John Chang 'chi master'

[somnum]

Has anyone seen this video? I would like to know what you think of it.

youtube.com/watch?v=Aos0hnwiHt8

I can't give the direct link because I haven't made enough posts, just add a www if need be.

[Stray Cat]

Yes, Chang is a conman. Using Magic tricks.
Nothing to write home about.

[somnum]

Yes, Chang is a conman. Using Magic tricks.
Nothing to write home about.

So are all those people in the video in on the con too? Did you watch the entire thing?

For what it's worth I don't want to appear to be totally defending it. I am sceptical of it, but an argument like yours doesn't really seem to cut it.

[Stray Cat]

Sorry, I don't have time to go into it right now... look into the history of John Chang, he's well documented on the internet.
Look at the 'tricks' he does. Setting fires, giving electric shocks, sticking chop sticks through tables... all basic magic techniques used.

And yes, the guy making the film is a woo too... otherwise he wouldn't have been going to an acupuncturist to get his eye infection sorted out, he'd have gone to a real doctor.

This kind of Chi has been shown over and over to be non existent.

[somnum]

Oh ok could you point me to where he is discredited then? I could not find that information. Thanks.

There's decent science behind acupuncture, maybe not for infections though I don't know enough about it.

[Stray Cat]

Then you didn't look very far... Google "John Chang Debunked", you'll get a few hits with that search string.

Now about this 'decent science behind acupuncture'?

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Decent-Science.jpg

[somnum]

Here's one bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/2/151

Are you trying to make a legitimate point or are you just being snide now with that little graphic?

[somnum]

Here's more rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/6/887

possible mechanism anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/2/301

[SezMe]

Within the first 30 seconds of that video mention is made of "qi" which is known BS. After 90 seconds more of such BS I quit. Do you really not know what to think of it?

[Stray Cat]

Here's one bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/2/151

Are you trying to make a legitimate point or are you just being snide now with that little graphic?

Yes, I'm just being snide... it's what I do best. :)

But thanks for the link... sadly as time is short for me at the moment and my knowledge of Medicine is limited (and my knowledge of meta-analysis even more limited), We'll have to see if anyone else wants to take this up.

But for now, I'll say only that I'm not saying acupuncture doesn't work... My jury s still out on that one... just that the commonly held woo mechanism isn't what's causing it to work.

[LTC8K6]

All that "decent science" aside, the video is hilariously funny to me. Why would you, or anyone, believe it is anything other than old fashioned magic tricks?

[somnum]

Within the first 30 seconds of that video mention is made of "qi" which is known BS. After 90 seconds more of such BS I quit. Do you really not know what to think of it?

Well I know it has been documented that that monks can meditate and raise precise locations of body temperature. And since there are constant electric charges flowing through us, I don't see any physiological reason why it should be inherently impossible for someone to be able to cause little charges in a particular location of their body.

[Foolmewunz]

I seem to recall a certain bearded magician taking him down on an occasion or two....


http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/042007todd.html

I'd imagine we probably have a thread around here about him, but I couldn't locate one. Here's the job the Skeptics Forum did on him. Fourth or fifth post itemizes the tricks and possible explanations, somewhat.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8888

[Stray Cat]

Well I know it has been documented that that monks can meditate and raise precise locations of body temperature.

It has also been documented that a giant, slippery, aquatic monster lives in Lochness.

[Foolmewunz]

Sorry it took so long in the posting - I'm at work and purportedly doing other things - that I missed the additional posts.

Sonnum, have you said yet "I'm just asking questions". I do so love that part. :spjimlad::spjimlad:

[somnum]

It has also been documented that a giant, slippery, aquatic monster lives in Lochness.


news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04.18/09-tummo.html

or is harvard too 'out there' for you?

[somnum]

Within the first 30 seconds of that video mention is made of "qi" which is known BS. After 90 seconds more of such BS I quit. Do you really not know what to think of it?

Let's say I can jump higher than any other man alive. Let's say I think angels lift me up for the jump. That doesn't mean they do of course, but the fact that they don't doesn't mean I can't jump higher than anyone else.

[Stray Cat]

news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04.18/09-tummo.html

or is harvard too 'out there' for you?

Wow, a great scientific study that was then :rolleyes:

"Although the team obtained valuable data, Benson concludes that "the room was not cold enough to do the tests properly."

But hey, if you need any sheets drying, that's the way I would go about it too.

[somnum]

Wow, a great scientific study that was then :rolleyes:

"Although the team obtained valuable data, Benson concludes that "the room was not cold enough to do the tests properly."

But hey, if you need any sheets drying, that's the way I would go about it too.


Sorry you missed this part then nature.com/nature/journal/v295/n5846/abs/295234a0.html

But please, continue to ridicule something you know nothing about, it really makes you look like the erudite sceptic we all strive to be.

[Stray Cat]

Let's say I can jump higher than any other man alive. Let's say I think angels lift me up for the jump. That doesn't mean they do of course, but the fact that they don't doesn't mean I can't jump higher than anyone else.
No, the fact that you can't jump higher than anyone else is enough evidence to counter your claim.

Let's say Chriss Angel really claims to be able to levitate, then he gets put to the test, not a vague test, a real test that ruled out the use of magic trickery... He fails the test, it doesn't matter what is claimed was the mechanism for the levitation, it is found to be trickery.

Let's see John Chang or any other Chi 'expert' putting themselves under test that rules out magic trickery... because I could do many of things he does and I don't have any Chi to help me.

[MattusMaximus]

Let's say I can jump higher than any other man alive. Let's say I think angels lift me up for the jump. That doesn't mean they do of course, but the fact that they don't doesn't mean I can't jump higher than anyone else.

Okay, I'll bite. So what exactly does John Chang claim he can do?

[somnum]

No, the fact that you can't jump higher than anyone else is enough evidence to counter your claim.



And whooosh goes the point over your head. He was making a claim that because Chang was talking metaphysical BS as to the mechanism, therefore the result could not possibly have existed. Which is essentially like saying:

Me: I willed the sun to rise this morning
Him: That is impossible that you could have willed the sun to rise, therefore the sun did not rise this morning.

[Stray Cat]

Sorry you missed this part then nature.com/nature/journal/v295/n5846/abs/295234a0.html

But please, continue to ridicule something you know nothing about, it really makes you look like the erudite sceptic we all strive to be.

What you have MORE stuff that needs reading... what a drag.

