Oh yes. Although if Mr. E. does it with his woman for only one second, no wonder it's nothing special.

There is no question that extremely weak electrical fields exist in humans, and that some animals can sense magnetic fields, but the BS(bad science) to accuracy ratio is at least 10,000 to 1.

You may be interested in the electron research which shows them moving from one location to another without traveling the distance in-between.

Re: CoolHandLuke.

It is interesting how much and how intensly you react to the slightest critisism. Your push hand skills must be interesting indeed...

Re: Mystic Master of Alabaster

I don't recall ever reading that Jesus threw around people 'by waving his hands'. At least not in my King James version. Maybe it's in one of those Gnostic scriptures (I always liked the Book of Mary myself) So where do you draw your conclusion that Jesus was a master of Kong Ji?

Much love,
Dummy

Dear Dummy,
I do not recall suggesting that Jesus was a master of Kong Ji. Instead it seems that I was rather ineptly suggesting that a person would have to be at a level of accomplishment comparable to a Jesus to effectivley throw people around without touching them physicaly. On the other hand, are you suggesting that Jesus would not have been able to out do Richard Mooney in this area?
Warmest Regards,
M M A

What with you guys? First talk sex, now talk religion. Are perhaps Catholic? Move next to joy of Altar boys?

I fully believe in chi's existence and do know
of it's reality as opposed to fantasy.I have felt
it first hand from others and within myself as well as external manifestation of intent as to
cause effect of dead objects;fire,cold,etc.
This stuff is real friends and we should try to honor each other by showing respect for others views and openly sharing Ideas and knowledge.

The energy is real and able to disorient you to
the point of not being able to defend yourself
if not prepared fully with great concern that this is martial arts and not an hobby.
your life may just depend on how maturly you have taken your study and personal growth.

thankyou for your time and attention.

peace and love.

If this stuff were real, surely great masters who spent decades practising their zhan zhuang (like Wang Shu Chin)would have been able to demonstrate this ability. I mean Kong Jing, not just the warm hands etc. phenomena. I once knew someone who told me that they felt so powerfull through their practice that they felt they could walk through a brick wall. Doesn't mean that they could do it!

Two months later and the Dummy finally figures out a response.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions in regards to your mental adroitness.

Now perhaps in another two months you will have perfected 'picking your ass off the floor technique'

Re: CoolHandLuke

Shrugs, like I said before... All reaction, perhaps you should stand more. It is interesting that you insult the intelligence of someone who calls himself "Dummy". Should I spoon-feed you more insults in future or would you prefer to organise your own material?

Re: Mystic Master of Alabaster

Hrmm. Imagine the scene Jesus and Robert Mooney in a ring trying to out Kong Jin each other... I once saw Santa Claus and Jesus duke it out. But that was just a cartoon... (sigh)

Yes, I am saying that I am dubious on whether Jesus reached this level of accomplishment. There is nothing to suggest that he ever developed such as thing in either the mythical or historical versions of Jesus. If there is, please direct me to the relevant scriptures or historical texts.

Much love,
Dummy

Bagua Bill,
Lighten up man. Humour is one of the noblist of human emotions. It's also the perfect counter balance to the grim reaper mind set MA's tend to fall in to. The Chinese know this lesson well, just look at Classical Chinese opera- humuor always follows violence. Just consider where the current global crisis would be if all the players could spend some time laughing at one another and themselves.

Mr. Dummy,
" As I was flyin' into Lubbock, I saw Jesus on the plane, or maybe it was Elvis, you know they kinda look the same".

Warmest Regards to you both,
MMA

Dear Mystic Master,

Re: that flying man.

Yeah, I agree with you. That was definately the King.

Much love,
Dummy

Will:

Sorry, I could not find my way back to this page.

[QUOTE]. . . the writer said something (I can't
remember the exact words) along the lines that most people who do Traditional Chinese Medicine, or who teach Xingyi or Taichi, etc., are not really experts.[/QUOTE]

Considering that a single discipline of accupuncture with a consistent theory never really existed either, this reminds me of the "appeal to authority" and "argument to ignorance" type fallacies.

Those in the martial arts are familiar with them: "Master Eek is a fraud, he does not teach the 'true Sum Yung I!' which, of course, I do, for the low introductory price of. . . ."

Worse, it assumes a "thing" exists and only, if only, we could find the right master. . . .

This proves akin to declaring the cosmic "ether" really does exist, we just have not found it yet.

Well, scientists HAVE traveled to China and HAVE tested the "masters" and have found . . . nothing. Oddly enough, many "masters" refuse testing. I wonder why. James Randi last year tested a "chi-master" from China and . . . he failed miserably.

