Scientific Approach to Practice

[Informer]

It's because you don't know what evidence is and how to present it properly. Mentioning isn't anything, its just some claim, where is the actual data?

 

Make something people can replicate.

 

It sounds like someone saying buy my snake oil it works. Give me your money I swear it works!

 

Where is any actual evidence other then claims in that thread?

 

P.S. I know that practice helps me from staying sick, but I haven't found the evidence to present it. So I'm trying to show you some of the possible perspectives of the people who will be reading it. You do lose credibility if you produce papers that are not evidence for chi necessarily, and conclude it is chi. You're not proving chi . . . You're looking for evidence for or against it.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Informer

[mjjbecker]

Ok guy, what is wrong that I said exactly? Where is the evidence? If what i said is wrong it should be easy enough to disprove. All you are doing is making accusation without any basis.

 

You quoted the same thing 4 different times, for what purpose? Divide up your ranting?

 

I am undergrad studying grad content. The doctor is a graduate of graduate school, so I think he knows what he is talking about and teaching me. He can submit my papers under his name if my research reveals anything profound. So he teaches me how it works, acting as the peer-review, the 1st filter.

 

What I am and have been studying in school is microcomputers, networking and security, business, entrepreneurship, biology, microbiology, and mycology which I'm doing independently.

 

I am also studying Philosophy, Theology, and alternative energies in my free time, which includes: electrolysis, solar power, wind power, sustainable agriculture, amongst other things. You guys are big help in theology area, but not so much science

 

I have kept a G.P.A over 3.5 throughout my education. History is my weakest area and I have a fairly bad memory, yet I know how to use the third eye, realized metta, and regularly practice MCO, non of which I was personally instructed in. Anything else u want to know?

 

Ah, the first line. My mistake. I apologise if it seems I was being rude. I'm checking here while doing others things.

[mjjbecker]

It's because you don't know what evidence is and how to present it properly. Mentioning isn't anything, its just some claim, where is the actual data?

 

Make something people can replicate.

 

It sounds like someone saying buy my snake oil it works. Give me your money I swear it works!

 

Where is any actual evidence other then claims in that thread?

 

P.S. I know that practice helps me from staying sick, but I haven't found the evidence to present it. So I'm trying to show you some of the possible perspectives of the people who will be reading it. You do lose credibility if you produce papers that are not evidence for chi necessarily, and conclude it is chi. You're not proving chi . . . You're looking for evidence for or against it.

 

http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/papers.php

[Informer]

http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/papers.php

 

 

Thank you.

[Informer]

Notice in this video that they say it is difficult to statistically evaluate the study at 0:58. This is showing results of personal practice and not any transference of chi.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/video/eastern-exercises-stand-test-time-11099884&tab=9482931&section=1206835&playlist=1363743

 

In China and the rest of Asia research on the benefits of Qigong and Tai Chi is common. However, it is not readily accessible. Except for some excellent cases the Asian literature in not particularly rigorous to Western research standards. Since 1980 in the US and Europe there has been a landslide of research on Tai Chi and Qigong reported in the peer reviewed literature. The

findings of numerous clinical trials reflect that Qigong and Tai Chi are beneficial in a wide array of diagnostic areas, including the prevention and integrative treatment of cardiovascular disease,asthma/COPD, falls prevention, reducing the negative effects of stress, pain management, cancer

and more.

 

In addition, it is clear that much can be done to improve research methodologies and more directly target studies to enhance findings on clinical outcomes and the mechanisms of action.

http://www.instituteofintegralqigongandtaichi.org/pdfs/Original_Review_General.pdf

 

This is more evidence that personal exercise is beneficial.

 

See how you have to make the stretch to say it is "chi" or transference of chi?

Edited June 20, 2012 by Informer

[Informer]

Key Info

 

The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.

The steps of the scientific method are to:

Ask a Question

Do Background Research

Construct a Hypothesis

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

Communicate Your Results

It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.

While scientists study how nature works, engineers create new things, such as products, websites, environments, and experiences.

If your project involves creating or inventing something new, your project might better fit the steps of the Engineering Design Process.

If you are not sure if your project is a scientific or engineering project, you should read Comparing the Engineering Design Process and the Scientific Method.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

Edited June 20, 2012 by Informer

[mjjbecker]

Ok guy, what is wrong that I said exactly? Where is the evidence? If what i said is wrong it should be easy enough to disprove. All you are doing is making accusation without any basis.

