An explanation of my beliefs(and maybe yours)

[pete5770]

Here you go, to save you time. This study showed a clear link between qigong and improvement in people with Parkinson's disease. The study is scientific and reputable. The journal is reputable.

Will you now accept at the very least the notion that some of these practices may very well be beneficial?

Now you seem to be reading things into what I've said. All I said was that the person running the study had a vested interest(if you will) in the outcome. I found that a bit strange.

[Monsoon]

Not at all. You wrote:

Some time back there was a post about a study that said Qigong could help with Parkinsons. I looked into the study and found that the person in charge of it all was a Qigong instructor. To say that an alarm bell went off in my head would be putting it lightly.

There is nothing wrong with your alarm bells in this instance. However, you looked at ONE study and came to a conclusion, but your conclusion is only applicable to that ONE study. There are other studies out there. You do not stop reading research simply because you find ONE study to be objectionable.

I have shown you ANOTHER study, if you want I can easily find even more. Will you now accept that there may be something in all this qigong based on all the other non-objectionable studies?

This applies to many branches of qigong, as well as many areas of both mental and physical health. The evidence is out there, in public, not hidden. Cherry-picking studies that fit your preconceptions is not the act of a rational or reasonable person.

And incidentally, you may not be aware of this, but in the academic community a reputable researcher MUST declare any conflict of interest. The simple fact is though that people tend to research things that they are a) interested in, or b) already have a theory about. This is not unacceptable nor unreasonable nor unexpected.

[Monsoon]

Actually I just thought of this: is it reasonable for me to say that (for instance) coffee tastes terrible? As it tastes terrible to me, it must be inherently lacking in any good taste, isn't it?

Of course not!

There are many people who love the taste of coffee. To them it is wonderful. Are they all deluded? Is there an objective test for the tastiness of coffee? Well, is there?

You haven't experienced the benefits of qigong, therefore you assume the position that it has no benefits. Statistically, a sample number of one, has absolutely no meaning. Therefore your assumptions are not based on anything worth considering, for the larger population.

Another example: you sail a boat east from New York for a day. You will see nothing but ocean all around you. Is it reasonable to assume that there will be nothing but ocean if you sail for 2, 3 or 50 more days? (let's assume you know nothing of world geography, this is a mind experiment).

Of course not. Considering that the view distance for a man standing on a 100m tower is only 24 miles, how far can you see from a boat? Certainly not enough of the ocean to be making sweeping statements about it. And yet that is exactly what unenquiring minds did back in the days of Columbus.


Of course, your beliefs are your own to hold, but as soon as you start using them in arguments with other people they are immediately in the spotlight and subject to minute scrutiny. Most beliefs, of any sort, do not hold up well to such scrutiny.

Worth considering.

[chh]

It seems like a lot of the responses to Pete are talking about evidence for qigong's efficacy in helping to treat or prevent certain health problems. I think the general conclusion from those kinds of studies is that qigong does better than no qigong, and in some cases about as well as conventional exercise, which is a good thing! Is the presence of that kind of effect what you're asking about, Pete? For some reason I thought you were also concerned about the mechanism that qigong is said to work by. I don't think I've seen any evidence at all that gives support to that.

[pete5770]

It seems like a lot of the responses to Pete are talking about evidence for qigong's efficacy in helping to treat or prevent certain health problems. I think the general conclusion from those kinds of studies is that qigong does better than no qigong, and in some cases about as well as conventional exercise, which is a good thing! Is the presence of that kind of effect what you're asking about, Pete? For some reason I thought you were also concerned about the mechanism that qigong is said to work by. I don't think I've seen any evidence at all that gives support to that.

I think you put that very well. Qigong is better than no Qigong and in that respect it might be called stretching. I wouldn't term Qigong exercise, more like work. To me exercise is about raising the heart rate, putting stress on the body, working the muscles to make them stronger, and most of all, exercising progressively harder and constantly striving to improve strength and endurance. Although, for some, stretching does indeed come to resemble exercise but for most(myself included) it would seem to not be given the attention or time needed to really make a big difference.

I have no problem with stretching. I should do lots more(so should everyone) but I don't. If you're telling me that Qigong is simply stretching then I'll buy into that idea. I'm not disputing the health aspects of stretching.

[Monsoon]

Well, any physical movement raises the heart rate. How much depends on the intensity of the movement. So all physical movement is exercise.

The term 'qigong' covers a variety of practices from the purely physical to the purely mental. Studies of some types have shown greater effectiveness than other types of exercise, let alone the non-active control group.

Pete, if you don't like the way qigong is packaged then that is entirely up to you. It doesn't speak to the efficieny or usefulness of the the techniques at all though. I don't have a problem with people dismissing some of the frankly more outrageous qigong claims, but it helps to understand that these claims are made within the context of the Eastern health paradigm.

