Chi Gong Side Effects

[GOLDEN ARMOR]

Can anyone give me some info on this subject?

I would mostly like info on the effects chi gong can have on the heart?

I did a search on the web & I read that chi gong can have side effects on beginners during or after practice. Some symtoms were rapid heart rate, short breath, anxiety, etc. these are the main ones i'm interested in.

[Repulsive Monkey]

These can happen, providing one does the Qi-gong inccorectly. If it is done correctly then there are no negative sides effects.

[PLCrane]

Here are a couple of review articles on the adverse effects of qigong.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10336217&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8088187&dopt=Abstract

[GOLDEN ARMOR]

Thanks for replying.

But how do i know if the chi gong is the problem?

& how do I fix it?

Do I go see a TCM Dr.

At the end of chi gong class I was feeling great then all of a sudden my heart started raceing very fast. My teacher came over & told me to sit down, relax & take deep breaths. He took my pulse then he put one hand on my neck & the other near/on my chest then I just felt my heart skip back to normal pace. He said that he gave me some of his energy & that I reacted very quickly. He also said that he didn't think the chi gong was the cause. My friends been training with him for a while & he seems like a very good teacher.

I went to the Dr's & did some tests & she said she didn't find anything & that it's probably anxiety. She sent me to the cardiologist last weekend for more tests & again they didn't find anything yet. I have to go back & see them in a few weeks.

One of the dr's there knew a little about chi gong & even he said that it could be the cause. He said not to mention it in front of the other dr's tho. This sh!t is freakn me out. Do u guys think it could have anything to do with the chi gong? I havn't been to training for a few weeks but I'm going to go this week & speak to my teacher.

[Former castleva]

You mention that after having completed chi-gong,you felt your heart racing (I do not know what the intensity of your exercise might have been,but the possibility of the exercise itself causing it strikes me)
You indicate that when your instructor came by,you did calm down (him telling you that gong probably is not the cause)

I posit that it´s just anxiety,psychosomatic causes for large (naturally I´m wholly unaware of your underlying medical condition) Whatever may the factors behind there be,I´m well aware that extended periods of such stress can be dangerous indeed and responsible for similar symptoms that you hand out.
Besides this,it does not really have to be qi-gong...

I suspect that further tests won´t reveal anything related to your practices as we know them.I suggest you trust those professionals (be wary of alternative doctors,in this context,telling you about underlying pathologies that regular MD:s simply cannot detect,or so they say)

Wrong I might be but I suspect that the fact that one of the doctors told you to not mention it to others,might have to do with the esoteric nature of your hobby (which,clearly not everyone knows how to deal with)

Just my ideas.

[ZIM]

There are other possible side effects: nausea, vertigo, hyperventilation, neuritis, etc. as well as the psychophysical as noted before.

One of the things about qiqong is that [imo] you can't do it half-way, and thats why its important to see a teacher, if only to remind you constantly of proper practices.

For what you are describing [anxiety, heart-racing] start by practicing to still the mind and just be, just settle into the postures. Generally speaking, the 'side effects' are not entirely due to doing qiqong right but from doing it wrong-ish. Relax and settle, note the positives within your practice, get that 'inner smile' going, and realize that you're gaining strength, not losing it.

Claimer: No, I am not an expert in qiqong or a TCM Dr.: these are my thoughts and experiences, not medical advice. Good luck!

[Former castleva]

Effects to the direction of hyperventilation too,I might assume,could be achieved by self-suggestion.
The difference between "...extend your arm and exhale..."&"...Force the great bow and empty yourself of heavenly energies..." if you know what I mean.

[ZIM]

What? No, more along the lines of 'trying too hard'... both of your examples can be examples of that. Don't 'try', just do and cultivate patience. "The ordinary is the extraordinary"

Hey- as long as we're on the subject of side effects, here's a question for those who might know:

I live near a large lake and I wanted to adopt the practice of walking there [loosening up the muscles] with my dog in the early AM to do my ZZ practice... then a nice cooling walk back to coordinate everything. Sounds absolutely Idyllic, huh?

