Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Spiritual

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-03-2003, 07:29 AM   #101
mike lee
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 646
Offline
Hey! What about my post? Wasn't it nice?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2003, 08:00 AM   #102
RichardWilliams
Dojo: Taunton Takke Musu Aikido
Location: Somerset
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16
Offline
Sorry Mike,

Too busy arguing with Erik.

Yes, i liked your post. Very pleasant. I totally agree about avoiding both blind faith and total disbelief. How about a bit of objectivity...

Thank you for adding another voice that is closer to what i've been saying.

R.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2003, 11:01 AM   #103
Erik
Location: Bay Area
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,200
Offline
Quote:
Richard Williams (RichardWilliams) wrote:
I have a VERY good understanding of how hard it is to prove something like this, thanks to individuals like your good self.
I'm just pointing out flaws in your thinking. There have been many.
Quote:
I HAVE given you enough information so that you could stop posting for a while and go away and properly, objectively research this subject.
More assumptions.
Quote:
Clearly this allows no time for reflection or lengthy research.
What? You think your claims are new or something? That you are the first person ever to make claims without proper research to back them up?
Quote:
"It isn't so. I know it isn't so. I have said it isn't so, therefore, it isn't so."
Like I said, provide unbiased reliable research, and I'll listen. You have provided nothing but claims.

QiGong cures cancer!

QiGong practitioners live longer!

I just want valid research. You have provided nothing but anecdotal claims. The problems with anecdotal evidence are legion.
Quote:
I have quoted research areas that you could go away and analyze independantly to any input from me.
How do you know what I have done or have not done? See, here you go again, making claims without facts. Once again you present allegations without any facts. I just want facts without allegations. We can work with facts.
Quote:
You have not presented counter-research, so how you can possibly be so certain that you are in the right?
I don't have to provide counter-research. It's not my job to prove a negative. I'm not the one making claims. Nor, do I see this as right and wrong. I'd be thrilled if QiGong worked. It would be a million times better than chemotherapy but chemo works X percent of the time. It has evidence to back it up. QiGong has you and others making claims.
Quote:
Isn't this what they call presumption and arrogance?
Pot...Kettle....Black....
Quote:
i think one thing is true about Qi that everything written about Qi is correct, because this is not a view i hold.
It's about time.
Quote:
if someone has a life threatening tumour that is observed by Western medicine, and then this person does not take a single prescription drug, or take an accepted course of Western treatment (chemotherapy) and then some time later the tumour disappears and that person returns to good health through self qigong practice or visits to a qigong healer, then what is going on?
Possibly many things. What about the thousands (hundreds, millions) of people practicing QiGong who have died of cancer? Or, are there none of those? How many people had similar experiences to the author you mention and did nothing? Danger Will Robinson!
Quote:
You have two ways to go here Erik. You could accept just this one fact that the Qigong DOES cure serious illness, or can disprove Qigongs relationship to the person being cured.
Like I said, I can't disprove your claims, just like I can't disprove Santa Claus. It's your job to understand what the standard of proof is.

If I don't step on cracks while walking down the street, and don't get hurt, is that because I didn't step on cracks, or because most people don't get hurt walking down the street?
Quote:
Now having a go at me is easy. Just write a post calling me a liar.
I've never called you a liar, although you have called me many things and insulted me numerous times.
Quote:
Having done this contact the first person who has written an account of such a situation and tell them they are full of it too.
I'm sure they believe it was QiGong that saved them. Just because they say it is so doesn't make it so.
Quote:
Keep doing this with everybody that knows first hand the healing power of Qigong. Where will this get you?
Maybe to the truth? You look at them and say it was QiGong. Good for you, but it's not proper research. It's a form of evidence, granted, but by itself it's light years less than the standard.
Quote:
God forbid that it might actually be something to do with Qigong.
I've already said it could be. There are tons of benefits to exercise, for instance. I'm simply saying the following:

a) The benefits claimed are not backed with sufficient evidence.

b) We have not determined that the claimed benefits are true.

c) We have not determined that any results claimed were produced by the alleged cause.
Quote:
You see, the real problem here is when you argue with me all you can achieve is showing that i am unable to properly argue the case for qigong.
I think that was proven many posts ago. And someone who can out argue me doesn't make the case either.
Quote:
This does not too disprove the healing effects of Qigong. If you argue with the accounts i describe you are arguing with a very large number of people. Are we all wrong?
Maybe! A lot of people believe they have been abducted by aliens. At one time lots of people believed in Zeus and Apollo. Do large numbers make their claims true? Lots of people have seen and claimed lots of things. Their claims don't make truth.