Also consider a Westerner saying that all meditation is nothing but training your mind for intense focus. If it makes you feel better to look at it that way then go right ahead. The practice remains the same either way.

The bottom line is that some people just do not appreciate the narrative that accompanies some practices. There is nothing wrong with that, UNTIL you start trying to assert that YOUR narrative is the ONLY narrative worth considering.

Incidentally, fitness is a myth. Fit for what? If you are a farmer and can manage all the daily work on the farm then you are fit for purpose. Anything else is just trimmings. Also, stretching is, in some ways, a far more useful physical activity than most people realise... until it is too late!

Actually I am reminded of people who advocate for simple language. These people do not see the inherent beauty of the language, only the utility. So when a poem is presented to them it is dismissed without a second thought.

One other thing though. If a practice causes no harm, and does not prevent the practitioner from using conventional health services, then who are you (Pete) or anyone to deny them their chosen activity? If someone wants to stand and indulge in deep breathing exercise, believing they are touching the cosmos, what harm is done?

So you see, when it comes to psychophysical activity, one really can eat one's cake and have it too!

[pete5770]

Well, any physical movement raises the heart rate. How much depends on the intensity of the movement. So all physical movement is exercise.

The term 'qigong' covers a variety of practices from the purely physical to the purely mental. Studies of some types have shown greater effectiveness than other types of exercise, let alone the non-active control group.

Pete, if you don't like the way qigong is packaged then that is entirely up to you. It doesn't speak to the efficieny or usefulness of the the techniques at all though. I don't have a problem with people dismissing some of the frankly more outrageous qigong claims, but it helps to understand that these claims are made within the context of the Eastern health paradigm.

Also consider a Westerner saying that all meditation is nothing but training your mind for intense focus. If it makes you feel better to look at it that way then go right ahead. The practice remains the same either way.

The bottom line is that some people just do not appreciate the narrative that accompanies some practices. There is nothing wrong with that, UNTIL you start trying to assert that YOUR narrative is the ONLY narrative worth considering.

Incidentally, fitness is a myth. Fit for what? If you are a farmer and can manage all the daily work on the farm then you are fit for purpose. Anything else is just trimmings. Also, stretching is, in some ways, a far more useful physical activity than most people realise... until it is too late!

Actually I am reminded of people who advocate for simple language. These people do not see the inherent beauty of the language, only the utility. So when a poem is presented to them it is dismissed without a second thought.

One other thing though. If a practice causes no harm, and does not prevent the practitioner from using conventional health services, then who are you (Pete) or anyone to deny them their chosen activity? If someone wants to stand and indulge in deep breathing exercise, believing they are touching the cosmos, what harm is done?

So you see, when it comes to psychophysical activity, one really can eat one's cake and have it too!

I don't have any problem with what you say, for the most part. However, I take exception to you
sort of insinuating that I ever said anything about Qigong and it causing harm. I'm saying that, in the case of the diabetic debate, Qigong won't harm you but relying on it to bring about a solution to this disease is folly. It's simply not the right thing to do, in that respect, and with Diabetes doing the right thing is critical. Blindness, amputation, and a variety of other "problems" await the person who ignores this disease.

[Monsoon]

However, I take exception to you sort of insinuating that I ever said anything about Qigong and it causing harm. I'm saying that, in the case of the diabetic debate, Qigong won't harm you but relying on it to bring about a solution to this disease is folly. It's simply not the right thing to do, in that respect, and with Diabetes doing the right thing is critical. Blindness, amputation, and a variety of other "problems" await the person who ignores this disease.

Apologies if you think that is what I was insinuating - wasn't intentional.

As for the rest, you are preaching to the choir with me. I totally agree with it all, except for the bit about the 'solution'. There is, as yet, no cure and no way to reverse the syndrome. There are only ways, some more succesful than others, to manage it. Positivity is a good thing, but false hope is not, and can lead to further difficulties (as you have pointed out).

So we are in agreement on this at least!

Back to the qigong: you tried it and found it did nothing for you. That's okay. Others do it and find it works for them. That's okay too. On a forum about qigong, although you may express your opinion on the efficacy of qigong (free speech and all that), you should understand that most of the forum users are likely to be promoters of qigong. Both sides of the argument are good things to have, but the final word is not yet in. Keeps it exciting I guess!

all the best,

[wpgtaiji]

For what it's worth...

http://www.taijiworld.com/taiji-qigong/ ... Experiment

From Erle written in 1996.

[Monsoon]

Non-peer reviewed, self-evaluated anecdotal research?