Aside from all the 'poetic nonsense' that this may or may not be a part of, really I just want to see if there's a reason ppl do that stuff.

Now, the pressing question! :) While its a big oceanic lake that stinks a little of fish and trash [all good tao stuff, yo] it faces North and its Summer and I'm male and it'd be dawn. Lotsa Yang environmental energy, I guess. IS this just superstition OR is there really anything to that??? Suggestions? Laughter?

[Former castleva]

That was a hard post to read.

As for your question,what to what then?

I wonder if I feel centered walking in the woods because "wood element is so strong".
Will I be lucky if I place my flower pot according to season,pa kua board and with right elemental energies included,do I get money? Will I find a to-be loved one?
Will I be hard working and stubborn because my star sign is ox?
If my star sign is goat,does it mean I will freak out if I place a tiger statue in my house?
If my liver energies are disturbed,does it mean I may be angry?
If my hair becomes gray during my older days,is it because my kidneys are weakening?
Is it generally too yang if I use microwave to warm my food?
Does this all make a lot of sense?
No.

[ZIM]

On one level, I totally agree with what you wrote: superstitious poppycox all of it.

But then: some might think that doing qiqong to begin with is superstition, not fact. And some would definitely think that the need to do it at certain times of day are superstition.

Then you try it a little, changing the time of day, and its very different somehow. ;) And no, its not psychological but physical. Or psychophysical, anyhow. There is a percievable difference between AM and PM practice, to me.

So why throw away what I don't understand? Even things that are not useful or true often point to things that are.

Anyhow I just wanted opinions... for which I thank you for yours! ;)

[ZIM]

Ah! one more thing-

The stuff you pointed out, the unrelated things... this is part of the Chinese system of correspondences... it is very much like the "Aries rules the Head and its Gem is the Diamond" kind of thing. All cultures, more or less, have something similar.

There is a use for it all, but that has to do with beliefs in magic and what not, back in the medieval period. If nothing else, it helps to know of it so as to be able to translate the thinking and writings from those times.

On a deeper level, knowing the Western system of correspondences is a little jarring when you really "get it". You realize, or at least I did, that the West is both very ancient and very new, both at once... I don't hold to it as a part of my beliefs, no, but that doesn't stop me from seeing or appreciating it.

[Former castleva]

"The stuff you pointed out, the unrelated things... this is part of the Chinese system of correspondences... "

I never thought of them as unrelated,I think it´s pretty much the same central philosophy that unites these "sciences" or whatever we call it.
I don´t get a lot of what you say,sorry.
Would you like to tell me more?

[ZIM]

Tell you more what? I just did. :confused:

[Former castleva]

Ah,that´s OK.

I was not quite following your texts that´s all.

[[Censored]]

EXTRA EXTRA! A male scientist has just confirmed that the position of the sun and moon have no effect on the human body! LOL. This BBS BS is much better than the Sunday comics. :D

[Former castleva]

Did not we know that already?

But what about the stars?

[ZIM]

EXTRA EXTRA! A male scientist has just confirmed that the position of the sun and moon have no effect on the human body! LOL. This BBS BS is much better than the Sunday comics Cool, another confirmation! [or maybe i'm readinmg you wrongly] So why do 'they' all say that stuff? Just tradition? I run into it with yoga as well....

[Christopher M]

If I may... Castlevania, I think Zim was just suggesting using observation as the primary tool to forming beliefs on a topic, rather than theorizing.

Qigong is a word that describes a pretty broad range of things; such that it's basically impossible to generalize a stance on it.

Qigong comes from a cultural context which, I assume, turns you off. That's certainly fine, but it's not rational. I am assuming here, but I suspect you are comfortable dealing with things coming from the Cartesian cultural context, even though it is also a throw-back. I believe that to be rational about something means, among other things, being able to ignore cultural context to assess what is really going on.

From this point of view, and keeping in mind the breadth of the topic, I don't believe it's at all reasonable to discard all of qigong as superstition.

At the very least, we can say that the understanding that qigong has for breathing is analogous to that of contemporary western medicine. Proper breathing is largely the same in both contexts, considered very important for health, and considered to be rare among adults.