Perhaps if you'd started with real stuff instead of pretend Chi magic tricks posted on YouTube, this discussion would have gone a bit better.

[somnum]

What you have MORE stuff that needs reading... what a drag.

Perhaps if you'd started with real stuff instead of pretend Chi magic tricks posted on YouTube, this discussion would have gone a bit better.

Either ridicule my lack of scientific references OR ridicule my plethora of scientific references please. I demand you retract one of your objections.

[Stray Cat]

And whooosh goes the point over your head. He was making a claim that because Chang was talking metaphysical BS as to the mechanism, therefore the result could not possibly have existed. Which is essentially like saying:

Me: I willed the sun to rise this morning
Him: That is impossible that you could have willed the sun to rise, therefore the sun did not rise this morning.

No, the point didn't escape me... It's NOT Chang's claims about metaphysical mechanisms that need to be disproved, the mechanisms are all well known magic tricks that lead directly to the results he gets. We don't HAVE to rule metaphysical BS out, anyone taking it at face value has to rule magic trickery out.

[somnum]

Okay, I'll bite. So what exactly does John Chang claim he can do?

Well I think it's an implicit claim that he is somehow able to cause electric charges. Of course he would call it chi or something, I would be more surprised if he were able to do it and had perfect physiological knowledge of how. But that is irrelevant to whether or not it can actually happen.

[Stray Cat]

Either ridicule my lack of scientific references OR ridicule my plethora of scientific references please. I demand you retract one of your objections.
Sorry I don't have time to retract either of my objections (?)... I'm too busy reading the plethora of scientific references you have provided.

[arthwollipot]

Let's say I can jump higher than any other man alive. Let's say I think angels lift me up for the jump. That doesn't mean they do of course, but the fact that they don't doesn't mean I can't jump higher than anyone else.Once you can demonstrate that you can jump higher than any other man alive, we can start to discuss mechanisms.

[Stray Cat]

Sorry you missed this part then nature.com/nature/journal/v295/n5846/abs/295234a0.html

Do you have access to this .pdf?

It requires payment to read.

[somnum]

Once you can demonstrate that you can jump higher than any other man alive, we can start to discuss mechanisms.

Sure, I was just pointing out his argument was a non sequitur.

[MattusMaximus]

Well I think it's an implicit claim that he is somehow able to cause electric charges. Of course he would call it chi or something, I would be more surprised if he were able to do it and had perfect physiological knowledge of how. But that is irrelevant to whether or not it can actually happen.

Okay, that's kind of vague. Can you provide anything more specific?

Btw, I can also "create electric charge" by walking across my carpet on a dry day. That's hardly something special.

[somnum]

Do you have access to this .pdf?

It requires payment to read.

I can get it for you tomorrow from work. Don't tell anyone though.

You can however read the abstract which of course gives you the results of the study. My guess is you want to read it for more precise 'lab' conditions?

[somnum]

Okay, that's kind of vague. Can you provide anything more specific?

Btw, I can also "create electric charge" by walking across my carpet on a dry day. That's hardly something special.

Ok, focal electric charges of bodily origin that are strong*

*strong is defined as the amount of electric current needed to induce loss of focal muscle control in a fellow participant.

I'm sure there is a better way to word that but you get the idea.

[LTC8K6]

Why would I accept paranormal reasons for something that I know can be done normally?

[arthwollipot]

Sure, I was just pointing out his argument was a non sequitur.With another non sequitur?

It hasn't been demonstrated that Chang has any magical powers.

[somnum]

With another non sequitur?

It hasn't been demonstrated that Chang has any magical powers.

Where exactly was my fallacy?

I was simply saying he cannot dismiss the idea that Chang is producing bodily electric charges because the idea of chi is BS. Of course that does not mean that he is in fact producing those bodily electric charges, but please point me to where I said he necessarily was.

[MattusMaximus]

Ok, focal electric charges of bodily origin that are strong*

*strong is defined as the amount of electric current needed to induce loss of focal muscle control in a fellow participant.

I'm sure there is a better way to word that but you get the idea.

No, I'm afraid I don't. First off, what do you mean by "focal electric charges"? Bear in mind that I'm a physicist, and as someone who has had much formal training in electricity I've never even heard this term before, so you're going to have to be more explicit.

And, again, if you're talking about basically zapping someone with enough current to cause their muscles to twitch uncontrollably, that's hardly interesting. Take, for example, the case of my carpet on a dry winter day: walk across it, touch a metal object like a light switch, and zappo - a muscle twitch. That seems to qualify with what you're discussing here.

So, you're still being a bit too vague here. Please tell me, very specifically, what Chang claims to be able to do. Is he claiming that he can simply "summon up" an electric charge and then zap people with it? What?

[Stray Cat]

I can get it for you tomorrow from work. Don't tell anyone though.

You can however read the abstract which of course gives you the results of the study. My guess is you want to read it for more precise 'lab' conditions?

I am showing a willingness to read information provided and try to understand it to the best of my ability.

Meditation has many beneficial effects on the mind and body for lots of reasons. And an ultra relaxed body will have less need for oxygen surely?

But I don't see a connection between meditation and John Chang's claims

[arthwollipot]

Where exactly was my fallacy?

I was simply saying he cannot dismiss the idea that Chang is producing bodily electric charges because the idea of chi is BS. Of course that does not mean that he is in fact producing those bodily electric charges, but please point me to where I said he necessarily was.You've missed the point. Is Chang really producing an electric charge? Or is he using some kind of trick? What's more likely - that someone has a previously-unknown magic power, or that they are cleverly deceiving people? Here's a hint: clever deceivers are known to exist.

[somnum]

No, I'm afraid I don't. First off, what do you mean by "focal electric charges"? Bear in mind that I'm a physicist, and as someone who has had much formal training in electricity I've never even heard this term before, so you're going to have to be more explicit.

And, again, if you're talking about basically zapping someone with enough current to cause their muscles to twitch uncontrollably, that's hardly interesting. Take, for example, the case of my carpet on a dry winter day: walk across it, touch a metal object like a light switch, and zappo - a muscle twitch. That seems to qualify with what you're discussing here.

So, you're still being a bit too vague here. Please tell me, very specifically, what Chang claims to be able to do.

Ah, that's understandable why you wouldn't get it, because I am using the term 'focal' in a medical context. As in, a specific part of the body.

And no of course your example would not qualify because you neglected my "of bodily origin" part of definition.

