@joeblast, at the risk of being rude I wonder if you really understand the process of scientific examination. All your counter-points are straw-clutching. All those points are based "but, but, but, what if... " in a kind of desperate need for some way to continue believing.
This is an extremely important question. The observable effect is the easiest measurable part, but also the easiest to fake. Everything that exists has an effect associated with it - if there is no observable effect then the there is no causative agent. Simple. The argument that qi exists but has no observable effect means that even if, against all logic, it DID exist it would be of no use. And likewise, the argument that nobody with any really significant level of cultivation is all you have to choose from for test subjects, that's going to skew the result - so it remains an unknown unknown. But, having seen such things medically applied to significant effect....nah, that dont count
See here. Grasping. This is the old "you haven't tested the "RIGHT" people" defence. So obviously the RIGHT people NEVER step forward, and NEVER make any claims. Wow, who would have thought. All the public claimants are actually frauds by your own logic. Way to go!
Also, you say
To some people you will never prove any of this until they actually experience something real.
. While that may be true of 'some people' it is singularly not true of scientists. People in science test things based on what they think will happen, sometimes this corresponds with what they want to happen, but the end result is accepted
irrespective of whether it proves or disproves a theory or claim. So, no, you are wrong. And most of the people in these videos are those who are craving belief. Even the 'impartial camera crew' are just ordinary people who, like most of us, are easily deceived by skilled illusionists. The difference is that when you go to the theatre you know beforehand that the guy is an illusionist. He doesn't try to make you believe otherwise. Outside of the theatre he knows you are just as gullible as everyone else.
Look, if you want to believe in what Chang et al claim, then that is obviously your prerogative. However, when you involve science there are very strict guidelines, one of which is that anecdotal evidence is ALWAYS treated with suspicion.
Did I watch the vid with prejudice? Of course! But only because I was already familiar with it all, having seen and researched it myself over the last 30 years. I actually thought it was going to be a new, unseen video, but alas, it wasn't.
Putting Randi aside, the simple fact is that not one single claimant can perform their miraculous abilities under properly controlled conditions. In all the years that claims have been made, NONE have stood up to proper scrutiny. Even a simplistic application of principles will tell you that the likelihood, in all those years, of at least one genuine person stepping forward is high. Yet NONE ever have. For any respectable scientist that basically kills the claims.
Perhaps one day you'll experience something real and your eyes will open a little more...until then, go ahead and consider your context to be comprehensive
You just don't get it do you? You are hiding your need to believe in this innocuous seeming but actually terribly offensive statement. As a trivial example, have you ever been hit by a bus? No? Then by your logic you cannot accept that such an event can occur, despite the observable and measurable fact that it does.
If any of these charlatans could actually perform medical procedures and so on by an application of their will/qi/whatever, it would be taken seriously by the scientific community.They can't and it's not. Science understands that some things have yet to be explained, but science deals with ACTUAL things, not things in peoples imagination.
@Pete
All I'm saying is that many "testers" have a predetermined mindset. Scientist's have beliefs like everyone else and how they view a subject has some influence on the study. Add to that the fact that someone is sponsoring this testing / study and, generally, these people want what is called "results". It could also be the the sponsors of this study want to hear good news(i.e. yes, it's real) instead of negative results, as they may have a vested interest in all this. So, more influence to come to a certain conclusion. Not saying that this is always the case but....
This is a very valid argument, and certainly has some basis in reality. However, in the scientific/academic environment there is a very powerful balance mechanism called 'peer review' . During the peer review process your work is examined critically by independent scientists/academics who, partly because they go through the same process in their own work, are especially alert to dodgy science. Generally speaking, if a piece of research has not passed peer review it is not taken seriously by the wider scientific community.
You are right about the beliefs of scientists, but any bias that creeps into a study is quickly spotted by those who have no vested interest in the results. The system is unpleasant at times, but it does work.