Last edited by Erik : 03-03-2003 at 11:13 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2003, 11:11 AM   #104
Erik
Location: Bay Area
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,200
Offline
Some interesting links on Chinese Medicine:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9607/china.html

and

http://www.csicop.org/si/9609/china.html

Yes, I went to the anti-christ for these.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2003, 06:11 PM   #105
shadow
Dojo: Aiki Kun Ren (Iwama style)
Location: Sydney
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 166
Offline
i think you two (erik and richard) need to either start a new thread for the continuation of your argument or perhaps just start emailing each other.

happiness. harmony. compassion.
--damien--
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2003, 07:47 PM   #106
PeterR
 
PeterR's Avatar
Dojo: Shodokan Honbu (Osaka)
Location: Himeji, Japan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,021
Japan
Offline
Daimen its never so simple. There is a big difference between studying science and doing it and one thing is clear - proof is relative. Absolute proof is a statistical impossibility but scientific proof is really dependent on the questions being asked.

I can scientifically prove to you that all human beings will eventually die. We have what 4 billion? potential observations.

Quantum physics is the origin of the idea that observing something changes it but the problem manifests itself in everything from sociology (how many subjects lie about their sexual encounters) to microbiology (those microscope lights are hot). The thing is scientific proof requires two things, the primary of which is reproducability. The second, and this varies a lot from science to science, is the ability to determine the error of your results. The latter however is directly related to the former.

The argument between Erik and Richard is basically boiling down to what is proof by Resaonable Doubt versus proof by Doubtful Reason. Sorry Richard the line came to me last night and I had to use it.

One thing that I did notice about the "scientific experiments" is their complexity.

Put a Qi/Ki master in a chair 10 feet from a table (no partition necessary). On the table put a 100 ml beaker of water with a thermometer in it coupled to a graph. A second thermometer attached to the same graph measures the air temperature less than a foot away from the beaker. If the Qi master can elevate the temperature of the beaker by 1 degree using the second thermometer as reference I'll be converted. By the way who gets to set up the machines and run the experiment is up to the skeptics.

Good science is elegently simple and does not have to hide in complexity.

With respect to anecdotes it cuts both ways. As I said in a previous post I personally know someone who died from Cancer because they put their faith in QiGong. Therefore if I applied anecdotal reasoning I would infer that QiGong kills people.
Quote:
Damien Bohler (shadow) wrote:
peter, i study science right now and the very first thing we learnt is, THERE IS NO PROOF IN SCIENCE. simple as that.

Peter Rehse Shodokan Aikido
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2003, 10:20 PM   #107
Erik
Location: Bay Area
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,200
Offline
Quote:
Damien Bohler (shadow) wrote:
i think you two (erik and richard) need to either start a new thread for the continuation of your argument or perhaps just start emailing each other.
And ruin my fun!

A new thread maybe, but not email. This stuff comes up time and time again in our art. When I started I gave all this stuff a full opportunity. I even used to call people closed-minded. Unlike Richard, I went to sources outside of my circle. The information was much better outside of the usual suspects.

Ki deserves a full rebuttal every now and again.

Besides, this has all been good for the peace of the board. There another thread going on where many equally questionable things have been said. I didn't go after that one.