[MattusMaximus]

Ah, that's understandable why you wouldn't get it, because I am using the term 'focal' in a medical context. As in, a specific part of the body.

Got it.

And no of course your example would not qualify because you neglected my "of bodily origin" part of definition.

Again, this is vague. Do you mean that he can create an electrostatic charge without interacting with his environment in any way?

[Stray Cat]

So, you're still being a bit too vague here. Please tell me, very specifically, what Chang claims to be able to do. Is he claiming that he can simply "summon up" an electric charge and then zap people with it? What?
Basically Chang claims to be able to use Chi energy to send electric shocks into people, to use Chi energy to light fires, to use Chi energy to make smoke come from his fingertips and to use Chi energy to push a chop stick through a wooden table.

[somnum]

You've missed the point. Is Chang really producing an electric charge? Or is he using some kind of trick? What's more likely - that someone has a previously-unknown magic power, or that they are cleverly deceiving people? Here's a hint: clever deceivers are known to exist.

I'm sorry I haven't missed the point at all. You claimed that I made a non sequitur, when it is clear I haven't. I haven't drawn any conclusions at all. Of course I am arguing as a 'defense' because I want to hear strong arguments for how he's doing this, which so far people have not given, but I am more than willing to listen to - seriously. However, what I will not listen to are logical fallacies and condescending dismissals without sufficient argument.
And if you really want to get down to it, when have I said that anything he has done is magic? Have you been paying attention to my line of reasoning in the slightest? I think that whether he can do this or not, it is almost certainly not magic, and will have a physiological basis.

[Stray Cat]

I'm sorry I haven't missed the point at all. You claimed that I made a non sequitur, when it is clear I haven't. I haven't drawn any conclusions at all. Of course I am arguing as a 'defense' because I want to hear strong arguments for how he's doing this, which so far people have not given, but I am more than willing to listen to - seriously. However, what I will not listen to, are logical fallacies and condescending dismissals without sufficient argument.
And if you really want to get down to it, when have I said that anything he has done is magic? Have you been paying attention to my line of reasoning in the slightest? I think that whether he can do this or not, it is almost certainly not magic, and will have a physiological basis.
You're not related to KoA or Rramjet are you?

[somnum]

Got it.
Again, this is vague. Do you mean that he can create an electrostatic charge without interacting with his environment in any way?

Well I'm not sure how specific you want to get with that 'in any way', but let's just say as much environment as is the cause for the potential between the synapse and interior of a neuron. So I would say correct not interacting with the environment, but you would need to make sure you had a diet with electrolytes /s

[JoeyDonuts]

When I was taking Aikido I heard every rationalization in the book for the presence of "ki" or "chi" or "qi" or whatever you want to call it. Some say it's a "life force" that permeates every living thing, some say it's biomechanical processes, but in each case the practicioners of ki-based martial arts contend that this force can be manipulated and used by the practicioner for various effects.
They'll say that focusing it into your arms makes you hit harder. Concentrating it in your torso makes it invulnerable to harm.
Becoming zanshin makes it effortless to blend with your opponent's attack and "feel" what he's doing.

There are other explanations for these phenomena, and none of them are spiritual.

The fact that none of these so-called "ki" arts have managed to survive the crucible of MMA is a testament to their lack of utility. But yet, their adherents will claim that "ki" gives them ability to do the fantastic.

Hard work, solid proven techniques and training methods and athleticism are the keys to being an effective martial artist, not belief in unproven, non-existent, and utterly worthless methods and concepts.

However, belief in "ki" and its quasi-mystical effects allows people to become convinced their martial art is effective. They could be grossly out of shape, but with a few parlor tricks and an environment full of confirmation bias they'll tell anyone who will listen about the way they're able to project ki and sense an opponents movements. Compliant and scripted unrealistic "real life" scenarios really drive the point home for folks caught up in this stuff.

You put a ki-throwing Aikido or Qigong master and put him in a scuffle with a guy that did wrestling for a few years and I'll tell ya who's going to win that one.

"Qi" is garbage, it's been proven so and anyone claiming to be able to accomplish anything using it may as well claim that he can summon faeries to do his bidding.

[somnum]

You're not related to KoA or Rramjet are you?

No, I don't know who they are.
I just want someone to do a breakdown of what he's likely doing. How he's doing it. Why they didn't find anything, etc. This is a massive diversion.

[Stray Cat]

"Qi" is garbage, it's been proven so and anyone claiming to be able to accomplish anything using it may as well claim that he can summon faeries to do his bidding.

Though I believe "Wax on, Wax off" is a valid training technique :D

[LTC8K6]

Well, first you need to show that he is actually doing these things paranormally. Once that is accomplished, and it hasn't been yet, then we can move on to discuss how that might be working.

If he is doing them paranormally, he is doing them the hard way.

[Stray Cat]

No, I don't know who they are.
I just want someone to do a breakdown of what he's likely doing. How he's doing it. Why they didn't find anything, etc. This is a massive diversion.
Are you specifically referring to the claimed 'sending electrical impulses' or the other tricks he does?

[somnum]

Are you specifically referring to the claimed 'sending electrical impulses' or the other tricks he does?

I'm just talking about the electrical impulses. I don't think there's anything special about putting a chopstick through a table. And the fire bit the scientists weren't there for, and I'm really only concerned with how they were fooled. Actually I'm in the process of trying to track them down to ask them if the documentary went as swimmingly as it is seems to have gone.

[JWideman]

Chopsticks through a table? PFFT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YNfAS8-UYU

Cyril laughs at such mundane tricks.

[Stray Cat]

I'm just talking about the electrical impulses. I don't think there's anything special about putting a chopstick through a table. And the fire bit the scientists weren't there for, and I'm really only concerned with how they were fooled. Actually I'm in the process of trying to track them down to ask them if the documentary went as swimmingly as it is seems to have gone.

The use of a mini Tesla Coil device hasn't been ruled out, but the trick could be even more simple than that.

[arthwollipot]

And if you really want to get down to it, when have I said that anything he has done is magic? Have you been paying attention to my line of reasoning in the slightest? I think that whether he can do this or not, it is almost certainly not magic, and will have a physiological basis.Excuse me?

No - reason does not work that way. If he cannot do this, then it is neither magic nor physiological, and there is no need to make vague speculations.

If he can do this, and can demonstrate the ability under controlled conditions, then and only then can we start to think about whether it's magic or physiological. So far there is no evidence that he can actually do anything he claims to be able to do.

