NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/martial/16134

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!apple!mikel
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: More ki/qi/chi & science
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:45:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 60

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Chan x4485) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mikel Evins) writes:
>>Well then, they aren't purely subjective, are they?
>    Yep...that's kind of my point.

Then the only thing we are discussing is the possibility that qi
is objectively observable. In that case, making it interesting to
scientists is a matter of showing that there are observable
phenomena that are well-explained by qi. Personally, I have
never seen a description of qi specific enough to do this sort
of explaining, much less an evaluation of whether such a
description works to explain any particular phenomena.

>>Are you saying that qi is a phenomenon that has objectively observable
>>effects? If so, then the reference to subjectivity above is a
>>red herring, isn't it?
>
>    Exactly. My point (in the latter half of the message) is that
>subjective/objective is not a valid distinguishing characteristic for saying
>"X is a valid subject for scientific research". Scientists conjecture the
>existence of some unobserved causal agent, and then poke around trying to
>verify/disprove it's existence.

Then there is no such valid characteristic. Scientific research
depends epistemologically upon objectively observable data;
anything that is purely subjective is a priori disqualified
from scientific investigation. For example, shamanism, while
almost purely empirical in character, is centrally bound up with
purely subjective experience. Thus, while one can investigate
reports of shamanism in a scientific manner, one cannot 'do
shamanism' scientifically.

>    There is basically one assumption in my argument - that if you offer
>qi as a casual agent in some phenomena, most "rational" people will dismiss it
>without a "scientific" analysis and consider you a crackpot.

And I question your one assumption because it disagrees with
my experience of working with actual scientists. I guess we're
stuck with a disagreement over our opinions of other people's
likely behavior that is unresolvable unless one of us feels like
doing a scientific study of the question.

As for your comparison of ideas of qi to ideas about quantum physics,
I just don't think they are analogous concepts. The concepts of
things like quarks are consequences of very specific descriptions
of very specific phenomena, and the predicted entities are
logical consequences of specific explanatory theories. When the
predictions are tested in experiments, either they are confirmed
and the predicted entities are presumed to exist as described,
or they are disconfirmed and the predicting theories revised or
abandoned.

In the case of qi I have yet to see a theory of qi that made any
predictions that could be confirmed or disconfirmed. In terms
of philosophy of science that means that so far there is nothing
to investigate. That doesn't mean to me that there is no such
thing as qi, but it does mean that I'm not going to complain
about science being blinkered or prejudiced because it doesn't
investigate qi, at least until I'm ready to formulate a
description that it *can* investigate.