 

You quoted the same thing 4 different times, for what purpose? Divide up your ranting?

 

I am undergrad studying grad content. The doctor is a graduate of graduate school, so I think he knows what he is talking about and teaching me. He can submit my papers under his name if my research reveals anything profound. So he teaches me how it works, acting as the peer-review, the 1st filter.

 

What I am and have been studying in school is microcomputers, networking and security, business, entrepreneurship, biology, microbiology, and mycology which I'm doing independently.

 

I am also studying Philosophy, Theology, and alternative energies in my free time, which includes: electrolysis, solar power, wind power, sustainable agriculture, amongst other things. You guys are big help in theology area, but not so much science

 

I have kept a G.P.A over 3.5 throughout my education. History is my weakest area and I have a fairly bad memory, yet I know how to use the third eye, realized metta, and regularly practice MCO, non of which I was personally instructed in. Anything else u want to know?

 

I would offer the following poem, to be pondered over while you, hopefully, progress through life and its lessons. I have certainly found its words to be true.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierian_Spring

 

A little learning is a dang'rous thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

And drinking largely sobers us again.

Fir'd at first sight with what the Muse imparts,

In fearless youth we tempt the heights of Arts,

While from the bounded level of our mind

Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind;

But more advanc'd, behold with strange surprise

New distant scenes of endless science rise!

So pleas'd at first the towering Alps we try,

Mount o'er the vales, and seem to tread the sky,

Th' eternal snows appear already past,

And the first clouds and mountains seem the last;

But, those attain'd, we tremble to survey

The growing labours of the lengthen'd way,

Th' increasing prospects tire our wand'ring eyes,

Hills peep o'er hills, and Alps on Alps arise!

[Informer]

By using handling as the independent variable, you can sneak evidence in under the radar, later to correlate it for a theory of chi, if we don't find an objective way to measure it.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Informer

[surfingbudda]

And it does seem every single time the "scientific study" is mentioned we practitioners get criticized for not bringing scientific studies to the table. Well, if ANYONE wants to see this done, put your money where your mouth is. FUND THE STUDY! We have already said we would do our part for free.

 

Kempomaster I believe was actually part of a study done by Indiana State University I think, which involved the treatment of tennis athletes using medical qigong, apparently virtually all the subjects were completely healed of their conditions. If someone asked I'm sure Kempomaster would be kind enough to tune in and give more details about it.

 

I do wonder how much impact studies like this will make, it seems like the current medical system is pretty stubborn and set on staying the same, possibly because there is much money in drugs and pharmceuticals, whereas with qigong anyone has the power to learn it for their own health benefit or become healers to treat others.

 

Woops, sorry just now read earlier in this thread and realized Kempomaster already elaborated on his University study.

Edited June 21, 2012 by surfingbudda

[Kempomaster]

Oh my gosh - you have to be kidding me ...you are an undergrad and you believe that peer review means a faculty of one....wake up.

 

Peer reviewed journals generally have committee members where several experts in a field of study will review the content of a study/pubklication for various errors, ommissions, correct statistical analysis, etc.

 

As I stated my background - Pharmaceuticals - 23+ years - I have detailed physicians on various studies that cover a variety of Meds (thousands of studies in my 23+ years). I have also spent considerable time with many Internationally known Medical Doctor/Professors that have published hundreds and in some cases thousands of scientific studies that were all published in "peer reviewed" journals - ie - New England Journal Of Medicine, Journal of American Medical Association, Journal of Ob/Gyn and on and on. Furthermore in my time with these Professionals they had taught me as well as my Company had taught me all the intricacies of Medical Studies and what is a properly designed study and what is not. So, I think with that being said I would gladly follow their advice before I would take heed to a Undergrad Student and his/her Peer Review of one!

 

Furthermore, treating real issues that are presented in Humans or animals - Horses, Dogs etc - when these real issues have been previously diagnosed by a Medical Professional is much more credible than myself or someone else trying to create the Medical Experiment with Mice - especially a pain experiment - and then try to deduce that the mice indeed feel better..

