From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: science and ki
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:26:53 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Dec14.085909.1655@sei.cmu.edu> psc@sei.cmu.edu (Peter Capell) writes:
>Actually I only picked on physics because it raised its head in the previous
>post.  You're right, there was no need to single out this discipline over the
>other sciences.  They are all of dubious value in sum total of human
>experience. 

I wonder what this means? I can think of sensible ways to
interpret the assertion that science is 'full of dubious
value...' but none that would not apply to every other
discipline of which I am aware.

>Actually my math preparation is too shitty to study physics properly.  

What do you say about someone who does not understand Chinese
internal arts, and who dismisses their value? Is there a special
reason why the same thing should not be said about someone who
does not understand physics, and who dismisses its value?

>Now
>physiology I have studied, but so what.  From having a lifetime of observing
>the narrowmindedness of most scientific researchers, I don't really feel so
>lacking that I don't have their knowledge.  

Maybe you have encountered a bunch of low-quality scientists?
A cross section of scientists I have known reveals more open
minds than a similar cross section of people in general I
have known.

>Typically if you mention the
>concept of chi in scientific circles of any kind, you will simply raise
>eyebrows and discredit yourself--go ahead and try it yourself.  And again, you
>are right--it isn't really the disciplines themselves that are the cause
>per se, but the fact is that there are a whole bunch of experiences recorded
>anecdotally in eastern philosophy and medicine which the west (broadly
>speaking and inclusive of the scientific "machine" if you will) has
>categorically denied could be true.  These denials have taken place
>irrespective of the fact that it was Chinese medicine that was using foxglove
>(current derivative: digitalis) to treat heart disease 2000 years before
>western medicine had a clue; irrespective of the Chinese discovery of the
>circulation of the blood at least 1000 years before the west; irrespective of
>entire categories of medical discoveries that the west didn't know until
>within the last 100 years.  And still, your average joe-blow western scientist
>will categorically dismiss these as random occurances that were not
>scientifically derived--which of course is bullshit.

Medicine (western as well as Chinese) should not be confused
with science. They are different disciplines, although
western allopathic doctors like to use scientific discoveries
and methods when possible. It helps avoid some of the unfortunate
situations that have arisen in the history of, for example,
patent medicines.

A scientist, acting as a scientist, *must* dismiss random
occurrences that cannot be reproduced, because they do
not belong to the domain of investigation of science. That
doesn't mean that they don't occur; it just means that
it isn't possible to collect scientific evidence for their
having occurred. If there is no scientific evidence for a
phenomenon then the phenomenon is not amenable to scientific
study. There is and can be no scientific evidence for the
subjective phenomenon of anger, but that doesn't mean
it doesn't occur.

Beyond deciding whether a phenomenon is amenable to scientific
investigation, a person who happens to be a scientist
could have a variety of opinions about it, not necessarily
based on that evaluation. As an example, my mother, who is a
chemist, is of the opinion that there is no good scientific
evidence in favor of psychokinesis, but nevertheless thinks
that it probably occurs. Her opinion is not a scientific
one, and she acknowledges it, but that doesn't keep her
from having it.