More information may be found on James Randi's page--www.randi.org--and the rather verbosely titled Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal--I admit it reads as a "B-Grade" James Bond villain: www.csicop.org which detail the tests they have run.

You can also read the expose of a former Qi Gung "master." Interesting for those seeking the unity between East and West, charlatans on both sides use the same damn parlor tricks.

[QUOTE]So a study of acupuncture by the U.S. government may have done acupuncture a disservice because most of the American acupuncturists are amateurs playing a role.[/QUOTE]

Again, this reads a bit like, "but come to MY dojo where I learned from the TRUE master!" If acupuncture works in the way adherents claim, it should work no matter the time zone. Frankly, if such a "healing" modality requires such arcane familiarity, one may wish to stick with therapies that have a better track record.

A wonderfully balanced treatment of acupuncture and other questionable . . . and not so questionable . . . therapies may be found at www.quackwatch.com.

[QUOTE]. . . but we will never know until we test someone who is really good. What do you think?[/QUOTE]

How do we define "good?" Perhaps as a martial arts friend of mine far better than me observed: "I have seen good. You're not it!"

Seriously, here I will grouse like Randi, the best I can do is test those who have the courage to come before me and submit to a proper test. I state "proper" because a poorly designed study--like the prayer studies mentioned--do nothing. To assume that "the laws of physics" break depending on the person without any actual evidence is quite extraordinary . . . and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, to paraphrase a dictum.

[QUOTE]In the book "Encounters with Qi" by David Eisenberg, M.D., he mentions having roughly the same thing tried on him. . . .[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately means nothing. Why? Not to disrespect Dr. Eisenberg, but scientists prove the easiest to fool . . . they think they are too smart to fool. One cannot rely on such anecdotes. He expected "something" and, low and behold, he got "something."

Again bring this into the realm of practicality. If it requires the conjuring of some "master" way out there that we have yet to find . . . does it work? Frankly, I will trust the gun. As for chi-balls, do they stop water being poured on your head? Otherwise, I would still recommend moving out of the way.

Finally, a great beginning primer on such investigations remains Randi's _Flim Flam_ . . . you too can learn to bend spoons as well as Uri Geller. . . .

Best,

--J.D.

And if you expect nothing, lo and behold you get nothing? Is surgical removal of a brain tumor with accupuncture as the only means of pain suppression another parlor trick? I do not embrace the extreme position of li kon jing as a real phenomenon, but neither do I reject qi as a natural (not mystical) phenomenon with limits to it like any other natural phenomenon.
If scientist are so easily fooled, and so subject to bias, tell me where is your dojo is so I can come to study the true ways of objective truth and knowledge.
Not every practitioner (either medical or martial) who advances qi as a natural phenomenon is a quack or a charlatan.
For the record, I do not teach martial arts for a living, nor do I have any products to promote or powers to claim. I believe that true understanding lies somewhere between cynical rejection and naive acceptance. Lets winnow the wheat from the chaff.

Hello J.D. and thanks for answering. Actually I was not in the least trying to imply that a thing exists if only you could find the right guy to test. I was more trying to see if you were open-minded enough to admit that one test does not let the matter rest. And insofar as "these things break the laws of physics", surely you accept the possibility that if you found some form of 'lin kong jin' (not necessarily the one you tested) that had some validity, you might find out that laws of physics were not being broken? I was simply asking if you were open-ended in the results of your test by saying "we only tested one guy and it's possible there is something unusual out there, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there."

Insofar as Dr. Eisenberg expecting something, maybe. However, he was fairly cynical and removed from most of his observations and his tone was that he thought most of those things were simply tricks. Don't be so defensive. :^)

Walter:

[QUOTE]And if you expect nothing, lo and behold you get nothing?[/QUOTE]

proves a bit inaccurate. One has not made any expectations but one has searched and found nothing. Furthermore when the "something" offered resembles debunked tricks from the past, one does benefit to remain skeptical.

[QUOTE]Is surgical removal of a brain tumor with
accupuncture as the only means of pain suppression another parlor trick?[/QUOTE]

Depends, if like the celebrated appendectomy during Nixon's visit China, demerol is slipped into the IV bag, then, yes, a parlor trick. If anything like the "psychic surgery" fostered upon the desperate in the Philipines--and recreated and debunked on The Tonight Show--certainly.

However, despite the mystique of "brain surgery" the brain has no pain fibers, nor does the skull. One can remove a brain tumor with very little in way of pain medication--you need only worry about the scalp. Acupuncture suffers from a lack of other benefits afforded by anesthesia such as control of brain swelling. Finally, the "effect" of acupuncture does not, in and of itself, validate the mystical theory behind it any more than draining abcesses validated the Galenical "four humours."