We can also say that the postural training of qigong in the martial arts is a reasonable and viable method of teaching people to adopt and maintain a posture ideal for health and martial arts. Again, there would be agreement to this from mainstream western sources.

I'll stop here, as I don't mean to consider each aspect of qigong; but only to demonstrate that it cannot so easily be discarded as an empty superstition.

[ZIM]

I think Zim was just suggesting using observation as the primary tool to forming beliefs on a topic, rather than theorizing. Yes! The very same. Thanks for the re-framing.

[Former castleva]

I was not necessarily discarding qi-gong as superstition,while it certainly can contain such elements imo,what I was referring to was just general superstitious points around these areas.I did not mention qi-gong.

I agree about breathing,this would be approved while it is not necessarily tied to qi-gong itself.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Much of our attractions to certain natural settings are as much primoidal carry-overs as anything else.. lakes and waterbodies were where the food was.. lush forests were where the food was.. Yin/Yang characterists were the same as was needed to survive 10,000 years ago in tribal society.. The Chinese culture simply categorized and labeled these characteristics after noting they were still present is our psyche.. Most often QiGong, Feng Shui, sacred geometry, etc... are just re-occurring patterns in natural behavior.. (bonus points for Taoist tendency toward following natural patterns).. Those patterns that promoted good health (survivability) received more attention and subsequently more ritualization..

Be well..

[Former castleva]

...........

Ying/Yang characters,feng shui,qi-gong.....Chinese culture labeling this stuff because it is still present in our psyche?...
Good patterns=survival...well,yes,yes...

I don´t mean to offend you but how do you invent this stuff?

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


I don´t mean to offend you but how do you invent this stuff?

LOL.. how could you offend me?.. rather, the question i would pose to you might be something like: I don't mean to offend you but how do you so adroitly elude your own instincts?..

With so much emphasis on lineage, science, measurements, proofs, etc.. the simple things seem to get lost in our rush to label and quantify ("can't see the trees for the Bushes" sort of thing <Bushes.. pun intended>).. things are what they are, the measurements and descriptions are merely abstractions of that which is.. where we differ (mostly), is some folks can accept things just as they are (natural), others need to have proof (measurement and labels) to believe that which they already "know" but don't yet understand..

As for inventing.. i actually relied on anthropological, sociological and psychological studies and research for some of my previous commentary.. Aside from the obvious insecurities of those that need proof of what they "know", may i inquire as to the motivation of your curiosity in the matter of " how do you invent this stuff?"

Be well..

[ZIM]

Thanks, as ever, for your open-handed generosity in helping with even the seemingly smallest or weirdest things. I knew that it all pointed towards something more important, and you're showing me where that window of opportunity is...

FC-
I don't think that a great deal of the subject matter within qiqong is amenable to scientific measure. But this doesn't mean that there is no 'truth' to be observed within it. It can be more phenomonological truth than physics, though.

Perhaps the particular method used is incorrect if you are looking for 'proofs' but can't find any? One would think that, as a scientist, one would exhaust different methodologies before discarding anything potentially valuable.

Do you, yourself, practice any qiqong? I've always been curious. If so, what is the worth that you, personally, feel that it has? This isn't a trick question, I really just want to know.

[Former castleva]

I find odd actually that you´re talking that much about qi-gong.You see,what I first did was point out my idea about ?related? ?phenomena? that you asked about.

But since there we are,
I already agreed (see Christopher´s) that breathing exercises can be pretty good,what I don´t buy is all the excessive hodgy podgy.
I´m definitely not saying it´s worthless,to each their own,I prefer walking as an example over it and I feel it´s at least equal.
In this context,I´m not (anymore at least) looking for proofs for this or that,I consider myself to be aware of underlying factors already and things that some might want to consider outside of scientific grasp (even anomalies) but the simple fact goes that you can´t test non-falsifiable things,they´re better discarded.Translated:It´s not the method that is incorrect.This is not a hammer/nail situation either. :)

No,I do not practice.I have practiced and this is where I am.
It does not affect me much. ;)

[bodhitree]