See, the glass is really half-full.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2003, 02:14 AM   #108
mike lee
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 646
Offline
left field

Incredulousness will get you nowhere, but flattery can make one a President. It's not science, it's just the way its is.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2003, 07:22 AM   #109
RichardWilliams
Dojo: Taunton Takke Musu Aikido
Location: Somerset
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16
Offline
Peter, you wrote,

"Put a Qi/Ki master in a chair 10 feet from a table (no partition necessary). On the table put a 100 ml beaker of water with a thermometer in it coupled to a graph. A second thermometer attached to the same graph measures the air temperature less than a foot away from the beaker. If the Qi master can elevate the temperature of the beaker by 1 degree using the second thermometer as reference I'll be converted. By the way who gets to set up the machines and run the experiment is up to the skeptics."

I have NEVER heard anyone associated with Qi practice say something like this is possible. It certainly doesn't fit in with the things i understand of Qi in any way.

Why request as proof, something that is clearly ridiculous?

It is likely saying, ok i won't believe black-holes exist until you do this experiment with three hamsters and a piece of wet string? To me, there is clearly no relation between one thing and the other... in both cases.

Stick to a very simple, easily REPRODUCEABLE area of Qigong. Healing power. Based on my current understanding, i have no doubt that there exists, repeatable evidence of healing through Qigong, which comes hand in hand with a good, scientific based logic on what the size of error was in those cases.

The problem here, which is the problem that is going to lead me to withdraw from this thread is that I am unable to treat this subject with the exact degree of scientific rigour that you and Erik obviously require.

As i'm just an engineer, and do not hold formal qualifications as a scientist i appreciate my limitations and know however well I argue my case, it is always going to fall short of what you require.

But the thing is, for me it doesn't matter. I have first hand experience which i know you can never counter. Of this I'm totally sure.

Another crazy thing about this whole situation is we're all talking on a site dedicated to Aikido (my by far my most favourite martial art by the way. It is truely wonderful). If my friends and I went through everyday life arguing (with the requirement of solid scientific proof) about the exact existence of everything we came into contact with we would go mad. I'm sure the same is true for all of us.

Ok, prove to yourself what is proveable to yourself, but you CANNOT throw away all you experience in life that you don't scientifically understand. Does anyone really think they know the answer to everything?

How about LOVE? If we were talking about love in a way that required me to prove in a scientific way how real it is i could not. So would that then have to mean love is not real?

Yet love is something i know to be real in a way i can't imagine will ever be changed. Of course, i'm not trying to compare Qi and love. I'm just saying, think about the things we take as being the way they are, simply because that is the only way they should really be taken.

Be careful how you take this though! Please note, I am most certainly NOT saying that because love is handled like this that we should not apply scientific reasoning to Qi. I think we must apply scientific reasoning to Qi because science is very important to all of us. But i also think Qi can (and has) stood up to scientifc reasoning, even if i have failed to demonstrate this first hand.

What i'm trying to communicate is that there are things that are very real to us, regardless of scientific reason. We do not have to go through life proving everything. By this, i mean, if i withdraw from the thread i still have the first hand experience that confirms Qi is as real to me as love is. I clearly can prove neither, yet this does not seem to matter at all.

By the way Erik, i would like to apologize unreservedly, for any insult i have sent your way. Ok, i'm only human, and you did get me a little angry, but if i am to discontinue posting to this thread, i would like to do so leaving nothing behind for which i'm not here to argue.

R.

Last edited by RichardWilliams : 03-04-2003 at 07:29 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2003, 06:02 PM   #110
PeterR
 
PeterR's Avatar
Dojo: Shodokan Honbu (Osaka)
Location: Himeji, Japan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,021
Japan
Offline
Quote:
Richard Williams (RichardWilliams) wrote:
I have NEVER heard anyone associated with Qi practice say something like this is possible. It certainly doesn't fit in with the things i understand of Qi in any way.

Why request as proof, something that is clearly ridiculous?
Of course you haven't Richard because it is so simple. Yet there are claims of being able to alter protein conformations and the like through energy/qi transfer. I was talking about hiding behind complexity.

I have never had a problem with Qi as a concept, some of the practices associated with it I do myself. But what I do have a serious problem with is when you try and couch the argument for its existence in science. To date, any attempt to do so has resulted in very bad science to the point of fraud. Harsh I know but what else can you call it.

