Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is anyone else a skeptic?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Again, more evidence that skepticism isn't zealotry. Zealots don't change their beliefs, even with evidence. Skeptics look for evidence to challenge their own beliefs.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Thaiboxerken
      Einstein was skeptical about quantum theory, however, if they had the evidence to show him, I'm sure he would've changed his mind. There is no zealotry about being skeptical, because a skeptic is merely one who seeks knowledge based on evidence. A zealot just assumes knowledge based on faith.
      My understanding is he found it lacking. Random decay? Wave function interference? No explanation for it all? It sugests their is something going on that we don't know about.

      Originally posted by Stickx
      It must suck for legit practitioners of tai chi like Cullion to see their art get all watered down into exercise for seniors.
      Those who esteme qi have no strength. ~ Exposition of Insights into the Thirteen Postures Attrib: Wu Yuxiang founder of Wu style tai chi.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Thaiboxerken
        Again, more evidence that skepticism isn't zealotry. Zealots don't change their beliefs, even with evidence. Skeptics look for evidence to challenge their own beliefs.
        So are you a chi-skeptic or a chi disbeliever? ;)

        Originally posted by Stickx
        It must suck for legit practitioners of tai chi like Cullion to see their art get all watered down into exercise for seniors.
        Those who esteme qi have no strength. ~ Exposition of Insights into the Thirteen Postures Attrib: Wu Yuxiang founder of Wu style tai chi.

        Comment


          #34
          I'm a skeptic and I don't believe chi exists. However, I'll have no choice but to accept that chi exists if anyone can provide scientific evidence for it.
          "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.

          Comment


            #35
            I don't belive the current mystical explanation of chi, but yet again, I work part time at an acupuncture clinic and I know that acupuncture works (plus, placebo-controlled double blind studies show that acupuncture does something).

            So, I'd have to say that I belive the theories behind chi are sound but are not currently explainable by western science.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by En
              I don't belive the current mystical explanation of chi, but yet again, I work part time at an acupuncture clinic and I know that acupuncture works (plus, placebo-controlled double blind studies show that acupuncture does something).

              So, I'd have to say that I belive the theories behind chi are sound but are not currently explainable by western science.

              and on that note, i am currently working on a research paper / power point presentation about how acupuncture works according to western anatomy and physiology, what acupuncture has been shown to work for, and the future of acupuncture research, including how TCM theory is able to point research in new directions.

              look for it in your newstands in a couple of months. j/k.

              Comment


                #37
                Perhaps you can submit your research paper to CSICOP and JREF after it's done.
                "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Thaiboxerken
                  I'm a skeptic and I don't believe chi exists. However, I'll have no choice but to accept that chi exists if anyone can provide scientific evidence for it.
                  Really? Typically intense criticism (fair or not) of the research methodology precedes "acceptance". And again, many scientists never come to embrace the new paradigm. The old school ages and dies and a new generation of researchers, unencumbered by a loyalty to the old model, comes along and re-write the rulebook.
                  "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by Quikfeet509
                    and on that note, i am currently working on a research paper / power point presentation about how acupuncture works according to western anatomy and physiology, what acupuncture has been shown to work for, and the future of acupuncture research, including how TCM theory is able to point research in new directions.

                    look for it in your newstands in a couple of months. j/k.
                    Bitchin'
                    "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Really? Typically intense criticism (fair or not) of the research methodology precedes "acceptance". And again, many scientists never come to embrace the new paradigm. The old school ages and dies and a new generation of researchers, unencumbered by a loyalty to the old model, comes along and re-write the rulebook.
                      Translation: Science doesn't support my beliefs, so I'll say science shouldn't be trusted.
                      "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by Thaiboxerken
                        Perhaps you can submit your research paper to CSICOP and JREF after it's done.
                        that would accomplish little. they want proof that qi exists, and i have none. acupuncture research shows that acupuncture works, but it can be at least partially explained by western anatomy and physiology. the third part of my paper will discuss how TCM theory does help with acupuncture research, but that still does not prove the existance of qi. but back to the topic at hand...

                        i did read what the sceptic's dictionary (or some book like that) had to say about acupuncture, and it followed along the lines of the outdated article you posted from quackwatch, i.e., quoting position papers written in 1990 based off of evidence at the time.


                        in 1997, researchers developed a set of criteria relating to the studies of acupuncture and pain, which included that at least ten acupuncture points needed to be used per treatment, at least ten acupuncture treatment sessions must occur, and that de qi (grabbing of the needle by muscle fibers) must occur with each needle. this criteria is like setting a minimum dose for a drug that is going to be tested; if you use less than the suggested dose in a study, then the results are not relevant.

                        when researchers applied this criteria to past studies, the vast majority that showed that acupuncture did not work for pain management were found to be lacking in at least one of the criteria. newer studies that have been designed to meet the established criteria have a much higher rate of success.

                        perhaps these skeptics were unaware of the progress made since 1997 in terms of acupuncture research. i would hope that they would be a little more up-to-date on research when commenting that acupuncture doesn't work. maybe they are just being negligent. but if they are aware of the progress in acupuncture research yet continue to base their observations off of irrelevant research, then they are the ones guilty of committing fraud.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by Renn
                          Dude now you have me feeling all quirky, and slightly freaked out. Thanks.
                          Yeah.... :(

                          I didn't even NOTICE the hands until you pointed them out.

                          PL

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by AkiraMusashi
                            Einstein believed in QP to an extent but questioned it due to the fact his theories of General Relativity worked for large things. He spent the rest of his life trying to find a unified theory of the two schools of thought. Now we have String Theory =-)
                            It's not much of a theory. It can't be tested or anything, so I don't know why it's called that.

                            PL

                            Comment


                              #44
                              The unified theory is something that is strived for, not something that has been compiled. The theory doesn't exist, that's why it can't be tested.
                              "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Hmm, I would love to take a year off between graduation and med school to do research on qi and acupuncture but I doubt I could find faculty sponsorship for it.

                                Quickfeet, what is this paper you are writing for? Are you affiliated with an academic institution?

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X