"´m definitely not saying it´s worthless,to each their own,I prefer walking as an example over it and I feel it´s at least equal.
In this context,I´m not (anymore at least) looking for proofs for this or that,I consider myself to be aware of underlying factors already and things that some might want to consider outside of scientific grasp (even anomalies) but the simple fact goes that you can´t test non-falsifiable things,they´re better discarded.Translated:It´s not the method that is incorrect.This is not a hammer/nail situation either. " Former Castleva


Qigong is not only for the physical, but most importantly for the spirit. Spirit may be a 'non falsifiable'thing as far as looking at another person, but we can test our own, and see how the quality of our lives improved. My attitudes on almost anything have improved scince I've started practicing qigong. You could not have told me I was missing anything from life before, but now I see just how much I was not appreciating! To each their own, true, but qigong is not just a physical discipline, I define spiritual as the nature of a person all around their spirit, beyond moods, it doesnt have to be something greatly mistical or intangible. I think if I only focused on Qigong as physical exercise, I would miss the best benefits of what it has to offer.

[Former castleva]

Bodhi pal,

I see.

I cannot comment on anyone´s personal experience,not to even mention criticizing such!
I myself am not a believer in "spirit",it´s a philosophical question anyway imo.
I still think it boils down to what you describe as what,qi-gong is spiritual for you,that´s great.

[bodhitree]

FC
not trying to critisise you or your opinions, just trying to let ya know how I see it. Qigong was developed to aid in spiritual development (whether Buddhist or Taoist), the point isnt just to gather qi, its to use qi to nourish shen (spirit). I consider dropping a couple dollars in the homeless guys cup or feeding the birds qigong.

[Former castleva]

Whether qi-gong would aid in that,I cannot say but I will have to note that I think the idea you´re giving about qi-gong is simplified.
There are various kinds of schools of qi-gong,those "spiritual" ones of certains sects for "buddahood","enlightment",we´ve got scholarly,martial,medical etc.
I suppose the basics are similar in ways but there are great differences,don´t you think?

[bodhitree]

certains sects for "buddahood","enlightment",we´ve got scholarly,martial,medical etc.
Former Castleva

They all came from spiritual practice!

I suppose the basics are similar in ways but there are great differences,don´t you think?
Former Castleva

There are differences in goals and methods, however the original goals were quite similar. In Bone Marrow Nei Kung by Mantak Chia he tells a story of a chi weight lifter (the Iron Crotch)that lifted much weight from his genitals. His goal became to show it off, and he died young. The practice is great for longevity if only a couple of pounds are used to stimulate pulling the sexual energy up to the higher centers, the goals originally werent to lift as much as freakin possible! Martial Qigong was started by monks, cultivating peace, the essence of spirituality!

[Former castleva]

"In Bone Marrow Nei Kung by Mantak Chia he tells a story of a chi weight lifter (the Iron Crotch)that lifted much weight from his genitals. His goal became to show it off, and he died young. The practice is great for longevity if only a couple of pounds are used to stimulate pulling the sexual energy up to the higher centers, "

It is this kind of stuff,you know,which makes me laugh at this.

[bodhitree]

I beg to agree!

[ZIM]

FC, my friend-

I said it wasn't a trick question, and it wasn't. I didn't want to respond for fear that you would take it wrongly.

I appreciate the goals and ideals of science very much. I also see where it is limited... we can talk about light reflecting off of a girl, for instance, travelling at such a velocity, entering the eye of a man, winding its way through the visual system, the image being transferred and translated to chemical reactions, neurons fring in certain sequences, and physical qualia in result. But we can't say from science why he loves her.

Indeed from a scientific standpoint, we might say: high heart rate, wobbly pulse, rapid breathing, etc. He's having a heart attack. No no no. Science screwed the pooch.

Another thing thats not falsifiable: quality of life. If you throw that out, what results? Is that a good thing?

It takes a different viewpoint to see whats going on here, in the above instance, even if there are real-world results. Some of the ?un-related? ?phenomena? of qiqong is of that type of reasoning. That was my only point... and possibly a slice of bodhitree's as well.