The flow of Qi is used by way of explanation.

For example breathing exercises have been shown to have a beneficial effect. Groups of elderly doing tai chi, versus groups not doing. Recovering stroke patients, surgery, being asked to do simple breathing exercises did better. But again all this indicated was the benefit of the exercises not Qi - there is a real difference.

One more time. I don't know of any working scientist so anal that everything has to be proved scientifically. We like to smell the roses, fall in love, debate esoteric principles, even believe in Ki. The thing is though we hate to be bullshitted especially using terms and constructs we hold dear.

Peter Rehse Shodokan Aikido
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2003, 06:05 AM   #111
Kelly Allen
Dojo: Friends Dojo
Location: Winnipeg
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 190
Offline
I'll read the book

Richard

I'll read the book to see what it says. I will come to my own conclusions about that spacific reseach. I, however, will keep my opinions to myself because the tention in this thread is turning me off posting on it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2003, 06:15 AM   #112
RichardWilliams
Dojo: Taunton Takke Musu Aikido
Location: Somerset
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16
Offline
Hi Kelly,

I'm very sorry if i've caused you to feel like this. I am deeply sorry.

However, i would like to point out that any respect i have for Erik and Peter is only increasing, not decreasing as this continues. They are helping me to push my own understanding forward, and i love them for it.

I think that this argument is actually levelling out a little... ..see my next post.

R.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2003, 06:18 AM   #113
RichardWilliams
Dojo: Taunton Takke Musu Aikido
Location: Somerset
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16
Offline
Peter wrote - "Of course you haven't Richard because it is so simple. Yet there are claims of being able to alter protein conformations and the like through energy/qi transfer. I was talking about hiding behind complexity."

With respect, i think you may have missed the point on this. What i am trying to suggest is that, yes, by all means run a very simple test to prove or disprove an assertion of Qi. The problem i have with your suggestion is that, simple as the test is, it is not a test that directly relates to a claimed ability of Qi. I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor. Sure, don't hide behind complexity, search for the simple answers as they are often the right answer, but let's at least get an appropriate test in place.

"I have never had a problem with Qi as a concept, some of the practices associated with it I do myself."

Help me out a little here, i'm confused on this one. Is what you are trying to say "Qi can be accepted and taken into everyday life, but cannot and should not argued as existing in science". At the same time to this you are saying to me that i am wrong to argue anything about the existence of Qi unless i do so following proper scientific reasoning.

My confusion is, it is ok for you accept Qi as a concept but will not take it in any way as associated with science, but i am not free to post based on my acceptance of Qi as a concept, and am only allowed to post using scientific argument. Double standards me thinks.

Put it another way. You are happy to work with an airy-fairy notion of Qi and, as important as science is to you, will not allow yourself to bring science into, whereas i am trying to apply science (obviously not particularly brilliantly to date, i agree) to better understand something i've previously only seen physical manifestations of. And i'm the bad guy...

I may have ended up with bad scientific argument and i may not, but my heart is actually in trying to work with science because for me, science continues to come up with new explanations and answers that work and make life better. Ok, it's a bad thing if i mash up science but this is only through general human stupidity. Are you actually also saying that i shouldn't even try to bring science into it. For me saying that science can never and will never explain something is like saying that not thing can in no way be real. Do you agree? If so, you also cannot accept Qi as a concept without some acceptance that now or in the future a proof of something will be attained. (Apologies if i have misunderstood your stand here, perhaps i have. Also, please see the end of this post before jumping on this point)

"But what I do have a serious problem with is when you try and couch the argument for its existence in science. To date, any attempt to do so has resulted in very bad science to the point of fraud. Harsh I know but what else can you call it."

Again, I personally do not accept a very large number of claims regarding Qi. I have always held this view, despite the fact that other people would like to pretend like it is something new that i've adopted due to possible failure to argue my case. I think there are people (like those listed on the web-page supplied by Erik, thank you) that claim all sorts of things that are not only wrong, but claimed in a way that presents them the opportunity for money making off the back of it. This people should be treated very harshly and i'm all for standing with you on this point.

