Debate on the existence of Chi
- Thread starter RoninPimp
- Start date
I think you missed my post dude. Short bits:RoninPimp said:
"There is no exact equivalent to the concept of Chi in Western science, but Chinese scientists regard Chi as a substantial material that has been objectively verified to exist."
and
"What is very fascinating with Dr. Yan Xin's work, is that he is using modern scientific methods and tools to prove (to the Western mind) that the focusing of chi onto substance such as DNA can be measured."
So, it has been proven. Scientifically. By Scientists.
I think everything is basically theory. How many times have theories changed through the years. What is or was truth (the earth is flat!) will be fiction later. Chi has studies which are science based, and have thoeries. One day, possibly, these will be "proven". It comes down to belief, IMHO. Just like religion and the existance of god. If you beleive, than it exists. It's your word against theirs. Neither side can prove anything either way.
I keep wishing it really was like Star Wars though....I like the idea of casting lightning from my fingers or reaching out and crushing someones throat with my mind....then again, I'd probably be more Dark Helmet than Darth Vader. LOL!
I highly doubt you could understand the scientific papers that are behind those statements. Or can read Chinese. Since you couldn't understand it, it would remain 'unproven' to you.
Bob Hubbard said:
You mean "Your Schwartz is as big as mine?"
Summaries of papers going back to 1988RoninPimp said:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~icircle/dcircles/yanxin/21R.HTM
"Dr. Yan Xin (嚴新
, a doctor of both Western and Chinese medicine as well as founder of the relatively popular Yan Xin Qigong school, suggests that in order for qigong to be accepted by the modern world it must pass the test of scientific study. Without such studies, Yan maintains that qigong will be dismissed as "superstition". In the mid-1980s he and others began systematic study of qigong in some research institutions in China and U.S. More than 20 papers have been published."
Most of what I find is in Chinese. I can't read Chinese. The English articles indicate that this particular individual is highly regarded (an "ataboy" from Former President Bush was listed) in the scientific community. If I find more articles, I will post them. But, the argument of it's scientific validity is in my opinion, settled.
, a doctor of both Western and Chinese medicine as well as founder of the relatively popular Yan Xin Qigong school, suggests that in order for qigong to be accepted by the modern world it must pass the test of scientific study. Without such studies, Yan maintains that qigong will be dismissed as "superstition". In the mid-1980s he and others began systematic study of qigong in some research institutions in China and U.S. More than 20 papers have been published."Most of what I find is in Chinese. I can't read Chinese. The English articles indicate that this particular individual is highly regarded (an "ataboy" from Former President Bush was listed) in the scientific community. If I find more articles, I will post them. But, the argument of it's scientific validity is in my opinion, settled.
I'd want to see a independent, non-biased group reproduce those studies before I called it settled.
Scientific validity is a hard thing for it to get, that would take several groups reproducing the same results. That hasn't happened, so it is still up in the air.
Oh well, most of Quantum mechanics theory has yet to be "proven", (it and Relativity just don't jell... hence the search for a theory of everything) so believe it or not at this point.
Either way, both it, and relativity theory are useful, despite the fact that both can't be 100% correct.
Chi is the same, true or not, some elements of the theory are useful. (Other's just get silly though )
Scientific validity is a hard thing for it to get, that would take several groups reproducing the same results. That hasn't happened, so it is still up in the air.
Oh well, most of Quantum mechanics theory has yet to be "proven", (it and Relativity just don't jell... hence the search for a theory of everything) so believe it or not at this point.
Either way, both it, and relativity theory are useful, despite the fact that both can't be 100% correct.
Chi is the same, true or not, some elements of the theory are useful. (Other's just get silly though
)
RoninPimp said:
Sir let me ask you a question, you say everything has to be scientifcly proven: here is my delima about your scientific proof, GOD has never been scienticficly proven to exsist but yet we all believe for the most part and if so why can't chi be there has well. One does not have to see to believe, the mind is a great tool for those that have a vision to see past what is on paper.
I'm not trying to change your beliefs in this subject, it would be nice to see you conclude that the possibilities could exsist, for every paper saying yes I can show another paper saying no, when scientist said we could go to the moon and wrote countless paper about it, there was countless other paper saying it was impossible.
Your lack of vision someday will get the best of you, I hope that your journey in life will be guided by blind faith.
Sincerly
Terry
In this thread, it has been brought up that many of the people in the world believe in God. I really don't think that is a good or appropriate analogy to use. Yes, hundreds of millions, if not billions, believe in god, but that is not evidence of his existence. Personally, I don't begrudge anyone their belief system, but it's not proof. Same carries over for Chi/Ki.
My own thoughts on the matter is that Chi is not one thing. Probably a combination of several different things. Some, such as bio electric energy are a proven fact. Others may have yet to be found by modern science. Yet others could be the body using things we know about in ways we don't understand yet. I think the jury is still out on this and will be for quite some time.
All reasoning aside, the world would be much more interesting if Chi, as written about by the masters, did exist as written about.
Jeff
My own thoughts on the matter is that Chi is not one thing. Probably a combination of several different things. Some, such as bio electric energy are a proven fact. Others may have yet to be found by modern science. Yet others could be the body using things we know about in ways we don't understand yet. I think the jury is still out on this and will be for quite some time.
All reasoning aside, the world would be much more interesting if Chi, as written about by the masters, did exist as written about.
Jeff
-Did you read that article at all? It provides zero data to support its claims. It proves nothing.Bob Hubbard said:"Dr. Yan Xin (嚴新
Most of what I find is in Chinese. I can't read Chinese. The English articles indicate that this particular individual is highly regarded (an "ataboy" from Former President Bush was listed) in the scientific community. If I find more articles, I will post them. But, the argument of it's scientific validity is in my opinion, settled.