By the way- turns out you sweat an awful lot... breeze from the water freezes the sweat, leading to uneven heating of the body. Could make you sick, I suppose, or improve your immunity. Nice time, though, on the whole. :) I'm thinking to work my way up to more time rather than push it.

[Former castleva]

"I appreciate the goals and ideals of science very much. I also see where it is limited... we can talk about light reflecting off of a girl, for instance, travelling at such a velocity, entering the eye of a man, winding its way through the visual system, the image being transferred and translated to chemical reactions, neurons fring in certain sequences, and physical qualia in result. But we can't say from science why he loves her. "

It´s a matter of viewpoint.

You did read evo.psych.,right? ;)

"Indeed from a scientific standpoint, we might say: high heart rate, wobbly pulse, rapid breathing, etc. He's having a heart attack. No no no. Science screwed the pooch. "

I´m not falling for this...


"By the way- turns out you sweat an awful lot... breeze from the water freezes the sweat, leading to uneven heating of the body. Could make you sick, I suppose, or improve your immunity. Nice time, though, on the whole. I'm thinking to work my way up to more time rather than push it."

What? I tripped again.

:o

"I said it wasn't a trick question, and it wasn't. I didn't want to respond for fear that you would take it wrongly. "

Don´t worry about that.

[ZIM]

You did read evo.psych.,right? Oh yeah, and interestingly enough, Taichibob brought up certain aspects of this as well. So....;)

[Former castleva]

"Oh yeah, and interestingly enough, Taichibob brought up certain aspects of this as well. So...."

He did?
:cool:

[ZIM]

Yep. [ZIM whistles tunelessly...]


As for inventing.. i actually relied on anthropological, sociological and psychological studies and research for some of my previous commentary.. Aside from the obvious insecurities of those that need proof of what they "know", may i inquire as to the motivation of your curiosity in the matter of " how do you invent this stuff?" Maybe, I suggest humbly once again, your methods need to be expanded. The research from this angle has not been done yet. Science records and interprets what it finds- it doesn't say anything about what it hasn't looked at yet or hasn't found. When science does find new eveidence, it adjusts it's story....

Just side issues, man....;)

[Former castleva]

I´m sorry ZIM.
I have all the respect for you but what you describe is an old joke,you can unnecessarily apply it to theology too if you wish.

[Christopher M]

lol. "screwed the pooch" is frellin' hilarious.

Former C - Which position of Zim's are you referring to as the 'old joke'? Sorry, it's not clear to me.

[Former castleva]

"Former C - Which position of Zim's are you referring to as the 'old joke'? Sorry, it's not clear to me."

His last post.
The case of referring to supposed limits of the method,as far as I read him right.

[Christopher M]

Aha.

I believe he is saying only that science, by it's own explicit design and admission, is limited to those topics it has allready addressed. In other words, the key point is that science hasn't addressed something.

This is as opposed to a different position that states that science is unable to address something.

The former position, surely, you must accept as reasonable?

[Former castleva]

Well...
It might need to be clarified.

I mean,"has not addressed" can be just a get-away,but generally speaking,I would accept it as more reasonable.

[ZIM]

I believe he is saying only that science, by it's own explicit design and admission, is limited to those topics it has allready addressed. In other words, the key point is that science hasn't addressed something. I mean that science is a process or method of understanding, not a hard-and-fast world view.

A case in point- We've long held that American Indians had migrated from Siberia to the New World during the last glacial period. This was based on available evidence: comparative linguistics, remains, tribal structures, religious belief patterns, geography, technological artifacts, etc.

Then we discover remains in South America that predate the last glacial period. That can't be ignored, but it threw the theory into doubt. "How did they get there?" is the new riddle.

So, you have to stay open to new evidence, even if it is not what you expected. More importantly though, it shows how science is process not product.

[Former castleva]

And...

"I mean that science is a process or method of understanding, not a hard-and-fast world view. "

Science may not be "perfect",but it is the best objective method to gather information about reality,and the only valid one.

"So, you have to stay open to new evidence, even if it is not what you expected. More importantly though, it shows how science is process not product. "

Yeah.Science is not just a mere collection of facts,but ever evolving self-correcting process.