"For example breathing exercises have been shown to have a beneficial effect. Groups of elderly doing tai chi, versus groups not doing. Recovering stroke patients, surgery, being asked to do simple breathing exercises did better. But again all this indicated was the benefit of the exercises not Qi - there is a real difference."

I totally agree.

"One more time. I don't know of any working scientist so anal that everything has to be proved scientifically. We like to smell the roses, fall in love, debate esoteric principles, even believe in Ki."

Good, i hoped that this was the case.

"The thing is though we hate to be bullshitted especially using terms and constructs we hold dear."

I have no problem with this either, so why don't we work together to reach a proper acceptance test? One that both you, Erik and I can all agree on. However, i would like to add a note of caution here to with respect to the last line of your post.

Please be very careful that you do not wander into the area of hypocrisy. I have no problem with the concept that i should not abuse terms and constructs that many scientists hold dear. This has never been my aim. But what i would say is that you must also use the same measuring stick with your own words.

I'm sure you would understand if i became annoyed with you criticising my words and then adding a post that shows some lack of proper treatment on your part. I thought this was where you were going with your suggested experiment, but on further reflection i believe that you've just misunderstood me. I guess, if i am to be fair, i would say that the fact that you originally suggested this test probably doesn't come down to an inability to understand how to design an objective test, but rather a more vague understanding of what the claimed abilities of Qi are.

The longer this has gone on the more i have realised the following point is very important. Lets all argue this as best we can. If everybody stares harder and harder at Qi this can ONLY be a very good thing. Either originally held views become reinforced, or rejected but either way nobody loses out and the truth wins. You may forget, i'm very interested in continuing to learn about this subject WHEREVER i end up, and i will not accept things blindly but require proof for myself. If properly researched results show up flaws in thinking, then i will accept the results and change my stance accordingly.

So how about we make a combined attempt to devise one single, simple test, that we all agree can be taken as proof positive or proof negative of a particular form of Qi. We all agree on how the test is to be done and what it is aims are. I accept, if we do this, that i must work along lines that the particular form of Qi chosen remains scientifically unproven until the test is completed and the form of Qi proven.

The problem here is can we agree on one test that all three of us accept totally? I hope so, it will certainly be very interesting to devise such a thing. It will also greatly simplify the whole argument. I totally accept that despite of any the things i've seen first hand, i cannot put forward to you guys something as science fact without successful completion of this test. Also, if this test were to be completed and the form of Qi proven (this may or may not happen, we do not know which) then this only allows me to argue this one form of Qi. New forms will require new tests. Of course, if the test were ever proven positive, i would hope that all three of us would then agree on just that one single point (of course, only if proven positive).

Basically, despite my own personal experiences i understand exactly what you are both trying to say about bringing science into the equation. If we are going to continue this in a scientific fashion, i have no fear in joining you on this.

R.

(i'm sorry Peter, you've made suggestions in the past for conclusive tests, but they don't fit the bill for me, and i would hope we could all settle on the same test)
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2003, 07:39 PM   #114
PeterR
 
PeterR's Avatar
Dojo: Shodokan Honbu (Osaka)
Location: Himeji, Japan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,021
Japan
Offline
Quote:
Richard Williams (RichardWilliams) wrote:
Help me out a little here, i'm confused on this one. Is what you are trying to say "Qi can be accepted and taken into everyday life, but cannot and should not argued as existing in science". At the same time to this you are saying to me that i am wrong to argue anything about the existence of Qi unless i do so following proper scientific reasoning.
Wow these posts are long - my attention span is degrading.

I am simply saying if you are going to use science to describe Qi/Ki or to prove it's effect then you have to adhere to the norms of scientific investigation. If you are not going to do that then using scientific jargon to convince is no better than a magician's slight of hand.

If Qi/Ki exists science will eventually prove it. If it doesn't it can happily remain in the sphere of belief.

