From: schan@birch.srg.af.mil (Stephen Chan x4485)
Subject: Re: More ki/qi/chi & science
Organization: SRG, Arinc Research Corp., Annapolis, MD
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 15:06:48 GMT

In article <75842@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>They are certainly reflected in mine. Of course, I have no basis on
>which to claim that my experience can be generalized. If you are saying that
>people are wrong to claim that any phenomenon that is not suitable
>for scientific investigation is nonexistent, then I agree with you,
>but it is a matter of (philosophical) opinion.
>

	Nope, I'm not saying that. We are arguing in different contexts. You
are still in a philosophical mode, where people partition issues into nice
neat categories, and assume that everyone is a rational being.
	I'm talking about everyday attitudes, political realities and plain old
human confusion.

>>	Besides, who ever actually *sees* things like mesons and neutrinos? All
>>that is ever seen is their effect on the environment as they break down, or
>>as they rip through a big vat of fluid.
>
>Well then, they aren't purely subjective, are they?
>

	Yep...that's kind of my point.

>>	One never actually *sees* qi, but one can observe it's effects. But in
>>this instance, that's just not good enough to justify further research.
>
>How do you know? 

	Your point. I don't *know* that folks don't actually see qi, I guess
that some people might (or at least, they might think they do)

>The absence of compelling publications in peer-reviewed
>journals could mean either nobody is investigating qi or that nobody's
>investigations have turned up anything worth publishing yet. How do
>you know which one is the case?

	Well, to be honest I don't which one. Did I say that nobody published
anything in a peer-reviewed journal? I believe you may have aggregated my
position with that of some other people.

>Are you saying that qi is a phenomenon that has objectively observable
>effects? If so, then the reference to subjectivity above is a
>red herring, isn't it?

	Exactly. My point (in the latter half of the message) is that
subjective/objective is not a valid distinguishing characteristic for saying
"X is a valid subject for scientific research". Scientists conjecture the
existence of some unobserved causal agent, and then poke around trying to
verify/disprove it's existence.
	Yet if someone poses "qi" as the unobserved causal agent, folks
often get really skeptical, without attempting to prove/disprove it.
	There is basically one assumption in my argument - that if you offer
qi as a casual agent in some phenomena, most "rational" people will dismiss it
without a "scientific" analysis and consider you a crackpot.
	I also observe that scientists conjecture the existence of unobserved
causal agents, and then build grandiose theories around them, and get big bucks
to try and prove/disprove these theories. And, if you get into a conversation
with a so-called respectably rational person, and start talking about quarks,
neutrinos and other respectable, but unobserved concepts, they will say to
themselves "My God! I've discovered the fount of cosmic truth!"
	From that, I assert that most people who claim to be "rational" and
"scientific" are actually mired in bias.

> If not, then why should you care whether any scientists pay any attention
> to it?

	Frankly, I don't care if scientists investigate qi/ki (hell, I don't
even know if its all in my head). But I dislike it when people parade their
prejudices under the banner of reason (that's *my* bias)
	Didn't Hume say something like "Reason is the handmaiden of the
passions"? I just like to point that kind of stuff out.
	And, arguing these things out with other intelligent, "rational"
people gives them a chance to poke at my own prejudices, so that I have a
reevaluate things. My philosophy is that too much "static" harmony creates
complacency, so every once in a while I wander into one of these conflicts.
	The hardest part of these kinds of arguments is to keep the
exchange going, without letting your ego get caught up in defending a position
which is flawed. Its the difference between fighting and sparring.


--
	Stephen Chan
	uunet!srg!schan or uunet!srg!schan@uunet.uu.net