[athon]

I think that whether he can do this or not, it is almost certainly not magic, and will have a physiological basis.

Let's see if I can give this a shot-

We can essentially categorise Chang's abilities under three headings - novel physics/biology; paranormal/magic; trickery.

In this case you've more or less asked which category we can put Chang into, coming from a scientific angle. Now, science does not deal with certainties. It deals with logical, internal consistency and confidence inspired by the weight of evidence. So while it's impossible to dismiss with absolute certainty any one category, it is possible to suspend two of them until new evidence arises.

Everything Chang does can be demonstrated as trickery. In other words, his actions can be replicated and therefore explained using sleight of hand, misdirection and plain old foolery.

Novel physics and biology might also explain it. However, this explanation would demand far more observations to remain viable. For instance, why is it that whenever similar situations (involving chi) are tested, the abilities disappear? Sure, Chang could be the real deal. But there is currently no reason to suspect so.

As for paranormal explanations, these can be discounted from the start since we've stipulated we're discussing this from a scientific perspective. Magic has a habit of evaporating the moment it's brought into the presence of logic and reason.

In short, we know trickery exists. We have ample evidence of it. On testing phenomena that has been explained previously using chi, it is consistently found that deceit or misperception is responsible. We can induce that in the absence of any other information, this case is no different.

Is that the final word? Most certainly not. However, for the discussion to progress, evidence that cannot be explained by the 'trickery' hypothesis must arise. Otherwise it is the most useful explanation.

Athon

[roger]

Chopsticks through a table? PFFT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YNfAS8-UYU

Cyril laughs at such mundane tricks.
That man has amazing Qi!!!


;)

[JoeyDonuts]

Though I believe "Wax on, Wax off" is a valid training technique :D

Yeah, for waxing floors. When was the last time you ever heard of someone in a real-life confrontation using one of those pretty open-handed sweeping karate blocks? The speed and reflexes it would require to intercept a full-speed punch delivered by even an untrained person who wants to hurt you using such a technique would be astronomical.

Best thing Miyagi ever said was - "Best defense...No be there!"

*twists little tiny drum*

[somnum]

Excuse me?

No - reason does not work that way. If he cannot do this, then it is neither magic nor physiological, and there is no need to make vague speculations.

If he can do this, and can demonstrate the ability under controlled conditions, then and only then can we start to think about whether it's magic or physiological. So far there is no evidence that he can actually do anything he claims to be able to do.

Since we're going to be technical...if he can't do it, it is still logically possible that happened and is magic. So hah, e-peen of logic is larger than yours!

[JoeyDonuts]

Since we're going to be technical...if he can't do it, it is still logically possible that happened and is magic. So hah, e-peen of logic is larger than yours!

Uhh, what?

You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it does.

[somnum]

Let's see if I can give this a shot-

We can essentially categorise Chang's abilities under three headings - novel physics/biology; paranormal/magic; trickery.

In this case you've more or less asked which category we can put Chang into, coming from a scientific angle. Now, science does not deal with certainties. It deals with logical, internal consistency and confidence inspired by the weight of evidence. So while it's impossible to dismiss with absolute certainty any one category, it is possible to suspend two of them until new evidence arises.

Everything Chang does can be demonstrated as trickery. In other words, his actions can be replicated and therefore explained using sleight of hand, misdirection and plain old foolery.

Novel physics and biology might also explain it. However, this explanation would demand far more observations to remain viable. For instance, why is it that whenever similar situations (involving chi) are tested, the abilities disappear? Sure, Chang could be the real deal. But there is currently no reason to suspect so.

As for paranormal explanations, these can be discounted from the start since we've stipulated we're discussing this from a scientific perspective. Magic has a habit of evaporating the moment it's brought into the presence of logic and reason.

In short, we know trickery exists. We have ample evidence of it. On testing phenomena that has been explained previously using chi, it is consistently found that deceit or misperception is responsible. We can induce that in the absence of any other information, this case is no different.

Is that the final word? Most certainly not. However, for the discussion to progress, evidence that cannot be explained by the 'trickery' hypothesis must arise. Otherwise it is the most useful explanation.

Athon

Well since I'm not a regular forum member I'm really not sure how this trickery is dealt with. Could someone please explain it to me? How is he creating these charges and the scientists miss them?

[somnum]

Uhh, what?

You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it does.

I meant that he wasn't the cause of it but that it still happened by God's hand coming down and zapping everyone. And you have no idea how serious I was when I said it.

Although actually what I should have said is that if he can't do this, then that doesn't mean that it didn't happen, but that he isn't the cause of it. I was just trying to wind him up for bringing up minutiae that really have no bearing on the argument. He knew that I was saying - I don't think it's magic.

[JoeyDonuts]

Yeah, you weren't exactly clear about how "it" may "have happened" if he "wasn't able to do it."

Suddenly, I'm thinking of a scene from And Now For Something Completely Different...

[somnum]

Yeah, you weren't exactly clear about how "it" may "have happened" if he "wasn't able to do it."

Suddenly, I'm thinking of a scene from And Now For Something Completely Different...

chalk it up to my h1n1.

[Stray Cat]

How is he creating these charges and the scientists miss them?
It's hardly a thorough critical scientific investigation into Chang's claims.
A $15 voltmeter from Radio Shack.

[somnum]

It's hardly a thorough critical scientific investigation into Chang's claims.
A $15 voltmeter from Radio Shack.

What I mean is how are they missing his concealed device that is creating the charge.

[Stray Cat]

What I mean is how are they missing his concealed device that is creating the charge.

How well were they actually looking for it?

[athon]

How is he creating these charges and the scientists miss them?

Obviously we can't tell. All we have is some simple footage, and therefore we're not privy to the context, the test protocol, the bias etc. We know nothing more than what we can see in a simple Youtube clip and perhaps some text offered by some observers.

However, you seem to be giving weight to the fact that 'scientists' miss the trickery. There is no special card given to you to state you now belong to a special science club. :) (if so, I didn't get mine)

'Scientist' is a broad term. A person who has an interest in the field can set up a test and claim they are practicing science. And they're not exactly lying. But it really doesn't mean much. What does matter is how they do their tests, not who they are.

Some people aren't all that aware of how easily we can be fooled. Magicians, for instance, make a craft of it. There are examples of magicians easily fooling self-proclaimed scientists simply because the latter don't know what to look out for.

A facetious way of putting it is that the universe rarely sets out to intentionally fool you, so scientists aren't the most suspicious of individuals. And there is some truth to that.

