From: robear@access.digex.com (Robear)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Ki and science
Followup-To: rec.martial-arts
Date: 15 Dec 1992 14:01:24 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec11.170610.12982@sei.cmu.edu> psc@sei.cmu.edu (Peter Capell) writes:
>
>Sorry to pick up on this thread so late, but I haven't been around lately.
>Anyway, my two cents re:
>
>01-Dec-92 12:58	(Todd I. Stark) Re: A western scientific look at Ki
>
>>Physics doesn't have a concept of Ki, so it doesn't have 
>>an explanation for it.  
>
>I hope you realize how true this is.  In other words, if Physics (capital p)
>doesn't have a concept in its canonical lexicon, the "thing" does not exist.
>This (to me) points most of all to the limits of Physics as a discipline.
>In other words, in terms of Physics, prior to this century, ultraviolet
>frequencies did not exist.  

But Physics did not *deny* they existed.  Physicists might have,but
it is plainly obvious that the body of Physics itself was fully 
prepared to accept their existence.  Physics is in the business
of predicting and describing observable phenomena...and nothing else.
>
>>It's a concept, not a phenomena. 
>
>I certainly disagree.  It is a phenomen_on_, to those of us who know that.
>Snotty as my last sentence sounds, it is not at all the case that I think chi
>is anything known only to a special few.  chi is inherent to the human
>experience, some people are more sensitive than others--mere fact.

Rather say, "mere personal observation".  Facts are distressingly linked
to outside observability.

What you are describing is personal experience.  When this is not 
readily accessible to others, it is further delineated to "belief".
>
>>Psychokinesis
>>however, even if demonstrated doesn't link the whole notion of Ki together,
>>so the physicist can never have a complete view.
>
>Agree wholeheartedly here (if that's important), but to me western science'
>approval of "THE EXISTENCE OF CHI" is wholely irrelevent--to me its like
>asking if I need proof from a scientist as to whether not I really just ate
>dinner--or whether there really is an object in the sky called the sun--or
>whether the lights are on...  why should I care what SCIENCE thinks about it
>when I know it's the case already.  For me it is not at all a state of belief,
>unless you want to play semantics and declare that my existence is a state of
>belief, in which case I have already explained my state of belief with regards
>to chi.

See, you could make the same argument for religious experiences, or ufos,
or ghosts, or PK.  You are right that it does not matter what SCIENCE
thinks, because SCIENCE does *not* think, or judge, or do anything.
Regardless of your feelings, belief in chi is just that - belief.  Just
becausese *you* can see feel, or touch it, does not mean it is physically
real.  This is especially true if it is difficult or impossible for you
to demonstrate its' existence to others.

I think you may be confusing epistemology with science, to boot.  Chi is
real to you - fine.  Scientists say it is not observable - fine.  What
exactly do the two statements have to do with each other, anyway?  They
are not at all conflicting.  Why do people who have this deep distrust
of the scientific method need to have their beliefs validated by it, anyway?

Peter, I think this is the appropriate place to talk about chi.  But
for your position, sci skeptic is probably better.  Or email.  This
verges on "my martial art is better than yours".

	DAvid Pipes
robear@digex.com