BTW,I do not know how your example relates to what you,most importantly,consider to be the case there might arrive new evidence for.
But to speak for the general "you" of the world,it is my idea that anyone who waits for science to make a great discovery for them,justify something which is pseudoscience by definition,is obviously being delusional.

[ZIM]

Science may not be "perfect",but it is the best objective method to gather information about reality,and the only valid one. True. So you admit there is such a thing as subjectivity? Does that have any value whatsoever, and [if so] how to verify it? Its a trick question. :p


BTW,I do not know how your example relates to what you,most importantly,consider to be the case there might arrive new evidence for. You don't, hunh? Think.
But to speak for the general "you" of the world,it is my idea that anyone who waits for science to make a great discovery for them,justify something which is pseudoscience by definition,is obviously being delusional. Who's waiting? You are. I'm observing. You know, like Newton did when the apple fell on his head.

I think that if you were truly done with it all, you wouldn't even be responding on these topics or reading the research you apparently do.

[Former castleva]

"True. So you admit there is such a thing as subjectivity? Does that have any value whatsoever, and [if so] how to verify it? Its a trick question. "

Sure is.
I don´t think it has value for doing science,but humans being,subjectivity is not that rare.
However,when agenda really kicks in,it is not science anymore.A good example of this would be creationism.

"You don't, hunh? Think. "

............


"Who's waiting? You are. I'm observing. You know, like Newton did when the apple fell on his head."

............

[ZIM]

At this point, I really must leave off. You seem to be accusing me of 'having an agenda', and yet it is plainly not so.

If you wish to read some additional background to stimulate your thinking in these matters [in specifically what I'm referring to here, *not* to qiqong or its relations] then see:

http://www.connect.net/ron/phenom.html

and

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Calkins/self.htm

for examples.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Former castleva
Science may not be "perfect",but it is the best objective method to gather information about reality,and the only valid one.

How did you decide science is "the only valid" method for gathering information about reality?

What standard are you using for "valid" here?


I do not know how your example relates to what you,most importantly,consider to be the case there might arrive new evidence for

It seems like you're applying the strawman fallacy here. No one is claiming science is going to find evidence for anything. The only claims being made are that science has nothing to say about things it hasn't investigated, and that science is a developing progress/method, rather than a distinct body.

Everyone seems to agree on these points.

It seems to me that you while you are contradicting yourself though. On one hand, you agree with the above. On the other hand, you seem to be arguing towards the nonexistance of anything beyond science's body of knowledge. Again, these two positions seem to directly contradict one another.


However,when agenda really kicks in,it is not science anymore.

Have you spent much time around actual scientists actually doing science? In my experience, it's been as agenda-driven as any other aspect of society.

[Former castleva]

"How did you decide science is "the only valid" method for gathering information about reality?"

There is not much to compare it to,in terms of looking for organized methodology for observing stuff.

"It seems like you're applying the strawman fallacy here. No one is claiming science is going to find evidence for anything. The only claims being made are that science has nothing to say about things it hasn't investigated, and that science is a developing progress/method, rather than a distinct body."

I can see how this would cause confusion.

What I mean by this,is that science will hardly find support for something non-falsifiable,or shall I say,phoney.
In related discussions you see,I´ve run to people who use the kind of argument-"well the,time shall show whether...","have not they taken interest in this...?" Maybe I should have made myself more clear,but I hope you can see what I mean by now.
As for non-existence,the thing is I don´t look easy towards those who actually think they can make it look as if it was scientifical in the first place.That´s where suggestions and fallacies kick in as previously described.


"Have you spent much time around actual scientists actually doing science? In my experience, it's been as agenda-driven as any other aspect of society."

Thanks for telling.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Former castleva
There is not much to compare it to,in terms of looking for organized methodology for observing stuff.

It seems to me like I make alot of observations and decisions throughout my life. Furthermore, it seems to me that an extremely small proportion of these follow scientific methodology, let alone allready-established scientific thought. Moreover, it seems to me that scientific methodology and thought would be incredibly poorly suited to these observations and decisions.