Athon

[somnum]

Obviously we can't tell. All we have is some simple footage, and therefore we're not privy to the context, the test protocol, the bias etc. We know nothing more than what we can see in a simple Youtube clip and perhaps some text offered by some observers.

However, you seem to be giving weight to the fact that 'scientists' miss the trickery. There is no special card given to you to state you now belong to a special science club. :) (if so, I didn't get mine)

'Scientist' is a broad term. A person who has an interest in the field can set up a test and claim they are practicing science. And they're not exactly lying. But it really doesn't mean much. What does matter is how they do their tests, not who they are.

Some people aren't all that aware of how easily we can be fooled. Magicians, for instance, make a craft of it. There are examples of magicians easily fooling self-proclaimed scientists simply because the latter don't know what to look out for.

A facetious way of putting it is that the universe rarely sets out to intentionally fool you, so scientists aren't the most suspicious of individuals. And there is some truth to that.

Athon

Sure, sounds very plausible. The extent of what we know is a metal detector. And I suppose we don't know how thorough it was. But a metal detector would have to find something capable of producing a charge, no? I assume that is why they wanted him to leave the premises.

[tsig]

Sure, sounds very plausible. The extent of what we know is a metal detector. And I suppose we don't know how thorough it was. But a metal detector would have to find something capable of producing a charge, no? I assume that is why they wanted him to leave the premises.

With the right shoes and carpet anyone can create a charge. Just rub your feet slightly on the carpet and you can generate enough charge to zap people.

I used to do it all the time till I found out some people did not see the humor in it.



http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/static.htm

"You walk across the rug, reach for the doorknob and..........ZAP!!! You get a static shock."

[Redtail]

When I was taking Aikido I heard every rationalization in the book for the presence of "ki" or "chi" or "qi" or whatever you want to call it. Some say it's a "life force" that permeates every living thing, some say it's biomechanical processes, but in each case the practicioners of ki-based martial arts contend that this force can be manipulated and used by the practicioner for various effects.
They'll say that focusing it into your arms makes you hit harder. Concentrating it in your torso makes it invulnerable to harm.
Becoming zanshin makes it effortless to blend with your opponent's attack and "feel" what he's doing.

There are other explanations for these phenomena, and none of them are spiritual.

The fact that none of these so-called "ki" arts have managed to survive the crucible of MMA is a testament to their lack of utility. But yet, their adherents will claim that "ki" gives them ability to do the fantastic.

Hard work, solid proven techniques and training methods and athleticism are the keys to being an effective martial artist, not belief in unproven, non-existent, and utterly worthless methods and concepts.

However, belief in "ki" and its quasi-mystical effects allows people to become convinced their martial art is effective. They could be grossly out of shape, but with a few parlor tricks and an environment full of confirmation bias they'll tell anyone who will listen about the way they're able to project ki and sense an opponents movements. Compliant and scripted unrealistic "real life" scenarios really drive the point home for folks caught up in this stuff.

You put a ki-throwing Aikido or Qigong master and put him in a scuffle with a guy that did wrestling for a few years and I'll tell ya who's going to win that one.

"Qi" is garbage, it's been proven so and anyone claiming to be able to accomplish anything using it may as well claim that he can summon faeries to do his bidding.

I do find Tai Chi good for "meditating" though.

[JoeyDonuts]

I do find Tai Chi good for "meditating" though.

It ain't gonna prepare you for a physical altercation any more than relaxing in a nice chair with some Al Green (maybe Miles Davis) and a glass of whiskey will.

That's how I prefer to meditate. :D

[Garrette]

But a metal detector would have to find something capable of producing a charge, no?Have to? No.

Assume for the moment that it wasn't something akin to tsig and the carpet. That means it was something else which may have been as small as a battery and a paper clip, both of which can be missed in at least two ways:

1. The operator uses the detector poorly (easier to use one poorly than you think)

2. The trickster misdirects the operator and uses skill and misdirection to ensure the battery/paperclip are never where the detector is.

[JoeyDonuts]

The metal detector's sensitivity could conceivably be altered, too - though I'm not entirely sure how one would go about doing so.

[tsig]

Have to? No.

Assume for the moment that it wasn't something akin to tsig and the carpet. That means it was something else which may have been as small as a battery and a paper clip, both of which can be missed in at least two ways:

1. The operator uses the detector poorly (easier to use one poorly than you think)

2. The trickster misdirects the operator and uses skill and misdirection to ensure the battery/paperclip are never where the detector is.

There seems to be many mundane explanations yet some always want to jump to the "paranormal ability" one immediately.

Isn't this whole thing just saying "I don't know how it was done so magic"?

[Stray Cat]

The metal detector's sensitivity could conceivably be altered, too - though I'm not entirely sure how one would go about doing so.

'Chi energy' could have been used to disable it ;)

[JoeyDonuts]

'Chi energy' could have been used to disable it ;)

Oh, that's a good one.

No click here. Your kung fu not strong enough!!! (http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%E2%80%9Cbullshido%E2%80%9D-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/)

[Redtail]

It ain't gonna prepare you for a physical altercation any more than relaxing in a nice chair with some Al Green (maybe Miles Davis) and a glass of whiskey will.

That's how I prefer to meditate. :D

LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE And HAPPINESS....

I know. That's where the Boxing, Wrestling & BJJ come in.

(And capoeira, it's fun and looks great on the beach.):D

[JoeyDonuts]

I know. That's where the Boxing, Wrestling & BJJ come in.

I know, right? Two of which are traditional western martial arts that are historically scoffed at by the more "enlightened" pajama-wearing set.

I'd add Judo to that list as well. It's good stuff.

[athon]

Sure, sounds very plausible. The extent of what we know is a metal detector. And I suppose we don't know how thorough it was. But a metal detector would have to find something capable of producing a charge, no? I assume that is why they wanted him to leave the premises.

Perhaps. Honestly, I have no idea. Again, we only have the information at hand.

However, here's how to think about it - is it more likely that a mistake was made with the metal detector, or he evaded it, or it couldn't detect his method (and so forth)...OR...that there is a field of life-force energy that he can use so efficiently yet it evades all attempts to identify and qualify when interested parties try to get a closer look.

For my money, if I were a betting man, I'd be leaning towards the box A.