[QUOTE]. . . but neither do I reject qi as a natural (not mystical) phenomenon with limits to it like any other natural phenomenon.[/QUOTE]

I would recommend finding evidence for the existence of qi before speculating upon its attributes "mystical" or "natural."

Now since:

[QUOTE]If scientist are so easily fooled, and so subject to bias, . . .[/QUOTE]

does not logically lead to:

[QUOTE]. . . tell me where is your dojo is so I can come to study the true ways of objective truth and knowledge.[/QUOTE]

if an unkind man, I would deem it an attempt at argumentum ad hominem. Nevertheless, I can direct you to methods to correct for subjectivity in the pursuit of knowledge. The double-blind test design removes such subjectivity, for example. I could not influence the outcome of the test in question whether or not I believed in qi.

[QUOTE]Not every practitioner (either medical or martial) who advances qi as a natural phenomenon is a quack or a charlatan.[/QUOTE]

Never implied they were, though I will note that if sincere they welcome examination. They do not respond to questions with argumentum ad hominem and temper tantrums and then try to rewrite history.

[QUOTE]I believe that true understanding lies somewhere between cynical rejection[/QUOTE]

proves a Poisoning of the Well. One cannot "cynically reject" that which has not been demonstrated. When one tests a phenomenon, finds no evidence for it, ones rejection of the hypothesis does not have any malignant overtones as implied in your statement. You may be intrigued to consider the root of "cynical" from the movement of Cynics who, despite modern connotation, advocated that no sacred cows existed and everything deserved examination.

[QUOTE]Lets winnow the wheat from the chaff.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, which, I must offer, requires an objective process such as a proper double-blind study, not wishful thinking.

Will:

[QUOTE]. . . you might find out that laws of physics were not being broken?[/QUOTE]

If Conan Doyle actually found a fairy physicist would have to rethink so fundamentals as well. If Cyrus Teague proved correct and we all live on the inside of a hollow Earth, we would, indeed, have to rethink physics. The efforts to measure the effects of the "cosmic aether" resulted in the Lorenz transformations [Equations that allow you to calculate how much your brother would shrink if you could hurl him through a window at 0.87 times the speed of light.--Ed.] and ultimately relativity.

Until that time, however, I will trust current conceptions that have passed muster.

[QUOTE]I was simply asking if you were open-ended in the results. . . .[/QUOTE]

Consider it this way, Randi has tested probably a thousand dousers. He does not claim dousing does not work, just that he has found no one who can demonstrate it works. He has also determined why people THINK dousing works. He has also reviewed the literature and found, again, no evidence.

This has probably led him to close his mind to the possibility of dousing ever working, but he still accepts applicants willing to try. With regards to Walter's post above, he finds them very sincere applicants--very few frauds show up.

Thus, I am always willing to be shown a fairy. I have been shown a lot of toads.

[QUOTE]Insofar as Dr. Eisenberg expecting something, maybe.[/QUOTE]

More than "maybe," it is critical.

[QUOTE]However, he was fairly cynical and removed from most of his observations and his tone was that he thought most of those things were simply tricks.[/QUOTE]

Frankly irrelevant if he does not control for biases in his observations.

[QUOTE]Don't be so defensive. :^)[/QUOTE]

Had not thought I was.

--J.D.

[QUOTE-WT]. . . you might find out that laws of physics were not being broken?[/QUOTE]

J.D.
"If Cyrus Teague proved correct and we all live on the inside of a hollow Earth, we would, indeed, have to rethink physics. The efforts to measure the effects of the "cosmic aether"(snip)"

Yeah, but J.D. (if I may be so familiar), you glossed over the idea that I was talking about "qi" in other, unnamed phenomena. Not the one you tested. I.e., you actually "assumed" your own strawman and argued against it.


[QUOTE-WT]I was simply asking if you were open-ended in the results. . . .[/QUOTE]

J.D.
"Thus, I am always willing to be shown a fairy. I have been shown a lot of toads."


Wow, that's open-minded! I think. hmmm.




[QUOTE-WT]However, he (David Eisenberg, M.D.) was fairly cynical and removed from most of his observations and his tone was that he thought most of those things were simply tricks.[/QUOTE]

J.D.
"Frankly irrelevant if he does not control for biases in his observations."

But relevant if he does control his biases. You cannot assume either, given the context. Perhaps you would enjoy reading the book. If I remember right, he's from someplace like Massachusetts and he's pretty sure of himself and his opinions. :^)


Thanks for the reply.

