More John Chang Disbelievers!

[voidisyinyang]

I love reading these science blogs where they totally freak:

 

That's impossible!

 

Must be:

 

mass hypnosis

 

or the video crew is in on the scam

 

or sleight of hand

 

or....

 

anything but that last possible option:

 

IT'S REAL!!

 

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=13757

 

Oh but how could it be real?

 

Maybe...

 

just maybe actually study the tradition it comes from?

 

NO that wouldn't be scientific to study a nonwestern tradition!!

 

haha.

 

People crack me up -- "scientists."

 

So confident. So close-minded. So sad.

[xyz]

im sorry but what would looking into the tradition prove? or did you mean being a student of the tradition? even then scientists would not be convinced

[voidisyinyang]

im sorry but what would looking into the tradition prove? or did you mean being a student of the tradition? even then scientists would not be convinced

 

Oh no I'm sorry! I meant actually doing the experiment! Science works by empirical evidence -- so you do the experiment! Of course the experiment is the alchemical training -- I used "Taoist Yoga: Alchemy and Immortality" translated by Charles Luk. I followed the book precisely -- and did the experiment -- on myself! haha.

 

That's the price of science -- if they're real scientists with real cajones.

 

Of course I'm joking. Still the Mayo Clinic medical doctors just verified the qigong of Chunyi Lin -- using double-blind standards.

[SFJane]

 

 

People crack me up -- "scientists."

 

So confident. So close-minded. So sad.

 

This attitude is part of the problem and not the solution. I find it detestable when people are so certain of their superiority. Your statement is common to what I've come to expect from some self professed Christians. I think that it is this attitude of contempt, the whole 'You are so intellectually pedestrian because you just refuse to 'get it' by making the virtuous leap of faith and thus wallow in your own ignorance" which is extremely close minded.

 

Science has it's flaws yes. Your ability to post your contempt for science online is due to scientific advancement that resulted form engineering and understanding how things work. It takes an open mind to wonder about and question why and how things work. It takes chutzpah to offer explanations counter to what the current groupthink is. See Galileo.

 

Good scientists are willing to alter their models when they find their conclusions are not supported by evidence. Not all scientists are good ones nor are scientists free from agendas and their own biases. No one ever said science was perfect. But at least science tries. It is my belief and my hope that science will someday be able to document chi meaningfully. It's only a matter of time.

 

I rewatched some of those JC vids and I especially disapprove of the newspaper ignition. It is such obvious trickery. If he had the ability to ignite newspaper it stands to reason he could also ignite other paper products. If I were testing JC I would let him do his newspaper trick and then offer him bathroom tissue, ruled notebook paper, paper towels or dried leaves.

 

A good test would be for him to ignite one paper or paper-like substance after another without handling them in advance or knowing what kind of substance he was going to handle. Let's see how many times he can do it. If he can only light newspaper that he has manipulated into certain shapes well then we have a problem with a staged trick rather than an actual power.

 

If random people handed him similar objects and he could ignite them one after another without fail in roughly the same amount of time I would have been impressed. Instead I felt I was robbed several moments of my life to watch a chemistry trick masquerading as psi.

Edited April 3, 2010 by SFJane

[voidisyinyang]

This attitude is part of the problem and not the solution. I find it detestable when people are so certain of their superiority. Your statement is common to what I've come to expect from some self professed Christians. I think that it is this attitude of contempt, the whole 'You are so intellectually pedestrian because you just refuse to 'get it' by making the virtuous leap of faith and thus wallow in your own ignorance" which is extremely close minded.

 

Science has it's flaws yes. Your ability to post your contempt for science online is due to scientific advancement that resulted form engineering and understanding how things work. It takes an open mind to wonder about and question why and how things work. It takes chutzpah to offer explanations counter to what the current groupthink is. See Galileo.

 

Good scientists are willing to alter their models when they find their conclusions are not supported by evidence. Not all scientists are good ones nor are scientists free from agendas and their own biases. No one ever said science was perfect. But at least science tries. It is my belief and my hope that science will someday be able to document chi meaningfully. It's only a matter of time.

 

I rewatched some of those JC vids and I especially disapprove of the newspaper ignition. It is such obvious trickery. If he had the ability to ignite newspaper it stands to reason he could also ignite other paper products. If I were testing JC I would let him do his newspaper trick and then offer him bathroom tissue, ruled notebook paper, paper towels or dried leaves.

 

A good test would be for him to ignite one paper or paper-like substance after another without handling them in advance or knowing what kind of substance he was going to handle. Let's see how many times he can do it. If he can only light newspaper that he has manipulated into certain shapes well then we have a problem with a staged trick rather than an actual power.

 

If random people handed him similar objects and he could ignite them one after another without fail in roughly the same amount of time I would have been impressed. Instead I felt I was robbed several moments of my life to watch a chemistry trick masquerading as psi.

 

Yeah science is fun in an apocalyptic kind of way. I call random "randy ohm."

[de_paradise]

Yeah science is fun in an apocalyptic kind of way. I call random "randy ohm."

 

[Fu_dog]

Oh well, I don't typically weigh in on the subject of science and spirituality, however, I will offer some perspective. Science can be inadequate as it relates to the spiritual, in that it's based on "proof" and logic.

 

The spiritual can't be proved by measurement or instrumentation, and it certainly isn't logical. If one is has had a spiritual experience, for example via qigong practice or mediation, then it is possible to know with certainty the existence of the spiritual via direct experience. In other words one can know it's true, however, it's nothing that can ever be proven. Or, put another way there is truth that can't be (or hasn't been) verified by science.

 

However, those who hang their hat on science may say if it can't be proven then it doesn't exist or isn't true. Even when faced with a true spiritual phenomenon, the disciple of science may rationalize it away saying they may have been mistaken with their observation, that what they saw is a hoax, etc.

 

Doestoevsky once said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "You tell me I am engaging in fantasy because I believe in God, and yet you with your science believe you can construct an ideal society base on logic alone. However, what you fail to see is you can use logic to justify anything. An ideal society based on logic alone? Now, which one of us is really engaged in fantasy?"

 

For science to hold out that something doesn't exist because it can't be proven is problematic. Science continues to develop better instrumentation, so that new things are discovered....often things they said were not real prior to the invention of the instrument of observation. So, a limitation of science itself is to some extent a limitation of the state of observation technology. As observation technology improves, science gradually acknowledges the existence of more phenomena.

 

Science to my mind can be a limiting philosophy. On the other hand, many will point out its benefits to mankind due to all the inventions that have come about "due to science". However, to my mind "science" to often takes credit for "discovery". They are not the same. Discovery is to a large degree independent of science.

 

All that said, I am at the point where it's fine with me where ever people want to land on the continuum between science and religion, because IMHO, neither side will move the other very far via debate.

[bindo]

Very nice post Fu_dog. It's like you're reading my mind, man!

[DaoChild]

I love reading these science blogs where they totally freak:

 

That's impossible!

 

Must be:

 

mass hypnosis

 

or the video crew is in on the scam

 

or sleight of hand

 

or....

 

anything but that last possible option:

 

IT'S REAL!!

 

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=13757

 

Oh but how could it be real?

 

Maybe...

 

just maybe actually study the tradition it comes from?

 

NO that wouldn't be scientific to study a nonwestern tradition!!

 

haha.

 

People crack me up -- "scientists."

 

So confident. So close-minded. So sad.

 

Who are you trying to convince? Us, or yourself?