Athon

[Foolmewunz]

I seem to recall a certain bearded magician taking him down on an occasion or two....


http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/042007todd.html

I'd imagine we probably have a thread around here about him, but I couldn't locate one. Here's the job the Skeptics Forum did on him. Fourth or fifth post itemizes the tricks and possible explanations, somewhat.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8888


See, now, Somnum, ... I don't think you're really looking for explanations but want to make rhetorical points with a bunch of skeptics, so I'm bumping my previous introductory post in this thread.

And since you don't seem to want to look at the link, let's just quote the post discussing the methods he may be using and why don't you start from that point?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: John Chang- how does he do this?
by Electric Monk » Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:41 pm

Logomachist wrote:
What do you guys think? Is he legit? How does he do it?

On first viewing, Chang appears to be doing a few simple carnival tricks:

1. "Generating electricity" - this is normally done with the use of a small high-frequency, high-voltage, low-amperage device taped to the performer's body. James Randi mentions this device here, regarding others who have done this:

Randi wrote:
This “chi” scam artist on YouTube is probably using the very same setup as the Malaysian crook did, a small battery-powered device worn on the body that develops very high voltage at very low amperage, that can be directed from the body of the performer to anything that’s at a lower potential than he is. It’s a form of Tesla coil, and it’s very effective. There’s also a rabbi in New York using this same gimmick to convince the faithful…


2. Catching a "rifle bullet" - what is shown is the firing of a very low-speed pellet that can pierce the wall of an empty soda can. Then, Chang puts his hand in front of the gun. He is in no danger, and there does not appear to be anything extraordinary about what he is doing.

3. Moving a knife - Chang carefully balances a knife on its sheath. It is shown moving slightly in one direction, twice. With such a precariously-balanced object, the slightest breeze will move it readily. All Chang has to do is wait a bit. In the first movement, he has his mouth close to the knife, "talking" to it. In the second, he has leaned back, so either he's caught a breeze, or he started the knife in a position that would naturally swing away, or else he's using his knee (either one would work, but it's hard to tell from that angle which, if either, is in position), to slightly lift the glass tabletop.

4. "Fooling the experts" - they have a CEO, a doctor, and a physicist. They really needed an electrical engineer. They try to use an ordinary volt meter. If he's using the high-frequency device, of course they will not get readings from this! Some experts they are! Maybe they actually do use the metal detector on his back and feet to check for the device, but this is not shown. Chang seems to be flexing his back to produce his electricity. I would check between his shoulder blades. I mean, they strip him almost naked, but they let him leave his shirt on?!? Oh, and the color-changing LEDs have different colors depending on the direction of the current, not the amount.

5. "Chopstick through the table" - has anything ever looked more like a set-up magic trick? First, he takes them to his local restaurant. Then he can't make the "chi" work on Formica, so he needs to use the bottom of the table. This trick requires nothing more than a cheap table with a seam in the wood.

As miracles go, I can't say I'm impressed.

--James
ancora imparo
Electric Monk
Moderator

[Tapio]

The fact that none of these so-called "ki" arts have managed to survive the crucible of MMA is a testament to their lack of utility. But yet, their adherents will claim that "ki" gives them ability to do the fantastic.

Well said. I know you linked to it, but I just have to post this straight here. One of the most tragicomic showdowns I've ever seen.

Bad video quality, but it sort of fits in...

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gEDaCIDvj6I&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gEDaCIDvj6I&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

somnum, you might want to skim through this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123885&highlight=thoth) thread...

[Think_Tank]

Well said. I know you linked to it, but I just have to post this straight here. One of the most tragicomic showdowns I've ever seen.


You utter :rule10, you beat me to it! :D

[MRC_Hans]

No, I don't know who they are.
I just want someone to do a breakdown of what he's likely doing. How he's doing it. Why they didn't find anything, etc. This is a massive diversion.Well, fair enough. You seem to have run into a certain amount of perhaps unjustified flak. You have to make allowances, though; we have so many people coming here 'just asking questions'.

As to how he is doing it, we can't really know. We don't have to be able to explain his methods to dismiss the notion that it is paranormal, but one can always try.

For the 'electric' stuff: Alone the way he is touching people seems to rule out electricity. He only seems to touch them quite lightly and you get what appears to be muscle contractions.

Let me explain: The human body is the electrical equivalent of a saline solution. The resistance between any two parts of the body, when measured inside the skin is about 300 Ohms. However, the skin is not very conductive, and the resistance between any two points of the skin (by mere contact) is several thousand Ohms.

This means two things:

1) To create an impulse large enough to create a muscle contraction in another person, John Chang would have to create a many times stronger pulse in his own body, to overcome the attenuation when the high skin resistance is seen in series with the low internal body resistance.

2) Such a large pulse would dissipate most of its energy in the skin of the subject (and John's). This hurts!. John Chang may be able to suppress his reaction, but the 'victim' would scream.

I think what he does (if the subject is not part of the trick) is to trigger one of the many involuntary reactions that exist (the knee-jerk reaction being the best known).

Of course, when he manipulates acupuncture needles, he is in contact with the inner body, but then when manipulating a needle deep in the victim's flesh, it is not difficult to elicit a reaction, even without using electricity.

The only tricks that may involve electricity is when he touches some other person and that person jerks his hand back, but even that may be done in other ways. As a trick, it could be done by giving himself a charge (like a static charge) and then zapping the other person, something we can all do under the right conditions.

As we know from certain creatures (think electric eels), a biological body can create quite a strong electrical current. This is done with converted muscle tissue. A considerable portion of the electric eel's body is devoted to this. None such converted tissue exists in the normal human body, however. I doubt that John Chang's body is any different.

Obviously, the ability to create an electric impulse would be extremely easy to test.

Hans

[Garrette]

The metal detector's sensitivity could conceivably be altered, too - though I'm not entirely sure how one would go about doing so.This may come as a world-altering surprise, and in no way invalidates the possibility of magic, but:

Metal detectors come with built-in sensitivity adjustments. I haven't personally worked with the walk through ones (but I know it can be done with them). I have extensive experience with hand held detectors. Most have the adjuster right there on the handle.

[Stray Cat]

Obviously, the ability to create an electric impulse would be extremely easy to test.

A well thought out post thanks Hans... And the part of it I've quoted above is the reason why Chang would NEVER submit to being tested thoroughly.

