables and demonstrate its
effects.
> Many martial arts contain exercises known as chi kung, which train the
> practitioner to develop his chi. Alone, this constitutes an observable
> proof: the practitioner can feel his own chi and therefore believes
> that chi is real (scientific).
Feelings don't count, unless you're studying neuroscience or
neuropsychology. Things have to be measurable; I might think I can
feel a force, see a pattern or hear a voice, when it's actually my
mind playing tricks on me. The mind tends to want things, to fit
things into familiar boxes and so on, and is not a reliable measuring
instrument. It's subjective.
> We do not take this as a scientific proof (regardless of it's repeatability),
Phew :)
> Since Chi is defined as the highest known level of accomplishment
> achieved through training in the well-defined aforementioned sets of
> chi kung* exercises,
WOAH THERE. Chi is accomplishment at chi exercises? Did I read that
right?
As in Fung is accomplishment at Fung exercises, Plinketstop is
accomplishment at Plinketstop exercises and A-walla-fa-shag-ba is
accomplishment at A-walla-fa-shag-ba exercises?
This is a great big self-referencing gap in the whole theory thing.
If you want to say that learning chi theory is a good way to be good
at certain exercises, that's fine. You could set up studies with
different student groups learning different things and have a big chi
sao tournament at the end. It doesn't speak to the independent
existence of chi, though.
What you *need* for this last part is an explanation of what effect
chi has that is not definable in terms of energy, electromagnetics,
heat, optics, biomechanics, and so on.
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?
Cheers
Rich