Do you disagree? Go over in your mind and consider all the observations and decisions you make throughout the day. Is all of this stuff invalid?


What I mean by this,is that science will hardly find support for something non-falsifiable,or shall I say,phoney.

Well, non-falsifiable and phoney aren't the same thing.

For instance, if we suggest there is a gremlin under your chair which cannot be sensed in any way and does not interact with the world in any way other than being there, this is non-falsifiable. There very well might be such a gremlin, but it's entirely beyond the scope of science (or any other branch of analytic philosophy) to even consider such a question, let alone suggest an answer.

On the other hand, if someone says that practice of exercise X will yield result Y, this isn't non-falsifiable. Of course, it may well be phoney. But there's no reason why science cannot provide an answer to this question.

It would do so by following the scientific method of inquiry. What I believe has been said here is that if this method has not been applied to a certain topic, we shouldn't go around acting as if science has provided a proof of it's non-existance. Not being in the "body of knowledge" of science is not a scientific proof of non-existance.

The only thing to add to this would be science's ideas about theories and prediction. For instance, if someone makes a claim that, for instance, depleted uranium exposure results in such-and-such a disease... science, even if it has not specifically done that study, has a theory as to the mechanism of interaction between depleted uranium and the body, as well as the mechanism of causation of that disease. So we should be confident to say that science predicts such a statement is reasonable or unreasonable, as the case may be.

This prevents people from suggesting the plausibility of anything science hasn't looked at, which of course would be silly.

However, when science has neither a specific history of inquiry, nor a general predictive theory pertaining to a phenomenon, we should not make any scientific statements whatsoever about it.

I would further add to this discussion that I believe we should keep in mind that science is not metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of the literal existance of reality. Science isn't. If someone asks you if science "believes such-and-such exists", to be completely accurate, you should respond "science has nothing to do with proofs of what exists." Science is a methodology we use to understand our interactions with reality; this is a very different thing than trying to determine what reality fundamentally is. Science will prefer those models that best help us understand and interact with reality over those models that specify with more accuracy what "actually exists." Many concepts from science are not "ontological" - that is, it's not suggested they actualy exist in the metaphysical sense. Rather, they are elements which help our interaction and understanding.

This is one of the reasons why science is entirely unconcerned with that gremlin which very well might be under your chair. It doesn't much care about what very well might be.

A perfect example who you seem to like would be Darwin. Darwin didn't posit anything which you could go out and touch with your hands. He didn't concern himself with metaphysics. But what he did do was provide an extraordinary model for how to understand and interact with whatever it is that does exist. This is excellent science. Poor metaphysics; but excellent science.

It seems to me this confusion is commonly made these days, and perhaps has come up in this conversation.


As for non-existence,the thing is I don´t look easy towards those who actually think they can make it look as if it was scientifical in the first place.

Yes. I understand what you mean here and agree completely. I also agree that this is fairly common.

The only thing I would add is that I have also commonly encountered the opposite phenomenon: of people incorrectly applying science to disprove something, rather than to prove it. I think we have to be equally on guard for both errors.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Well thought-out and well written reply.. central to the issue is the first of your comments relating to science being "the only valid method" for gathering information.. What many people overlook is that science is usually applied after a creative insight or subjective theory matures into conceptual reality.. Science itself is the by-product of conjecture and the desire to know more than is known..

Kudos on the statement asserting that even science has agendas.. and, even the agenda of having no agendas will frequently mask the obvious in favor of the "blind"..

The most frequently misused concept is that humans are endowed with senses and sensing apparatus that encompass all that IS, that IS not so.. a flawed human trait is to confine the universe to the limits of our own perceptions.. worse, is to assume that the measurement defines the object..

Aside from that, the original question regarding "side effects of QiGong" seems to have gotten hijacked by the flogged equine cadaver of: Qi, real or not..

Be Well..

[GLW]

Bob,

it always amazes me how the argument of Qi being real or not sidetracks so many discussions on things being beneficial of not.

The idea of Qi and Jing Luo can be viewed as either real or a logical construct.