 

So thanks for your thoughts - but I will stick with my results and my many observational data that I have collected over several years. The results were the results - almost 100% success as rated by the patient being treated = many of them being Medical Professionals - Doctors, Nurses, and their staff.

 

Thanks,

 

Brion aka Kempomaster

[Informer]

Oh my gosh - you have to be kidding me ...you are an undergrad and you believe that peer review means a faculty of one....wake up.

 

Where did I say that? This is an obvious straw man fallacy in which you built the entire fallacious argument proceeding that. Here is a clue for you:

 

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

The argument is, there isn't any evidence directly been presented for "chi" and accepted. Chi is only a hypothesis.

 

 

(this is a dunce stamp in philosophy)

Edited June 21, 2012 by Informer

[Informer]

Is your argument then that chi only works for pain? Yet it has been claimed to "heal", so then "heal" something with transferring you chi to it, and show the results vs not transferring chi to it. Otherwise its just another fairy tale like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. Even if you did get results from that experiment, it still doesn't mean that there is "chi" that is the cause.

 

I think it would be much easier to replicate a standardized experiment if it was done on something that can be controlled as easily as mice.

 

Ask your doctor friends.

 

I don't see your purpose in posting if you don't have anything of value to add, other than bragging about your unsubstantiated credientials. Being in pharmaceuticals does not imply research science imo.

 

Maybe you can suggest a better "fair test" as evidence you know what you are talking about.

 

You could work as an aid behind the counter at Wallgreens for 23 years and claim u have been in "pharmaceuticals" for that period. Which in that case, it would be an appeal to misleading authority.

 

 

"t is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition."

 

Source: Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (Book-of-the-Month Club, 1995), p. 527.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

 

I know this because my Aunt works in a pharmacy and doesn't have any degree in science.

 

I could understand how you would be afraid that your beliefs could be at risk if there are no results, but atleast u would be a little bit closer to the truth.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Informer

[mjjbecker]

Where did I say that? This is an obvious straw man fallacy in which you built the entire fallacious argument proceeding that. Here is a clue for you:

 

 

 

The argument is, there isn't any evidence directly been presented for "chi" and accepted. Chi is only a hypothesis.

 

 

(this is a dunce stamp)

 

No, not at all. I asked you this:

 

What actual experience do you have of the scientific community? What research experience do you have? What medical or healing practice experience do you have?

 

Do you have any science-based qualifications? Do you have any medical/healing based qualifications?

 

 

And you replied with this:

 

I am undergrad studying grad content. The doctor is a graduate of graduate school, so I think he knows what he is talking about and teaching me. He can submit my papers under his name if my research reveals anything profound. So he teaches me how it works, acting as the peer-review, the 1st filter.

 

What I am and have been studying in school is microcomputers, networking and security, business, entrepreneurship, biology, microbiology, and mycology which I'm doing independently.

 

In short, you have no experience of medical studies and so no understanding of what they entail.

 

Brion, 'Kempomaster', on the other hand, has worked in the pharmaceuticals industry for more than twenty three years. In doing so he has:

 

...detailed physicians on various studies that cover a variety of Meds (thousands of studies in my 23+ years). ...spent considerable time with many Internationally known Medical Doctor/Professors that have published hundreds and in some cases thousands of scientific studies that were all published in "peer reviewed" journals - ie - New England Journal Of Medicine, Journal of American Medical Association, Journal of Ob/Gyn and on and on. Furthermore in my time with these Professionals they had taught me as well as my Company had taught me all the intricacies of Medical Studies and what is a properly designed study and what is not.

 

On top of this, he has learned qigong and medical qigong from a teacher, and practiced the methods involved. From his experience he has provided several detailed examples of cases and results.

 

In response you have your opinion, based on what you've read, a little education and no experience. You are under the impression you have made some progress in regards to qigong, the 'mco' and achieved 'metta'...Yes, I read your other post before you edited it. I am sorry to see you have had some difficulties in your life and I hope you can get over them. By all means it is your choice to believe what you will in regards to 'qi'.

 

Trolling-you have nothing to add to this debate and are simply choosing to be argumentative now-and insulting people is not acceptable as per the rules of this forum. I think you owe Brion an apology.

[Informer]

It is only about what a "fair experiment" entails, you can throw out as many red herrings as u like, it doesn't change the facts.