[MRC_Hans]

This may come as a world-altering surprise, and in no way invalidates the possibility of magic, but:

Metal detectors come with built-in sensitivity adjustments. I haven't personally worked with the walk through ones (but I know it can be done with them). I have extensive experience with hand held detectors. Most have the adjuster right there on the handle.A small charge generator could probably be built that could pass undetected through a walk-through detector. A hand-held will be harder to fool, exept here you can use sleight of hand to keep it out if range (especially since the range of a hand-held is deliberately made short).

A charge generator strong enough to give you a jolt can be built using three/four components and a button cell battery. It could be smaller than a penny.

Hans

[MattusMaximus]

Well I'm not sure how specific you want to get with that 'in any way', but let's just say as much environment as is the cause for the potential between the synapse and interior of a neuron. So I would say correct not interacting with the environment, but you would need to make sure you had a diet with electrolytes /s

Okay, let me make this even simpler...

If this guy was put into an empty room, completely naked, with no way of generating an electrostatic charge via interaction with his environment (by coming into contact with other objects, rubbing up against them, etc), then does he claim that he can still do these things?

If he's not willing to make that claim & consider being tested in these or similar conditions, then I see this whole thing as a non-starter.

[MattusMaximus]

When I was taking Aikido I heard every rationalization in the book for the presence of "ki" or "chi" or "qi" or whatever you want to call it. Some say it's a "life force" that permeates every living thing, some say it's biomechanical processes, but in each case the practicioners of ki-based martial arts contend that this force can be manipulated and used by the practicioner for various effects.
They'll say that focusing it into your arms makes you hit harder. Concentrating it in your torso makes it invulnerable to harm.
Becoming zanshin makes it effortless to blend with your opponent's attack and "feel" what he's doing.

There are other explanations for these phenomena, and none of them are spiritual.

The fact that none of these so-called "ki" arts have managed to survive the crucible of MMA is a testament to their lack of utility. But yet, their adherents will claim that "ki" gives them ability to do the fantastic.

Hard work, solid proven techniques and training methods and athleticism are the keys to being an effective martial artist, not belief in unproven, non-existent, and utterly worthless methods and concepts.

However, belief in "ki" and its quasi-mystical effects allows people to become convinced their martial art is effective. They could be grossly out of shape, but with a few parlor tricks and an environment full of confirmation bias they'll tell anyone who will listen about the way they're able to project ki and sense an opponents movements. Compliant and scripted unrealistic "real life" scenarios really drive the point home for folks caught up in this stuff.

You put a ki-throwing Aikido or Qigong master and put him in a scuffle with a guy that did wrestling for a few years and I'll tell ya who's going to win that one.

"Qi" is garbage, it's been proven so and anyone claiming to be able to accomplish anything using it may as well claim that he can summon faeries to do his bidding.

This is one of my biggest complaints about martial arts in general. I've been practicing various styles for 20 years now, and I've been practicing Aikido for about 14 years (testing for black belt soon). Sadly, JD is correct when stating that Aikido is one of those styles which can attract a number of woo-meisters. Some Aikido schools (mine, thankfully) are solid in that they really work on good physical training: punching, kicking, weapons work, etc. However, there are those folks - I've met them at some seminars - who are all into the "ki energy" nonsense and basically get laughed at by the rest of us.

And those goofs deserve to be laughed at, in my opinion. If you argue that you can actually knock someone down from a distance without physically touching them and you're not using a gun, then you're an idiot :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

I do find Tai Chi good for "meditating" though.
It ain't gonna prepare you for a physical altercation any more than relaxing in a nice chair with some Al Green (maybe Miles Davis) and a glass of whiskey will.

That's how I prefer to meditate. :D

There are a lot of ways to meditate. Sometimes I do the traditional method of zazen, and sometimes Jim Bean helps me out. :)

[MattusMaximus]

Well said. I know you linked to it, but I just have to post this straight here. One of the most tragicomic showdowns I've ever seen.

Bad video quality, but it sort of fits in...

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gEDaCIDvj6I&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gEDaCIDvj6I&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>



That's some pretty major chi/ki/qi fail, but the best one I've ever seen is the guy who slashed his own arm with a razor-sharp machete, claiming he could use his "energy" to protect himself.

Take a guess as to what happened (warning: not for the squeamish)...
64pViKg9Rcg

[Garrette]

This is one of my biggest complaints about martial arts in general. I've been practicing various styles for 20 years now, and I've been practicing Aikido for about 14 years (testing for black belt soon). Sadly, JD is correct when stating that Aikido is one of those styles which can attract a number of woo-meisters. Some Aikido schools (mine, thankfully) are solid in that they really work on good physical training: punching, kicking, weapons work, etc. However, there are those folks - I've met them at some seminars - who are all into the "ki energy" nonsense and basically get laughed at by the rest of us.

And those goofs deserve to be laughed at, in my opinion. If you argue that you can actually knock someone down from a distance without physically touching them and you're not using a gun, then you're an idiot :rolleyes:My only post contributing to a derail in this thread:

I agree that Aikido has limited ability in a knock-down-drag-out fight. However, in my experience as a security director at various hospitals and clinics dealing with: drunkards, people on drugs, people with head injuries causing them to act out, people having seizures, the mentally ill, the irrationally acting family members of trauma patients, and more, I found that Aikido and Jiu Jitsu were the most effective styles on which to base a modified program of non-injurious intervention. As always, most safely applied in groups of four.

[Stout]

That was an interesting video, the one in the OP and having watched it last night when the thread was in it's infancy, I didn't have any "skepticism" to cloud my perceptions. IMO, that was one of the phoniest videos I've ever watched.

When Chang is failing the voltmeter test, he says it's Chi, not electricity that he's producing yet he goes on to perform tricks that obviously involve electricity like the LED in the mouth one.

So he failed a metal detector test? so what? that not conclusive of anything especially if he's using a hand held device that can be easily switched from one hand to the other and kept out of the detectors range. Why didn't they demand he take his shirt off then? It can't be "modesty" because anyone who's willing to be filmed lying on a table with some funny looking little gonad covering thing can't be considered a prude in any sense of the word.

A knife spinning on it's sheath, big whoop, stand the thing up on it's tip and make it dance, then I'd be impressed.:)

Chopstick through a table from beneath the table, oh please, how much effort does it take to hammer a chopstick through a formica table top through a pre drilled hole or crack in the wood of the table. Call in the CSI guys on this one and let's do a reconstruction of the event.

And then he tops it all off by showing his regret and dismay at letting himself being filmed showing off his "powers" to the outside world. That IMO, was laying it on a little too thick.

