Gene Ching Believes in No Touch Knockouts?

[KenGullette]

Hi,
I read the article with great interest in the new issue of Kung Fu/Qigong magazine -- the one in which Gene undergoes the "no-touch knockout" challenge.

Gene makes the comment (and I don't have the magazine with me at the moment so I'll paraphrase): in order to do kung fu you must believe in chi.

Gene, that is simply wrong. Chen Xiaowang, who is one of the most highly regarded tai chi masters in the world today, the grandson of Chen Fake and the descendant of Chen Wangting, says you do NOT need to believe in chi in order to do good tai chi.

I'm not being disrespectful here, but I would like to know why you think that belief in chi is required? Using chi as a concept is one thing -- but to actually require belief in this outdated scientific concept is another matter.

I submit that in order to do good kung fu, you need a qualified teacher who can teach the proper body mechanics. In Chen tai chi, for example, that begins with silk-reeling exercises, learning to open and close, learning to center the stance, shift the weight properly, rotate the dan t'ien -- all physical endeavors that require no belief in chi -- just a lot of practice.

Now, regarding the challenge that you undertook, since you already believe in the "no-touch knockout" I believe you were biased. Even though you weren't knocked out, I believe you were receptive to the idea, and that's why things went "buzzy."

I would love to undergo the same demonstration. So far, all alleged chi "masters" I've asked to do a demo have backed down. Perhaps because it only has a ghost of a chance to work even slightly (a "buzz") on those who already are receptive.

[Merryprankster]

Even that would be inconclusive.

You need a double blind study. The persons being touched or not touched are not to be told what they might experience... the persons recording the results cannot be told what to look for.

[DelicateSound]

Hasn't the James Randi Skeptics Organisation out out $1m for this kind of thing.

Give it a shot Rich, who knows.....

[Royal Dragon]

Whether or not you believe in Chi is irrelevant, if you don't have it, your dead.

Now, as what you can do or not do with it, is another topic all together.

[Merryprankster]

Chi is real because??

Better yet, define it.

[KenGullette]

Actually, Richard Mooney, who was given a multi-page free ad by Kung Fu/Qigong magazine earlier this year, was tested in a double-blind study by an M.D. and a Ph.D.

He completely failed. You can read about it at
http://www.uechi-ryu.com/an_empty_force.htm

I am simply curious. I don't believe in it and I really would like one of the proponents of no-touch knockout to do it to me. I'll fly anywhere in the country for this demo as long as I can videotape it. I would be very impressed if I was only made to feel "buzzy" -- I don't even need to be knocked out. What a story that would be! Convince the skeptic! It could be a headline on the cover of the magazine!!

Heck, it would also make a great headline if this claim could pass just ONE double-blind study.

Gentlemen, we cannot knock other people out without touching them. It is impossible. Who are these guys kidding? The gullible folks who are looking for magic and will pay money for a seminar, or themselves?

[Shadow Dragon]

Ken.

I can knock you out by using "Chi" at 2 meters.
And I can promise you that not one of my bodyparts will touch you.

Ok, stand there, close your Eyes.

While I hurl my pet-rock called "Chi" at your Head.

See, I can knock people out without touching them using only "Chi".

Peace.

[Merryprankster]

Ah--brilliant. Here is the crux of the issue:

It is not the responsibility of investigators to disprove an extraordinary phenomenon. Proponents must provide evidence. This experiment underscores the need for a scientific process. In removing confounding influences, the double-blind study suggests how these effects occur without proper controls.

It is not up to people to DISPROVE chi. It's up to those who wish to show it exists and that its effects are demonstrable to prove it.

Occam's razor folks--The most mundane explanation that fits the results is more likely to be true than the others. If I can explain something in terms of body mechanics or biochemistry, that takes precendence over an unprovable chi manipulation or imbalance.

Belief in the existence of Chi is faith, not fact, until shown otherwise.

[Braden]

Mostly offtopic, Occam's Razor is more accurately described as 'we should not assume more things than are necessary to describe a phenomenon.'

[Merryprankster]

That's hardly offtopic. Your description is more accurate than mine--however, I thought this particular extension of the logic to be more suitable, in the sense that chi is another "thing," when it can be explained by more established (IE, proven) means.

[Braden]

Well, in my view, things like 'biochemistry' are just analogies to understand reality. In my view, science is the process of using the scientific method to establish more accurate analogies of reality. (As opposed to the process of determining the utter truth of what reality entails - which, in my view, is called metaphysics)Thus, 'mundane' is too loaded a concept for scientists to use. 'Chi', assuming it was a consistent theory, would be equally appropriate to consider as a scientific theory as 'biochemistry,' regardless of subjective concerns just as mundane-ness vs mystical-ness. One of the ways to compare such a 'chi' model vs a 'biochemistry' model would be Occam's Razor - comparing how much 'stuff' each model assumes.

I called it off-topic, as I didn't mean to imply that 'chi' WAS a consistent theory. And also because I didn't mean to conclude from my comment that anything concluded from YOUR comment was wrong. I just wanted to comment because so many people incorrectly use Occam's Razor, and conclude things which ARE inappropriate. Kind of a pet peeve.

[Merryprankster]

Agreed. Mundaneness is loaded IF we provide Chi and Biochemistry a level playing field as objects to apply the razor to. However, as you so aptly pointed out, since one is so far unprovable, and the other is an entire field of study composed of certain things borne out by concrete evidence, I think mundane is a suitable word...

Semantics--and in this case, not too important since we both understand the gist of the other.

However, your definition of Occam's Razor is far more technically correct than the one I provided.

[diego]

ice cream is good with chocolate and bannanas

[Serpent]

Oh yeah? Prove it!

[diego]

http://www.wutangworld.com/forum/attachment.php?