 

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies

 

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

 

 

Topic A is under discussion.

Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

Topic A is abandoned.

 

Your argument should be directed towards the argument, not at me or my persons. Back to the premise whenever you are ready.

 

My experience involves actually practicing research science which includes understanding what is a fair test objectively. Which includes eliminating every possible independent variable other then is being tested.

 

Do you have a better proposition or only complaints of this one?

Edited June 21, 2012 by Informer

[mjjbecker]

Is your argument then that chi only works for pain? Yet it has been claimed to "heal", so then "heal" something with transferring you chi to it, and show the results vs not transferring chi to it. Otherwise its just another fairy tale like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. Even if you did get results from that experiment, it still doesn't mean that there is "chi" that is the cause.

 

I think it would be much easier to replicate a standardized experiment if it was done on something that can be controlled as easily as mice.

 

Ask your doctor friends.

 

I don't see your purpose in posting if you don't have anything of value to add, other than bragging about your unsubstantiated credientials. Being in pharmaceuticals does not imply research science imo.

 

Maybe you can suggest a better "fair test" as evidence you know what you are talking about.

 

You could work as an aid behind the counter at Wallgreens for 23 years and claim u have been in "pharmaceuticals" for that period. Which in that case, it would be an appeal to misleading authority.

 

 

 

I know this because my Aunt works in a pharmacy and doesn't have any degree in science.

 

I could understand how you would be afraid that your beliefs could be at risk if there are no results, but atleast u would be a little bit closer to the truth.

 

I've met 'Kempomaster' in person, know which company he works for and his job title. I will say it is one of the most famous companies in the world and he is indeed what he claims to be.

 

You are just trolling now because the fact is that 'Kempomaster' has vastly more experience and understanding of both western medical matters and qigong healing than you do. In fact you really know little to nothing about these things. You don't like this, but instead of choosing to learn, you lash out with insults because your ego is bruised.

[Informer]

Yes, but he is keeping it to himself, so what is the point? I'm sharing what I learned freely, I don't care about anyones credentials, your all the same in my eyes.

 

If you have a legitiment argument or proposition, you could be a bum living on the beaches and I would still consider it equally to that of a doctor. If it doesn't seem to be true then it is simply discarded, regardless who said it.

 

What have you really proposed other then attacking my credentials?

 

My credentials are not the idea of the thread.

 

Back on topic please . . .

 

 

I told you my experience as a treaty, not something for you to use against me as ammunition or to brag. Although maybe I deserve it, and were I more sensitive to lesser feelings it might bother me, but it doesn't in the least. It does bring about a sense of compassion for the victim of a way back when, I was on the firing end. How ignorant I was then.

 

May you too one day learn of a time of ignorance.

 

I don't use credentials to determine validity of an argument as explained by the quote from Bertrand Russel, which I think goes a long way in keeping an open mind.

 

t is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition.

Source: Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (Book-of-the-Month Club, 1995), p. 527.

 

If my assumptions are wrong then please do show the better way, they are not fixed or set in stone by any means.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Informer

[mjjbecker]

Informer, I am more than happy for you to believe what you want. I respect your right to believe or disbelieve in qi, qigong healing, whatever.

 

You are the person who has gone on about scientific method and scientific verification, stating that it should be a simple matter to prove things. What Brion has pointed out, from his considerable experience in these things, is that it is, in fact, very difficult to run recognised medical trials.

 

Now, you cannot argue on the one hand that this is simply about personal opinion and that anyone can have a valid opinion, then on the other claim that it is about following recognised scientific protocol in such matters. The fact is that 'Kempomaster' has experience of, and understands, the scientific protocol involved in medical research. You do not. He has experience of practicing medical qigong. You do not.

 

Either this is you and your personal opinion, or it is the scientific method and its established protocols. It cannot be both.

 

If my assumptions are wrong then please do show the better way, they are not fixed or set in stone by any means.

Assumptions without verification by experience are very limited. Get some direct experience of medical qigong and/or running medical trials. Then your assumptions stop being merely assumptions, and have the weight of experience.

[Informer]

So are you done tearing me down and have you found anything of substance to offer the thread in regards to a scientific approach to this phenomena? Or should I just expect a continuance of this outlandish behavior and not bother to read what you are posting?

 

You can say what you want about me, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand . . . .

 

What would be a more "fair test" if you will ?

 

IMO all you have done is revealed a bias as to the motivation for reason to believe in chi.

 

(profit)

 

You can say no, no, no, all you want too as well, but are yet to provide any alternative or reason.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Informer

[mjjbecker]

So are you done tearing me down and have you found anything of substance to offer the thread in regards to a scientific approach to this phenomena? Or should I just expect a continuance of this outlandish behavior and not bother to read what you are posting?

 

You can say what you want about me, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand . . . .

 

What would be a more "fair test" if you will ?

 

In plain and simple language then. It isn't personal. It is a simple statement of fact: You don't have the experience, knowledge or understanding to make, in my opinion, a valid contribution to the subject matter being discussed. That is not a statement on your worth as a human being, simply pointing out that I think you don't know what you are talking about regarding the subjects of scientific medical research or medical qigong.

 

I do wish you the very best in learning and gaining knowledge and wisdom. I feel I have no interest in having any further discourse with you.

[Informer]

The topic isn't about qi-qong approach to science, its about scientific approach to qi-qong if I'm not mistaken.

 

Scientific method is pretty standard across the board, whatever field you are researching. The exceptions are like some instances in cosmology in which it is not seemingly possible to replicate and account for every single variable in a controlled and labratory environment. But I don't see how that would be the case with transferring qi to heal someone or something.

 

One of the problematic things that I see would be eliminated is the subjects subjectivity, making for a much better experiment imo.

 

I'm pretty sure that Science likes objective evidence, not objective evidence relying on individuals subjective interpretations.

 

Cold hard facts, something that is pretty much impossible to manipulate or to introduce uncontrolled variables that could effect the outcome of the experiment in any way.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Informer

[Jeff]

Fun banter...

 

Any of you ever had any experience with an Kirilian imaging chamber?

 

Based on the old technology of photographing auras with Kirilian photography, they have developed real time systems that can see the ongoing change of state with the flows. My local wholistic doctors says she has seen the realtime flow coming out of the hands of an experienced Reiki master.

 

[Informer]

[Brian]

Where Kirlian images become interesting, I think, is in comparisons between objectively similar subjects or between images of the same subject under different conditions.

[Apech]

*** Moderator Message ***

 

 

 

We have received a number of reports on this thread along the lines that one poster challenging another's point of view, scientific qualifications or the legitimacy of their point of view amounts to trolling or somehow breaches the moderation rules and guidelines.

 

 

 

Since this thread is about scientific approach to practice then questioning around this subject is allowed. If the conversation is reduced to bickering that derails the thread, deliberate hijacking or trading insults then we will take action to deal with this. We are not prepared to silence a poster for simply holding a non-consensus view as long as the arguments are respectfully and politely made.

 

 

 

*** Apech for Mod Team ***

[Brian]

By the way, ChiDragon, my earlier comments regarding electromagnetic fields within the human body left out a couple of interesting facets that might be worth mentioning. I spoke a bit about the creation of an electric field by the presence of a charge and the creation of a magnetic field by the movement of a charge. There are two other ways, related to electromagnetism, in which energy is "stored" in the body -- beyond the obvious caloric/chemical storage.

 

"Heat" in an ideal gas is a reflection of the speed of particles bouncing around. In anything other than the idealized gas, however, the mechanics are different. In a molecule or crystal, for instance, energy is stored in the form of vibrations. Because the components usually have charges associated with them, the energy is really electromagnetic and manifests in a varying EM field but it can also be modelled as balls connected by springs -- the greater the energy in the system, the greater to jiggling; the greater the energy in the system, the higher the temperature.

 

Another concept that comes into play is the interplay between photons & electrons. When a photon interacts with an atom, it interacts in one of two ways. If the atom has an electron that has a higher energy-state available to it that matches that photon's energy, the atom will absorb the photon and the energy will raise the electron to a higher vibrational level. If the atom does not have an electron fitting that description, an electron will be displaced from the atom, resulting in an ion and a free electron.

 

In the case of the energized atom, the electron is not in a rest state and will at some point drop back to a lower valence band, discharging a photon (which may or may not match the "color" of the one originally absorbed, depending on "things"). All of these actions alter the electromagnetic field in the area.

 

This is happening zillions of times a day...