Peter Rehse Shodokan Aikido
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2003, 08:02 PM   #115
shadow
Dojo: Aiki Kun Ren (Iwama style)
Location: Sydney
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 166
Offline
you are all nuts.

happiness. harmony. compassion.
--damien--
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2003, 08:24 PM   #116
ikkainogakusei
Location: All over CA
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 137
Offline
Talking funny

Quote:
Damien Bohler (shadow) wrote:
you are all nuts.
Okay, you -=have=- to see the humor in that statement along with the signature...

happiness.harmony.compassion

very cute
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2003, 08:24 PM   #117
PeterR
 
PeterR's Avatar
Dojo: Shodokan Honbu (Osaka)
Location: Himeji, Japan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,021
Japan
Offline
Quote:
Damien Bohler (shadow) wrote:
you are all nuts.
Yup but I have to work at it.

Just a quick reminder the thread is "Ki in Scientific Thought".

I never argue whether or not Ki is real. It's not that big of a thing in the Aikido that I do.

Peter Rehse Shodokan Aikido
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2003, 08:33 PM   #118
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Location: Stuttgart, Baden Wurttemberg
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
Germany
Offline
Good book to read is called the Quantum and the Lotus. Two smart PhDs in Quantum physics that are also/where buddhist monks talk about basically Subatomic energy (Quantum Physics and the exisitence of "KI" if that is what you want to define it...Proved it to me that KI exist if in no other way than in concept.

I always like the phrase "I think, therefore I am". Doesn't require much scientific proof there. I think if you can conceptually concieve of KI, then it exist..if in nothing else then in concept.

UFOs may or may not exist...does it really matter to the people that truely believe that they saw one...to them and their world they do exist and it governs there lives and impacts decisions and things they do, which impact the world...if nothing else than to sell copies of the National Enquirer.

So in scientfic terms, you have an ACTION "The believe UFOs exists" REACTION "I am going to buy that Tabloid to read about them". National Enquirer is making more money than I am!

Empircally, I really don't think science can answer or prove/disprove ALL questions. It will never be able to empircially determine how the world was created or when...nor will it prove/disprove the exsistence/non exsistence of a higher power/being. Therefore, the "THEORY/CONCEPT" of science being perfect itself is fundamentally flawed. (unless science IS the GOD or higher power!!! MMMM I will have to think about that one for quite a while.

Long story short. a simple logic algorythm:

Science can prove/disprove everything, therfore science is not flawed or perfect.

If that was the case, then we would have all the world problems solved since science could never be wrong.

Another way of looking at it:

Humans control scientfic thought....therfore humans would have perfect in order for science to be perfect.

Anyway...these are my thoughts!

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2003, 08:33 PM   #119
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Location: Stuttgart, Baden Wurttemberg
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
Germany
Offline
Oh forgot...Yes we are all nuts since we are NOT perfect! (Just varying degrees and perceptions of what is NUTS)

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2003, 10:53 PM   #120
Erik
Location: Bay Area
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,200
Offline
Richard, no biggie on the whole thing. As I've said before, I like to see things stirred up from time to time and I may have been stirring the pot just a little.

For that I apologize.

To clarify where I come from more specifically. A friend of mine says that he has achieved certain results from acupressure. While he and I debate that, we both agree that the acupuncture community needs to be held to the same standards as the medical community and that it currently is not. So what happens is that large claims are made which actually could put people at risk.

For instance, certain cancers are very curable. Some can be cured nearly 100% of the time if caught early enough. Suppose that some exotic practice does help cancer but it only helps some of those specific cancers 50% of the time. A medical doctor who prescribed a less successful treatment over a more successful treatment would face a massive lawsuit and maybe more. In this example I would argue that the person encouraging the exotic practice is guilty of manslaughter. I would also imagine that there is an incredible lack of diagnostic ability in the alternative realm. So they may be doing something to help cancer when it's a bad gall bladder that is the problem.

You probably get the idea.