If it is real, the behavior is the same as outlined in Traditional Chinese Medicine...for the most part.

If it is a construct, the behavior is the same as outlined in Traditional ChineseMedicine...for the most part...

So you end up at the same point.

Then you get to the question of "Is Qi Gong effective" and things like "Is acupuncture effective"

The answer to both of those questions has been shown to be YES - for certain ailments, disorders, and such.

For Qi Gong practice, what is involved?

Breathing - then there are certain movements, postures, or still varieties.

What happens?

The mind calms.
The level of oxygen in the blood goes up
The blood vessels dilate.

Then, depending on the posture or movement, you can impede or aid the flow of blood to an area of the body or even a group of organs in the body.

This is all without even talking about the idea of an energy force called Qi.

Now, since you are affecting the oxygen level and blood flow in the body, you are also affecting the PH of the body or areas of the body as well as the endorphines, and other chemical agents in the body.

Research in biofeedback has shown that even white mice can be trained to do things like raise the blood pressure in one ear and lower it in another.

Humans are much more easily trained...

So given all that, without even examining the idea of Qi, when you practice Qi Gong, you are messing around with your body chemistry, blood flow, blood pressure...

Hmmmm....that pretty much describes a lot of physical endeavors.

So, as there are positive benefits from exercise and there are forms of exercise that are more beneficial than others ...and that are more harmful than others, it is not that big of a stretch to realize that there can be postive AND negative effects from Qi Gong practice.

The REASONS for those affects may be disputed...you could even say that the bad effects are due to invisible gremlins as well...but the why does not affect the fact that the affect is there.

The key then is to try to categorize practices in Qi Gong that lead to positive affects as well as categorize and avoid practices that can be shown to lead to negative affects.

The real problem is that people vary so the systemization can get really sticky.

[Former castleva]

"I would further add to this discussion that I believe we should keep in mind that science is not metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of the literal existance of reality. Science isn't. If someone asks you if science "believes such-and-such exists", to be completely accurate, you should respond "science has nothing to do with proofs of what exists." Science is a methodology we use to understand our interactions with reality; this is a very different thing than trying to determine what reality fundamentally is. Science will prefer those models that best help us understand and interact with reality over those models that specify with more accuracy what "actually exists." Many concepts from science are not "ontological" - that is, it's not suggested they actualy exist in the metaphysical sense. Rather, they are elements which help our interaction and understanding."

Yeah.Little do I have to say about metaphysics.
As you seem to have understood,my comments relate more to such phenomena as "water has memory!" rather than this,if you get what I mean.

"A perfect example who you seem to like would be Darwin. Darwin didn't posit anything which you could go out and touch with your hands. He didn't concern himself with metaphysics. But what he did do was provide an extraordinary model for how to understand and interact with whatever it is that does exist. This is excellent science. Poor metaphysics; but excellent science."

What I think he did,was to remove the need for a bag of metaphysical mythology.So nothing to do with metaphysics,sure.
I´m not entirely sure what you mean by "go out and touch" but I sure disagree that you can´t.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Former castleva
I´m not entirely sure what you mean by "go out and touch" but I sure disagree that you can´t.

As the first example that comes to mind: consider the Darwinian concept of fitness, which is a "quantity" regularly "measured" by population geneticists. Does it actually exist?

[Former castleva]

There is no quick&easy description for fitness.
It certainly exists but what fitness is,can only be desribed by looking at the whole picture.

Natural selection,which is actually the central principle in classic terms,can be tested by going out.

[Christopher M]

Absolutely.

My point is only that the elements Darwinians discuss aren't "ontological." They don't have literal existance.

You can't go out and find Darwinian fitness anywhere.

It's a concept which helps us understand and interact with the world; but it has no real existance - you can't "go out and touch it" as I said earlier.

[Former castleva]

"You can't go out and find Darwinian fitness anywhere."

Sort of a word game,don´t you think?

Anyway,I agree in certain ways.
Naturally enough,this is not where the field ends at.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Former castleva
Sort of a word game,don´t you think?

No. How so?

[Former castleva]

Just forget it. :)
Not important.