Though I do applaud anyone who wants to be an experimenter, as far as the rest of academia are concerned there are criteria to be met.

[pete5770]

Though I do applaud anyone who wants to be an experimenter, .......

Couldn't agree more. They're the ones who make the world a better place.
And, after all, "There's more than one way to skin a cat(fish)".

[joeblast]

too much to read right now

I also think that the OP line of questioning is skewed - the phenomena you're referring to is so rare and not only that, is it even in the line of skillset for the lineage in question? Not every school cultivates a superconductive central channel The Tao manifests in innumerable ways - truly extraordinary achievement should not be considered any sort of norm. How many of us can stop our heartbeat by intention? Now I havent witnessed such personally, but I have witnessed other things that defy logic and "common sense" - when you experience things you once considered beyond the realm of possibility, it shakes your foundations a bit. You understand a little more that there's a whole lot out there you just don't know. Now I am all for discovery, being wary of confirmation bias, true honest investigation - but when you consider context - sometimes what you are trying to measure is not very applicable to the measurement apparatus. So why did john chang (mopai guy, I'm sure you've seen the youtube vid of him lighting newspaper on fire) register no voltage on a meter, but somehow registered amperage when he was tested? The nature of the energy is not the same as what the meters were looking for. All he could do was shrug and say I dont know what exactly this is measuring as it relates to me. Also what of how energy produces changes in the body, as certain thresholds are crossed as I've been taught, the energy is sufficient for things to continue vibrating differently, in a more complex fashion. (Likewise a preposterously deep level of cultivation.) Like a lowest common denominator of sorts...like breaching a coefficient of friction. Everything has its coefficient of friction, certain things are only contained within certain energetic configurations.

Simply put I've seen too much to be too skeptical about certain things. A caveat is, once one reaches such a level, most out of that exceptional few simply dont care to prove it. I applaud your sense of scrutiny, but remember horatio, there is more in heaven and earth than dreamt of in your philosophy

[Monsoon]

Simply put I've seen too much to be too skeptical about certain things. A caveat is, once one reaches such a level, most out of that exceptional few simply dont care to prove it.

As far as I am concerned scepticism has little to do with how much stuff you have seen.

The second statement is "I know I can do it, why should have to prove it". This is, for better or worse, one of the most common side-stepping methods in use today. If John Chang really could set light to paper just by waving his hands over it then it seems extremely odd that 1) he resuses to be tested under rigorous scientific scrutiny, and 2) the scientists aren't jumping around claiming a new energy transference method.

The most likely conclusion to draw from this is that John Chang is to qigong what Uri Geller is to mind-reading. Both have refused to undergo tests designed by independent scientists. Geller was notable for vehemently refusing to acquiesce to the test proposed by James Randi (the famous debunker), and on the occasions that his 'powers' failed him there was always some handy but nebulous excuse.

There are things we experience that don't appear to make much sense, but that does not mean that they are somehow supra-normal. Gravity is a good example. We still don't know exactly how it works, i.e. it makes little sense, and yet it is accepted because every test we devise for it show it to be real. If the same cannot be said for other things (John Chang, I'm looking at you) then scepticism is the order of the day.

[joeblast]

context

whereas others have used that to sidestep, chang did submit himself to "some tests"...basically wherein the devices used were not all that compatible with the energy generated. go watch the yt vid- what's your conclusion? waving hands, or does this guy have true neigong and the ability to manifest something with it? again, this was years ago, and his old sifus werent in the approval department wrt him being filmed and showing this to the world. Randi imho is every bit as dishonest as those who publicly claim extraordinary power but refuse to show it. his million dollar challenge is basically unwinnable given its setup - you have to conform to his methods of measurement, otherwise you are a fraud! never considering that the context is such that his measurement tools are insufficient. two sides to every coin & story

not to mention, it has been said by many a master that one should not go around showing off his level of achievement - and partially because of stuff like this, you will endlessly be subjected to verifications and will endlessly be hounded by people who want this or that level of proof of your 'powers.' and if you do not submit, then you are a faker, a fraud - nevermind what all of your students and patients have experienced.

so how bout this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r109YEPKZe8

[Monsoon]

James Randi, dishonest? He designed experiments that could not be tampered with in the way that skilled illusionists use. As a 'magician' himself he is intimately aware of the tricks that are available, so making a test to negate them all is absolutely demanded.

However, putting Randi to one side, anyone making extraordinary claims, and who wishes to be taken seriously, must submit to scientific scrutiny.

not to mention, it has been said by many a master that one should not go around showing off his level of achievement - and partially because of stuff like this, you will endlessly be subjected to verifications and will endlessly be hounded by people who want this or that level of proof of your 'powers.' and if you do not submit, then you are a faker, a fraud - nevermind what all of your students and patients have experienced.