As to ki, some definitions work fine for me, but when people start talking about directly manifested results I want evidence.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2003, 02:01 AM   #121
mike lee
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 646
Offline
speaking of "nuts"

During World War II, a US Army Ranger battalion suddenly found itself surrounded at the Battle of the Buldge. They were vastly out-numbered and out-gunned. After several days of fierce fighting in harsh winter conditions, the Germans sent the American commander a message and asked if he was ready to surrender. The commander replied, "nuts."
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2003, 02:05 AM   #122
PeterR
 
PeterR's Avatar
Dojo: Shodokan Honbu (Osaka)
Location: Himeji, Japan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,021
Japan
Offline
Re: speaking of "nuts"

To which the German commander promptly replied. "No thank you we prefer sausages with our Beer."
Quote:
Mike Lee (mike lee) wrote:
The commander replied, "nuts."

Peter Rehse Shodokan Aikido
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2003, 11:34 PM   #123
Erik
Location: Bay Area
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,200
Offline
Sometimes you feel like a nut,

Sometimes you don't!
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2003, 05:25 PM   #124
Jean-David
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 20
Offline
I practiced aïkido for about two years but I stopped after that. The reason being that I didn't believe in ki. By ki I mean an ostensibly paranormal phenomenon similar to psychokinesis ( the purported power to influence matter from a distance without the use of the normal sensory-motor channels ). The question is whether this ki is essential to aïkido... in that I mean would one still practice aï"ki"do if ki realy did not exist? The answer to this question, although it may differ according to the people who answers it and their style, is in my opinion simply no. The way I see it aï...do would still be effective as a methode of self defence and would still remain an interesting philosophy of life but senseis would stop teaching students about the existence of ki and students would stop performing ridiculous feets that are supposed to develop or test their ki abilities.

Obviously students are always free to leave the dojo if they disagree with their teacher it is still unwise for any person to base their whole aï...do practice ( that can last a life time) on the existence of a phenomenon that has not been proven to exist and worse that directly contradicts what science has taugh us. Simply put, it's a very risky bet.

Obviously one can say to hell with science but isn't it ironic how we charish scientific discoveries in medicine (cure for diseases), engineering (technology), astronomy (space exploration) while disregarding it's reliability and scope on such matters as "ki".

Of coarse science still has much to discover and what it discovers might actualy suport the existence of "ki" but at this moment it is not the case. Science is the best thing we have to learn how the world works.

Another thing that bothers me is that some teachers actually perform feats in front of thier students indicating that they are demonstrating ki.

And these feets are actually astonishing and convincing. The problem is that unless the teacher places himself in a controled environment under the supervision of a team of expert magicians and scientists who can publish their results in prominent scientific journals, and that he consistantly replicates his paranormal feets ( Comitee for the scientific investigation of claims of the paranormal http://www.csicop.org ) you can not be certain that his feet is genuin. Did you know that there is an organisation in Quebec called "Les sceptiques du Québec" that offers tens of thousands of dollars to anyone that demonstrates even the smalest paranormal feet...why hasn't anyone won the mony, why don't these teachers go ( ok they might not want the monney...? [for the dojo] ) anyways they would be giving an invaluable help to science...

For those of you interested in the paranormal... I suggest you read: "Varieties of anomalous experiences : examining the scientific evidence" Published by the American Psychological Association, it probably the best reliable up to date reference on the subject you will be able to find. The also gives reliable references for those who want to know more.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2003, 05:32 PM   #125
Jean-David
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 20
Offline
and for those teachers living in the USA there is an organisation called "The James Randi organisation" that will give a million dollars! to anyone who can realy demonstrate a paranormal ability. Nobody has won yet, why don't you teachers try it out for a change...
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

Aikido DVDs and Video Downloads - by George Ledyard Sensei & other great teachers from AikidoDVDS.Com



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll: If you could be uke for yourself, would you be able to throw yourself? AikiWeb System AikiWeb System 72 08-07-2013 05:16 PM
Aikido and being Christian Nick Spiritual 178 07-31-2010 06:47 PM
Stanislavsky and Ki DaveO General 11 01-20-2006 10:11 AM
Ki is Extended. tedehara Spiritual 5 11-15-2004 10:12 PM
Train In Ki And Why chadsieger Training 54 06-15-2002 10:26 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:35 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate