Debunk My Spiritual Bullshit!

[NotBlinded]

The predecessors of modern science, such as Descartes, all presupposed a mechanistic world.

I think that this is largely correct HadouKen. But I think that we are beginning to see that the West is slowly waking up to the fact that there is something wrong with the mechanistic picture.

Yes indeed. This mechanistic, god-breathed artifact has been around long enough as a stand-alone understanding, IMO. It's really no coincidence that Jesus was the son of a "carpenter". Gotta love mythology!

 

When people started to reject the notion that God created the earth as a carpenter created a table, they went to the other extreme and removed the notion of God completely. The idea that there was no life at all in the "rock" known as the earth in the beginning was still held, but now the earth became nothing but a well-oiled machine that was mindless and stupid with the added problem of no carpenter.

 

When you take Aristotle's four areas of cause, science usually pushes aside the formal, or formative, and final cause when trying to explain origins (without a carpenter!). Only the material and efficient causes can be studied by science which gives only a description rather than an explanation.

 

I'm not saying there is a carpenter, but I am saying that the universe is an organism that produces life. The life needs to be seen in the earth instead of removing it and placing it in the hands of a god in the sky, IMO. There is a constant breathing of life, but it doesn't come from some old man that's turning blue in the face while trying to keep the breath flowing. There is truth in that, IMO, but not literally of course.

[Grandpa Harley]

I'm being stubborn since I don't like your tone... and no you're nowhere near... Petty? Hell yeah!

[Grandpa Harley]

"I've never heard anyone criticize Randi for that. I've heard them criticize him for his insulting attitude, for misleading or blatantly incorrect statements (i.e., lying), for his fraudulent million dollar prize competition, and on and on. But I don't believe I've ever heard anyone criticize him for the use of control groups and the double blind method."

 

I criticise Randi for paying a lot of lip-service to 'Scientific Method' without ever actually applying in a meaningful way. You know, like Christians apply lip-service to loving everyone...

[Grandpa Harley]

update - are you referring to Dr. Alva Irish? C'mon dude, YOU are the homeopathy proponent here - you could have mentioned it was a person not a country. Still - I can't find where this person was ever a doubter of homeopathy, nor of any study she performed attempting to disprove it....

God NO!!!!

[trashy]

Science has always presumed, in the name of reason and logic, to say that things like ghosts don't work, and that there is no such thing as ESP. Unfortunately, it never followed its own method in doing so. It is only in the last fifty years that we are beginning to see real work done in these subjects, and it has faced a great deal of opposition, not from a standpoint of rational neutrality, but from the untested assumption that such things simply don't happen.

You are right in that reasonable and logical people generally do not believe in ghosts or ESP. But don't call it untested assumption. For cryin' out loud, people have been testing and debunking this crap for decades, most notably starting with Houdini, although I suspect he wasn't the first.

 

I've never heard anyone criticize Randi for that. I've heard them criticize him for his insulting attitude, for misleading or blatantly incorrect statements (i.e., lying), for his fraudulent million dollar prize competition, and on and on. But I don't believe I've ever heard anyone criticize him for the use of control groups and the double blind method.

Well, if you criticize his prize offer then you are criticizing his reliance on testing, because that's all it is. When you say it is fraudulent you are merely repeating the complaints of con artists and hucksters and sad little true believers. Because control groups and double blind studies debunk paranormal claims every time. The recent Prayer Study funded by Templeton comes to mind.

 

Perhaps we should start a new thread?

[Grandpa Harley]

Science has always presumed, in the name of reason and logic, to say that things like ghosts don't work, and that there is no such thing as ESP. Unfortunately, it never followed its own method in doing so. It is only in the last fifty years that we are beginning to see real work done in these subjects, and it has faced a great deal of opposition, not from a standpoint of rational neutrality, but from the untested assumption that such things simply don't happen.

You are right in that reasonable and logical people generally do not believe in ghosts or ESP. But don't call it untested assumption. For cryin' out loud, people have been testing and debunking this crap for decades, most notably starting with Houdini, although I suspect he wasn't the first.

 

I've never heard anyone criticize Randi for that. I've heard them criticize him for his insulting attitude, for misleading or blatantly incorrect statements (i.e., lying), for his fraudulent million dollar prize competition, and on and on. But I don't believe I've ever heard anyone criticize him for the use of control groups and the double blind method.

Well, if you criticize his prize offer then you are criticizing his reliance on testing, because that's all it is. When you say it is fraudulent you are merely repeating the complaints of con artists and hucksters and sad little true believers. Because control groups and double blind studies debunk paranormal claims every time. The recent Prayer Study funded by Templeton comes to mind.

 

Perhaps we should start a new thread?

Hoo boy... and I'm selling Colorado Sea front...

 

Since you like proof soooo much, why don't you all discount ALL of the objections one by one with out using Iron Rod's material? Hmmm?

[trashy]

I'm being stubborn since I don't like your tone... and no you're nowhere near... Petty? Hell yeah!

OK, your stubbornness is duly noted, as is your refusal to present this so-far non-existent study you have referred to.

 

I really don't intend to be so 'over the top' on this, but I admit it gets my goat, so to speak. Call it a pet peeve.

 

Tell ya what, I'll drop a little story on you. Maybe it will shed light on my psyche (or not).

 

Back when I was still a good little bible-thumping Charismaniac Randi just plain pissed me off. He definitely came across as arrogant and smug. But when I saw the light regarding Charismatic beliefs his experience with palm reading and illusion and such helped me a lot. But I still couldn't read much of his material because he was obviously anti-religion! So while I appreciated some of his work, especially related to psychics and such, much of his attitude still rubbed me the wrong way.

 

Sounding familiar yet?

 

When I freed my mind from the manacles of religion I discovered that I had basically come into line with most things Randi, and amazingly enough he no longer bothered me. His seeming arrogance is evidently born out of a long history of having to explain the same thing over and over, and probably from a sense of frustration at the gullibility of his fellow man.

 

I see many similarities between my former beliefs in the entire Christian mythology and the way people believe in the paranormal. They both appear to me to be equally faith-based while encouraging the utmost fanaticism in their followers. It seems I can no more reason with a rabid fundy Charismatic railing on about the gift of healing than I can a true believer in homeopathy.

 

My first experience with homeopathy was in the last church I attended, where I led worship for five years. A woman came down with cancer which she eventually died from. At one point she experience a remission (probably due to the chemo she had been given) and yet she attributed it to her new homeopathic regimen. This gave her 'dealer' an intro to several people in church and I got to see the 'diagnosis' sessions in action. The test subject held a substance in one hand (salt, magnesium, potassium, vitamin b, whatever) while holding the index finger against the thumb in their *other* hand. The practicioner would then attempt to pry these fingers apart. The resulting strength or weakness of the subjects grip determined whether or not they were deficient in the mineral held in the other hand! It also didn't matter if the substance was in raw form or capsule, it was supposed to work either way. (this is technically Applied Kinesiology, not homeopathy, but the supplements she was given were) Before she died this woman ended up paying thousands of dollars to the most shameless of all con artists all over North America, always traveling in search of a cure and never finding it.

 

As you might imagine, I have little patience with such.

[.god]

Can you though? It seems that the Wiki is just a news article cut and pasted in...

 

Rather like this one

 

can I what?

 

i'm not sure what you mean by it "seems" just to be a news article. Have you actually looked at the log/history of the edits for the fan death wiki page?

 

 

Yeah, east asia has a similar phenomenon of penis shrinkage known as "koro" or GRS (genital retraction syndrome) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_panic

To me there is a difference between mass hysteria breakouts as with GRS and a superstition that has been deeply ingrained into the society. There is as far as I've read, no mass hysteria over death by fans, nor is there any psychiatric drugs to take to alleviate the symptoms as there are with GRS, anxiety or panic attacks.

 

I would liken fan death to the western superstition of the number 13. The superstition of the number 13 is constantly propogated via the media in movies, by news stories, and by just our society. Growing up in the states you would truly think that there was something wrong with the number 13 as buildings lack a 13th floor, airplanes and trains lack a 13th aisle, you can't find the 13th room in a hotel nor the 13th suite of an apartment. Do people change their habits or actions based on superstitious beliefs over the number 13? I personally don't know, but I do think that in general westerners tend to be less superstitious than their eastern counterparts.

 

 

But to bring this back to the topic of Chi, an entire culture can embrace and revolve around the idea of "chi" but that doesn't prove "chi" to exist anymore then it would prove "chi" doesn't exist.

 

It's odd that while you state a result can be obtained in many different ways, that you would then go on to imply that Derren uses "snake oil" which seems to work, and that a stage hypnotist is a "freak show" (although I was referring to just general demonstrations of hypnosis, not all of which are as wacky as the examples I gave). So in your mindset it would seem, the only true and "honest" way to obtain such a result would be thru the power of "chi". Everyone else is just faking it, you can't say how, but they're being dishonest and sneaky.

 

Why does suggestion work so well? I've said it before, our minds are weak and fallible despite the fact that most people view their minds as a fortress of truth and infallability. And so for most, they do not see that the emperor wears no clothes, and thus do not bother to cloth his vunerable body.

 

 

So are you ever going to point us to these studies you keep rattling off? I'd really like to read them and explore them in depth.

I know the religious are all about withholding information, but scientific inquiry is about investigating all data no matter how unusual it may seem, and if you're not going to bother "revealing" any of your "hard work" then I can only assume you have something to hide.

[.god]

man oh man, why did I ever bring up Randi

 

so I read some of the stuff on his website ( i recently discovered it when looking up info about negative ions, tourmaline and magentic healing for a friend). It's interesting, so sue me

does that make me a Randi fanatic?

 

when you've got pet names for him and run around ranting about his the "lies" and his "material" that really detracts from the credibility of the rest of your statements

 

 

so are you saying grandpa, that you don't believe scientific experiments and studies should be conducted in a double blind fashion when possible? that biases due to the interactions between our fallible and yet very powerful minds should not be kept out of the experiment whenever possible?

[Grandpa Harley]

"Iron Rod" is his nick for himself while cottaging

 

As to the rest, suck it up... Randi is no benchmark. To extol his virtues is simply the sign of a soft mind rather than hard science.

[Grandpa Harley]

Can you though? It seems that the Wiki is just a news article cut and pasted in...

 

Rather like this one

 

can I what?

 

i'm not sure what you mean by it "seems" just to be a news article. Have you actually looked at the log/history of the edits for the fan death wiki page?

 

 

Yeah, east asia has a similar phenomenon of penis shrinkage known as "koro" or GRS (genital retraction syndrome) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_panic

To me there is a difference between mass hysteria breakouts as with GRS and a superstition that has been deeply ingrained into the society. There is as far as I've read, no mass hysteria over death by fans, nor is there any psychiatric drugs to take to alleviate the symptoms as there are with GRS, anxiety or panic attacks.

 

I would liken fan death to the western superstition of the number 13. The superstition of the number 13 is constantly propogated via the media in movies, by news stories, and by just our society. Growing up in the states you would truly think that there was something wrong with the number 13 as buildings lack a 13th floor, airplanes and trains lack a 13th aisle, you can't find the 13th room in a hotel nor the 13th suite of an apartment. Do people change their habits or actions based on superstitious beliefs over the number 13? I personally don't know, but I do think that in general westerners tend to be less superstitious than their eastern counterparts.

 

 

But to bring this back to the topic of Chi, an entire culture can embrace and revolve around the idea of "chi" but that doesn't prove "chi" to exist anymore then it would prove "chi" doesn't exist.

 

It's odd that while you state a result can be obtained in many different ways, that you would then go on to imply that Derren uses "snake oil" which seems to work, and that a stage hypnotist is a "freak show" (although I was referring to just general demonstrations of hypnosis, not all of which are as wacky as the examples I gave). So in your mindset it would seem, the only true and "honest" way to obtain such a result would be thru the power of "chi". Everyone else is just faking it, you can't say how, but they're being dishonest and sneaky.

 

Why does suggestion work so well? I've said it before, our minds are weak and fallible despite the fact that most people view their minds as a fortress of truth and infallability. And so for most, they do not see that the emperor wears no clothes, and thus do not bother to cloth his vunerable body.

 

 

So are you ever going to point us to these studies you keep rattling off? I'd really like to read them and explore them in depth.

I know the religious are all about withholding information, but scientific inquiry is about investigating all data no matter how unusual it may seem, and if you're not going to bother "revealing" any of your "hard work" then I can only assume you have something to hide.

 

Feel free to assume what you want. Trashy queered the pitch, so I think I'll just let you wallow... Feel free to bait, I'll simply troll back at you... since that's all you and the Texas Trash can can offer... Why bother with the thyrodally challenged?

[Grandpa Harley]

I'm being stubborn since I don't like your tone... and no you're nowhere near... Petty? Hell yeah!

OK, your stubbornness is duly noted, as is your refusal to present this so-far non-existent study you have referred to.

 

I really don't intend to be so 'over the top' on this, but I admit it gets my goat, so to speak. Call it a pet peeve.

 

Tell ya what, I'll drop a little story on you. Maybe it will shed light on my psyche (or not).

 

Back when I was still a good little bible-thumping Charismaniac Randi just plain pissed me off. He definitely came across as arrogant and smug. But when I saw the light regarding Charismatic beliefs his experience with palm reading and illusion and such helped me a lot. But I still couldn't read much of his material because he was obviously anti-religion! So while I appreciated some of his work, especially related to psychics and such, much of his attitude still rubbed me the wrong way.

 

Sounding familiar yet?

 

When I freed my mind from the manacles of religion I discovered that I had basically come into line with most things Randi, and amazingly enough he no longer bothered me. His seeming arrogance is evidently born out of a long history of having to explain the same thing over and over, and probably from a sense of frustration at the gullibility of his fellow man.

 

I see many similarities between my former beliefs in the entire Christian mythology and the way people believe in the paranormal. They both appear to me to be equally faith-based while encouraging the utmost fanaticism in their followers. It seems I can no more reason with a rabid fundy Charismatic railing on about the gift of healing than I can a true believer in homeopathy.

 

My first experience with homeopathy was in the last church I attended, where I led worship for five years. A woman came down with cancer which she eventually died from. At one point she experience a remission (probably due to the chemo she had been given) and yet she attributed it to her new homeopathic regimen. This gave her 'dealer' an intro to several people in church and I got to see the 'diagnosis' sessions in action. The test subject held a substance in one hand (salt, magnesium, potassium, vitamin b, whatever) while holding the index finger against the thumb in their *other* hand. The practicioner would then attempt to pry these fingers apart. The resulting strength or weakness of the subjects grip determined whether or not they were deficient in the mineral held in the other hand! It also didn't matter if the substance was in raw form or capsule, it was supposed to work either way. (this is technically Applied Kinesiology, not homeopathy, but the supplements she was given were) Before she died this woman ended up paying thousands of dollars to the most shameless of all con artists all over North America, always traveling in search of a cure and never finding it.

 

As you might imagine, I have little patience with such.

1) You came out with editorial reather than simply asked so you've pissed you chance of my 'playing nice'

 

2) Your neuroses are duly noted, and frankly, they're your problem and not mine

 

3) If you're so fence post dumb you can't find the study, it's not my problem, it just goes toward my opinion of Texans... suck it up big boy!

[.god]

Feel free to assume what you want. Trashy queered the pitch, so I think I'll just let you wallow... Feel free to bait, I'll simply troll back at you... since that's all you and the Texas Trash can can offer... Why bother with the thyrodally challenged?

 

well, if you want to play the stubborn little kid, and if it gets you off some how to withhold information from the rest of us, that's your perrogative. I'm sorry that our somewhat vacuous discussion must end here then if you don't with to enlighten me

 

i 'm not sure where you get the idea that randi should be used as a "benchmark" for anything anyway.

 

i was really hoping for some interesting information being presented but too often your terse ornery posts just dissolve into "nya nya nya".. perhaps i expect too much

[Grandpa Harley]

Little kid? That the best you can do? Oh dear... I like the edit btw... it proves the point that in this case you are actually just vacuous as you claim... Ho hum. Fifty thousand years of Human evolution was something that happened to other people, wasn't it?

[Legion]

When you take Aristotle's four areas of cause, science usually pushes aside the formal, or formative, and final cause when trying to explain origins (without a carpenter!). Only the material and efficient causes can be studied by science which gives only a description rather than an explanation.

Fantastic NBBTB! If I didn't know better I would say that you've been reading some of Rosen's work. He predicted that a shift would occur in the sciences from a concetration on material and efficient causes towards a concentration on formal and final causes.

 

Of course the best way to predict the future is to create it. And Rosen, being the ardent biologist that he was, took some steps in the direction of that shift.

 

I am becoming ever more convinced that an understanding of the organic world will expose the weakness inherent in a purely mechanistic picture. As my understanding grows I look forward to a time when I will be able to both declare and expain why, I am not a machine.

[trashy]

Little kid? That the best you can do? Oh dear... I like the edit btw... it proves the point that in this case you are actually just vacuous as you claim... Ho hum. Fifty thousand years of Human evolution was something that happened to other people, wasn't it?

What, "disagree with me and I shall taunt you a second time" ? That's all you got? Texas Trash? Oh - stop - my ribs hurt from........

 

*sigh*

 

You want to discuss this further, lemme know - we can do a separate thread.

[HadouKen24]

You are right in that reasonable and logical people generally do not believe in ghosts or ESP. But don't call it untested assumption. For cryin' out loud, people have been testing and debunking this crap for decades, most notably starting with Houdini, although I suspect he wasn't the first.

 

Did I say "reasonable and logical people?" I don't believe I did. To be sure, those who reject the existence of ghosts and ESP do so in the name of reason and logic. My point is, however, that this is a cloak for the real reasons behind the rejection--dogma about what it means to say that something is physical.

 

I wouldn't call most of the "testing and debunking" that goes on scientific. Houdini was certainly no scientist, and on at least one occasion had his assistant plant evidence with the equipment of a medium he was investigating. To be sure, the skeptical side has done some legitimate tests, and they've served a valuable role in showing up con artists and other phonies. However, from what I've seen, much of the "debunking" is done on high profile, but poorly credentialed, subjects. Acupuncture, homeopathy, chi mastery, etc., are all things that require training and skill. If you're going to test these things, you should go for the most capable, not the ones who are the best at being showmen and manipulating the media, such as Sylvia Browne and John Edwards.

 

Well, if you criticize his prize offer then you are criticizing his reliance on testing, because that's all it is. When you say it is fraudulent you are merely repeating the complaints of con artists and hucksters and sad little true believers. Because control groups and double blind studies debunk paranormal claims every time. The recent Prayer Study funded by Templeton comes to mind.

 

You haven't been paying attention to my criticism of his prize offer, have you? I have not criticized his reliance on testing. I have criticized the way he goes about the testing, the way one qualifies even to be tested, and the legitimacy of the prize itself. To qualify, you have to get the approval of a "representative." There are no controls whatsoever on this representative; they can reject applicants at will. Now one has to have some sort of media presence to even qualify. Moreover, there have been questions raised about the legitimacy of the $1,000,000 prize. It is in bonds, not cash, which means that, even though the bonds might technically value $1,000,000 dollars, it's also possible that they are worth less than the paper they're printed on. JREF has been recalcitrant to answer these concerns.

 

Moreover, I do not believe that it is true that well-designed studies always debunk paranormal claims. What about the ganzfeld studies? They showed that people were able to correctly identify the target about 35% of the time, versus the expected 25%. The studies were revised due to legitimate concerns--the targets were selected via computer to ensure proper randomization, the rooms were sound-proofed, professional magicians were consulted to minimize possible cheating, etc.--and people off the street were still able to correctly identify the target about %35 of the time. Also, there have been many studies supporting homeopathy, as Grandpa Harley pointed out. I'm afraid that if you're having trouble finding them, I have to agree with his assessment that you either just aren't looking very hard, or aren't very good at using Google. I've found several just in the last few minutes.

 

Just to help you out, the Irish study was run by Madeleine Ennis--someone who staunchly opposed homeopathy, and ran the study precisely in order to try to disprove it.

[Grandpa Harley]

Little kid? That the best you can do? Oh dear... I like the edit btw... it proves the point that in this case you are actually just vacuous as you claim... Ho hum. Fifty thousand years of Human evolution was something that happened to other people, wasn't it?

What, "disagree with me and I shall taunt you a second time" ? That's all you got? Texas Trash? Oh - stop - my ribs hurt from........

 

*sigh*

 

You want to discuss this further, lemme know - we can do a separate thread.

Discuss with someone who opens with an insult to my intelligence? I'd sooner plunge heated needles into my eyes... and I called you the Texas Trash Can... Please get the insults correct. You think you deserve better, try another window... I dumbed it down especially...

[Grandpa Harley]

Just to help you out, the Irish study was run by Madeleine Ennis--someone who staunchly opposed homoeopathy, and ran the study precisely in order to try to disprove it.

 

Well, that was hard, and evidently beyond the wit of mortal man... Now, can someone translate the article to little words... we're dealing with someone who seems unable to get a three word phrase correct.

[trashy]

Did I say "reasonable and logical people?" I don't believe I did. To be sure, those who reject the existence of ghosts and ESP do so in the name of reason and logic. My point is, however, that this is a cloak for the real reasons behind the rejection--dogma about what it means to say that something is physical.

I'm sure that some are blinded by dogma on *both* sides of the debate.

 

I wouldn't call most of the "testing and debunking" that goes on scientific. Houdini was certainly no scientist, and on at least one occasion had his assistant plant evidence with the equipment of a medium he was investigating.

I've read a lot on Houdini and I don't recall this accusation about planting evidence. Quick Wikipedia and Google searches didn't help.....I would appreciate a link, even if it means giving you the chance to insult me and accuse me of not trying...

 

Moreover, I do not believe that it is true that well-designed studies always debunk paranormal claims. What about the ganzfeld studies?

The last I heard those studies had been proven to be statistically insignificant by Milton and Wiseman's meta-analysis...

 

Also, there have been many studies supporting homeopathy, as Grandpa Harley pointed out. I'm afraid that if you're having trouble finding them, I have to agree with his assessment that you either just aren't looking very hard, or aren't very good at using Google. I've found several just in the last few minutes.

Well, I was specifically looking for the Irish studies, not homeopathic studies in general...

 

Just to help you out, the Irish study was run by Madeleine Ennis--someone who staunchly opposed homeopathy, and ran the study precisely in order to try to disprove it.

From what I've read her opposition to homeopathy is undocumented, but either way her results were unreproducible by the BBC Horizon

 

By the way, thanks for FINALLY giving me a damn clue who or what we were discussing here. Was it really that f***ing difficult? Sheesh.....you guys are killin' me...

[trashy]

Discuss with someone who opens with an insult to my intelligence? I'd sooner plunge heated needles into my eyes... and I called you the Texas Trash Can... Please get the insults correct. You think you deserve better, try another window... I dumbed it down especially...

I did not intend to insult you. I apologize for the initial condescending statement.

[trashy]

Just to help you out, the Irish study was run by Madeleine Ennis--someone who staunchly opposed homoeopathy, and ran the study precisely in order to try to disprove it.

 

Well, that was hard, and evidently beyond the wit of mortal man... Now, can someone translate the article to little words... we're dealing with someone who seems unable to get a three word phrase correct.

You must confuse me for a mind-reader if you still insist that I should have found that. I'll spare you the details of my extensive history of internet usage and general research experience levels.

[.god]

wow, grandpa sure is the little troll isn't he. I never really expected that from browsing this site before except from the occasional hit and run christian, but it just goes to demonstrate that post count has nothing to do with actual contribution huh.. seriously. sorry, not. worth. the. time.

[.god]

on topic though, i guess the basic issue i have with "chi" is that it is being used as an explanatory device for what was not well understood in the past. Similar to how christians used and still use "god" to explain the parts of the world that they did not understand.

 

"chi" becomes the "life-force/life-energy" that is used to explain how a person may set things on fire, generate heat within their bodies, how acupuncture works, how chi gong works, why feng shui works, how a no-touch martial artist fights, how chinese medicine works, etc.

 

just as the concept of "god" or "gods" have been used to explain the weather, natural disasters, bumps in the night, success, failure, origin of life, death, morals, etc, etc.

 

the danger then is that these catch-all explanations ("that's the power of chi" or "god did it") become the end of the road. Further inquiry, investigation and exploration is discouraged.

 

"Look," they say, "it's the power of chi!"

Wonderous no? That you can harness the power of chi to defend yourself from martial artists, you can set items on fire without touching them, you can harmonize your body with its mastery, you can arrange your furniture or office so capitalize on the power of chi to improve your well-being/increase wealth/bear children!

 

Instead I say, no, look beyond the blanket explanation of "chi" for so many varied phenomena. There is so much there for deeper exploration, the suggestibility of the mind, the ability to influence our biological bodies with our own minds, our sense and understanding of the spaces we live in and lighting.

 

The idea of "chi" flowing thru the house, reflected from a mirror, swooping around furniture, blocked by a table, exiting thru the front door.. is an outdated concept to explain what someone "felt" but did not really understand.

It is an idea based on an emotion you feel, but did not understand well enough to truly explain.

 

Being an artist, here is my art related example:

Take for example an aspiring artist. He paints beautiful oil paintings. But he's not really sure how exactly his paintings are beautiful. He paints by feeling, pushing paint around until it looks "right" to him. He doesn't know why it looks right, it just does. He attributes is to "channeling his artistic energies" or his "muse" but that doesn't really serve much as an explanation does it. Maybe he has to go thru the same exercises or motions to achieve the result, and when he ends in a failure with a painting that just doesn't work, he cannot explain why either. Perhaps he has failed to "channel his artistic energy" but that is really no explanation at all.

 

Then there is another aspiring painter, and she has studied and explored different areas of color, composition, drafting, perspective, chemistry of paint, photography, film, anatomy, design, and more. She paints beautiful paintings as well, and she explains to him why his paintings are not working. That balance of color is off, that his perspective is not quite right, or how to make the figure look more convincing by understanding the underlying anatomy, why rembrandt's portraits are lit w/ 11 oclock lighting and why that flatters the face, why his composition might be subtly off with too much emptiness in that corner, and so on. And armed with this new understanding he can now produce even better paintings more consistently.

 

That might be convoluted but I hope the gist of the analogy comes thru. It's similar to film and movies. The audience feels the emotional impact of the film, but they most likely do not quite grasp the manipulation of the camera, the lens choice, depth of field, motion, editing of cuts/transition, sound, lighting, effects and other factors that all contributed to that "feeling". The audience will come out and go "wow, that was scary" or "emotional" or "sad" but the aspiring film maker will be asking "how, why, and how can i reproduce that feeling consistently?"

 

 

My problem with "chi" is that it is claimed as the end explanation for a large variety of phenomenon, an I'm saying "look, chi is a temporary blanket term for what early eastern cultures didn't understand, let's dig deeper and find out what's really causing this phenomena."

[.god]

interestingly, wiki mentions this about "qi":

 

Views of qi as an esoteric "force" tend to be more prominent in the West, where it has sometimes been associated with New Age spiritualism. These views are less prominent in modern communist China, where traditional Chinese medicine is often practiced and considered effective, but in which esoteric notions of qi are considered to contradict Marxist notions of dialectic materialism. China's current government in fact formally embraces anti-spiritual atheism. Many traditional martial arts schools also eschew a supernatural approach to the issue, identifying "external qi" or "internal qi" as representative of the varying leverage principles used to improve the efficacy of a well-trained, healthier than normal body with a given work load.