(Don Quixote to his squire: " Sancho! My armor! My lance! My Horse!)

Dr. X,
Come sir, let us reason together. What, might I ask, precisely did you find " poorly designed " in the double-blinded prayer study carried out by researchers at Stanford? Surely it is not the inferences that might be drawn from the above study that you find distasteful?
Breathlessly awaiting your response, MMA

Will:

[QUOTE]Moi: "If Cyrus Teague proved correct and we all live on the inside of a hollow Earth, we would, indeed, have to rethink physics.

Thou: Yeah, but J.D. (if I may be so familiar), you glossed over the idea that I was talking about "qi" in other, unnamed phenomena. Not the one you tested. I.e., you actually "assumed" your own strawman and argued against it.[/QUOTE]

First yes, second you have "assumed" your own "strawmen" yourself: "unnamed phenomena." Well . . . were is it? We can assume whatever miracles we wish--including the fairies in Cottingham. I would rather see the fairy.

[QUOTE]Wow, that's open-minded! I think. hmmm.[/QUOTE]

I have kissed a lot of toads. . . .


[QUOTE]But relevant if he does control his biases.[/QUOTE]

But he did not. I am familiar with the book. The very fact he knew when an effect was expected makes him a biased observer since he is generating the data.

Incidentally, whilst hunting down a request from below:

http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/eisenberg.html

some stuff on Eisenberg.

Mystic Master of Alabaster:

[QUOTE](Don Quixote to his squire: " Sancho! My armor! My lance! My Horse!)[/QUOTE]

Lear: Dost thou call me fool?!!

Fool: All other titles thou hast given away!

[Stop that.--Ed.]

Sorry, just wanted to "see" your Cervantes and "raise" you a Shakespeare.

[QUOTE]What, might I ask, precisely did you find " poorly designed " in the double-blinded prayer study carried out by researchers at Stanford?[/QUOTE]

Prayer studies have a fascinating recent history. One can, I hope, check out:

http://www.mayo.edu/proceedings/2001/dec/7612a1.pdf

which gives an "Adobe" version of a recent article out of Mayo. The Lancet published an excellent review of "positive" prayer studies and serves as a good beginning to understanding the faults in these studies:

"Religion, spirituality, and medicine",R P Sloan, E Bagiella, T Powell

Lancet 1999; 353: 664-67

which you can view/download for free after registering at www.thelancet.com

http://www.thelancet.com

http://members.aol.com/garypos/Harris_study.html

Provides another nice review of an oft touted "positive" study.

Now, with regards to the Stanford study, if you refer to:

"A Pilot Study Examining the Effect of Distant Healing on Diabetes Type II patients." Binder, M, Ebneter, M., Saller, R., & Walach, H. Paper presented at 42nd Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, August 1999.

then you will note well the conclusion:

[QUOTE]Since there was not a control group used in this experiment, and since the patient participants were not blind to the fact that they were in a healing experiment, not much can be made of these results except that knowing that others are trying to help may help with psychological adjustment to the disease.[/QUOTE]

No control group.
Not a double-blind study.
Will also note insufficient number of patients.
Will also note the use of "may."

[QUOTE]Surely it is not the inferences that might be drawn from the above study that you find distasteful?[/QUOTE]

No more, I am sure, than any distaste you might draw from its failure.

--J.D.

Hey! The thing automatically links . . . must be the page's chi. . . .

Dr. X,
No taste for distaste? Me neither. However, that was not the prayer study most recently done by researchers at Stanford. This latest dealt with improving fertility in married women, addressed many of the issues raised by previous studies;it was double blinded,and it did involve a control group.
Reported on in the Jan. 2002 issue of Psychology Today.( you don't mean to tell me that you made mention, of my mention, of this prayer study without reading my post regarding it?).
Warmest Regards, MMA

Damn, you chi-huggers are annoying little yappers.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching tards try to cross a busy street as much as the next guy. But when they just stand there babbling about the logistics of the 'thing' rather than attempting the 'thing' it just gets old fast.

But that's just me. I suppose some folks get a big kick out of babble.

Mystic Master of Alabaster:

I refered to a reference to a Stanford study made above without any citation--it does not appear on the posts I can review here. I gather I should not assume studies refered to have been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal? This may seem a slap against [i]Psychology Today[/i], but given the Earth-shattering implications in your description, I am surprised the peer-reviewed medical journals did not publish it.

Nevertheless, I am unable to locate a reviewable copy of the article on the internet--or any negative or positive review of it--so I will have to locate it.

Unless you have a reference to a peer reviewed journal that published the original study I will have to get back to your on the details.

--J.D.