And this is exactly what gets trotted out every time anyone says "okay, bring it, let's test it properly". If he, or anyone similar, had actual ability to do these things then they would be able to do them under very simple test conditions - bare room, paper provided by scientist, subject wears clothes provided by scientist, subject is thoroughly scrubbed before test, subject receives no visitors before test. There is no need for any 'device' to do measurements. The paper catching fire is an observable event measured by our own eyes. Nothing supernatural about that!

What John Chang does can be done by any reasonably skilled illusionist, or indeed any reasonably mischievous chemist. Ever seen the old fire in the hand trick? It is trivial. However, people like Chang seek approval only from people who want to believe it is true, and not seekers after the real truth.

I said it in earlier

"I know I can do it, why should have to prove it"

, and I stand by this. It is the most common excuse used by such people.

By turns this is both frustrating and laughable. Some people just badly want to believe in anything. Also, we are not talking about religion here. In matters of religious faith, proof is not required by the faithful (kind of the meaning of 'faith' really). In all other matters it is perfectly acceptable to examine closely claims such as those of Chang et al. If they choose not to comply in these examinations then that is an overt admission that they are relying on people to take them on 'faith'.

Excuses based "I don't need to prove...", or "it's not the done thing...", or "the master's disapprove.. " are all part of the smoke and mirrors game.

[joeblast]

Apparently you missed my point regarding measurement devices. Or how it relates to Randi's "challenge" - its set up to catch parlor tricks, not "detect qi." IOTW, a negative result pretty much any way you look at it.

I'm not interested in debate where my substantive points are going to be ignored and minor asides will be focused on. Did you watch the vids?

[pete5770]

By turns this is both frustrating and laughable. Some people just badly want to believe in anything. Also, we are not talking about religion here. In matters of religious faith, proof is not required by the faithful (kind of the meaning of 'faith' really). In all other matters it is perfectly acceptable to examine closely claims such as those of Chang et al. If they choose not to comply in these examinations then that is an overt admission that they are relying on people to take them on 'faith'.

+1....... My sentiments exactly. Just a bit more eloquently put than my somewhat crude "prove it".

[pete5770]

I'm thinking that over the centuries that many things were verified by the "science of the day". Many different ways were used to detect witches, yet today none of this is accepted by anyone. In the past it was thought that The Indian Rope trick and levitation were performed by some strange power the mystic performing them had. Turns out that it was trickery. Even still, some cling to belief in these things. Things, like this, that are promoted to be true need to be looked at with a healthy skepticism. My skepticism sort of borders on the unhealthy but being skeptical and questioning, to me, seems a very smart way to go through life.

When you believe in things that you don't understand
then you suffer
Superstition ain't the way.
Stevie Wonder

[Monsoon]

@joeblast, I watched it.... with popcorn in hand and a huge grin!

This from the Randi challenge:

To ensure that the experimental conditions themselves do not negatively affect a claimant's ability to perform, non-blinded preliminary control tests are often performed.

Additionally, claimants are able to influence all aspects of the testing procedure, including location and participants, during the initial negotiation phase of the challenge.

Since claimants agree to readily observable success criteria prior to the test, results are unambiguous and clearly indicate whether or not the criteria have been met

(Your substantive point was "you have to conform to his methods of measurement, otherwise you are a fraud! never considering that the context is such that his measurement tools are insufficient." - which is not in accord with the actual reality of the Randi challenge)

Also this:

... no claimants have yet been able to successfully demonstrate evidence of their claims while blinded under otherwise identical conditions.

and this:

Randi has said that few unsuccessful applicants ever seriously consider that their failure to perform might be due to the nonexistence of the power they believe they possess.

To address your point though: what device would you use to detect qi? Would you be detecting the source of the qi, the type of energy qi is supposed to be, or the effect that is caused by the qi?

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.

Note: I am not saying that qi does not exist here, only putting a point across.

As to the YT vid? Yes, Chang is a fraud who uses a common illusionist method to fool people into believing he has mysterious neigong powers.

Yeah, not buying it

[wpgtaiji]

When you have any 2 people attempt to define or limit something, there enters the very real and enormous possibility that they could be saying the same thing, but their own limits prevents common ground to discuss things.

What do i mean? I find it interesting that science cannot adequately tell you what Energy is, but they can describe processes that it does. Theology cannot adequately tell us what God/creator/etc is (there are tons of names for it), yet they can describe the processes. If we compare the roots of the processes, interesting things start to become apparent.

With respect to qi, what is the process? Does it match other processes that "science" has limited?

If you attempt to detect water using devices to detect CO2, you wont find anything either, but it doesnt mean that CO2 doesnt exist... or maybe it does.