I'll accept the concept of Chi may have some applications in martial arts as a visualization technique but nothing more. Back in my woo positive days, I took Tae Kwon Do and any mention of "martial arts magic" was quickly discounted in favour of training and technique. Still, everybody knows somebody who knows "this guy" who studies Kung Fu and can throw his Chi across the room. Nobody's ever seen 'this guy" do it, but repeats the stories nonetheless.

[JWideman]

somnum, very simply... would you agree that if each of these things can be recreated by someone NOT claiming special powers, then John Chang may not be doing these things via special powers either?

[ponderingturtle]

Though I believe "Wax on, Wax off" is a valid training technique :D

Of course, how else does one learn to wax?

[MattusMaximus]

I'll accept the concept of Chi may have some applications in martial arts as a visualization technique but nothing more. Back in my woo positive days, I took Tae Kwon Do and any mention of "martial arts magic" was quickly discounted in favour of training and technique. Still, everybody knows somebody who knows "this guy" who studies Kung Fu and can throw his Chi across the room. Nobody's ever seen 'this guy" do it, but repeats the stories nonetheless.

Excellent point, Stout, especially about using the whole idea of "chi" as nothing more than a visualization technique. But, as you've said, there's nothing real or physical to the "chi-whammy" nonsense.

And yeah, over the years, I've run into "that guy" on more than one occasion :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

My only post contributing to a derail in this thread:

I agree that Aikido has limited ability in a knock-down-drag-out fight. However, in my experience as a security director at various hospitals and clinics dealing with: drunkards, people on drugs, people with head injuries causing them to act out, people having seizures, the mentally ill, the irrationally acting family members of trauma patients, and more, I found that Aikido and Jiu Jitsu were the most effective styles on which to base a modified program of non-injurious intervention. As always, most safely applied in groups of four.

I agree with your criticism of Aikido. In my opinion, far too many Aikido practitioners are too limited in their training, especially in atemi-waza (punching & kicking). Sadly, whenever I bring this up in the dojo, a lot of people nod and tell me "yeah, you're right" but then they never follow through and adjust their training accordingly. I've actually seen black belts in Aikido hurt themselves when punching a heavy bag because they don't know how to punch properly - duh :rolleyes:

Makes me glad I still retain all my knowledge & training from my old TKD and karate days. Because on occasion when I teach class, we punch & kick!

That said, Aikido (and JJ) are very good in terms of learning body movement, control, joint locks, and some throws. Put this together with some good, solid striking & grappling training and you've got a well-rounded set of skills.

ETA: Back to your regularly scheduled thread...

[Olowkow]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v295/n5846/pdf/295234a0.pdf

This is the "monk sheet drying" experiment, if anyone is still interested. I don't understand why all three were around 20 C air temp, when two of them were in their huts in the Himalayas. Kind of interesting to read, but their fingers were getting warmer than anything else. Odd.

[Lanzy]

I agree with your criticism of Aikido. In my opinion, far too many Aikido practitioners are too limited in their training, especially in atemi-waza (punching & kicking). Sadly, whenever I bring this up in the dojo, a lot of people nod and tell me "yeah, you're right" but then they never follow through and adjust their training accordingly. I've actually seen black belts in Aikido hurt themselves when punching a heavy bag because they don't know how to punch properly - duh :rolleyes:

Makes me glad I still retain all my knowledge & training from my old TKD and karate days. Because on occasion when I teach class, we punch & kick!

That said, Aikido (and JJ) are very good in terms of learning body movement, control, joint locks, and some throws. Put this together with some good, solid striking & grappling training and you've got a well-rounded set of skills.

ETA: Back to your regularly scheduled thread...

Adding the punching and kicking seems to be describing Hapkido, of which I am a black belt BTW. My way of knocking someone out from a distance is the ancient art of throwing a rock.:D

[MattusMaximus]

Adding the punching and kicking seems to be describing Hapkido, of which I am a black belt BTW. My way of knocking someone out from a distance is the ancient art of throwing a rock.:D

I can see it now... "Master Chang knocked him out by throwing his chi through that rock!"

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

[JoeyDonuts]

*insert token comment about lack of "aliveness" in most Aikido training*

I'm a Shodan in Tomiki-Ryu Aikido by the way. It's been years and I don't remember a damned thing except the first few techniques.

[arthwollipot]

If you argue that you can actually knock someone down from a distance without physically touching them and you're not using a gun, then you're an idiot :rolleyes:I've always wanted to have someone try to knock me over with their chi.

I apologise for my belligerence earlier in the thread, by the way. I was having a bad night.

[jakesteele]

Foolmewunz;5298728]I seem to recall a certain bearded magician taking him down on an occasion or two....


Debunker’s Law of “Close Enough for Rock ‘n Roll” – to debunk something, all you’ve got to do is come up with a simulacrum of what is being debunked and you’re good to go. In the debunker’s mind a magician’s trick that mimics the phenomena is good as gold.


http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/042007todd.html

I'd imagine we probably have a thread around here about him, but I couldn't locate one. Here's the job the Skeptics Forum did on him. Fourth or fifth post itemizes the tricks and possible explanations, somewhat.

Possible doesn't mean absolute, which is what a scientist would require.


http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8888[/QUOTE]

[Blackwell]

...Possible doesn't mean absolute, which is what a scientist would require...

Says who?
How would you propose that they evaluate a past event?

[ugot2bekidding]

For twenty years, I devoted myself to the study of Chinese internal martial arts (Bagua, Taichi, and Hsing Yi). During that time, I came into contact with many famous teachers from legitimate schools (lineages are very important in traditional Chinese martial arts). I can honestly say that not one of them ever...EVER claimed to be able to perform supernatural acts such as those in the OP. These hucksters are laughed at by the traditional practitioners.

I would like to bring up some points about Tai Chi. The art that most in America (and even in much of China) know as "Tai Chi" is not real Tai Chi. Real Tai Chi includes both fast and slow movements during training. The basic form ( that is, solo practice routine) consists of about 90% slow movements and 10% fast, and the second form is 90% fast and 10% slow. And of course the practice of these two forms are just the beginning of the training. This is the original Chen style of Tai Chi. Much of what you see today is some version of the Yang style.

The problem started around the turn of the century, when Yang Cheng Fu realized that hand to hand combat was a dieing art and decided to turn Tai Chi into an exercise that anyone could practice, regardless of physical condition. In doing so, he took out all the fast and strenuous movements (for instance the jump kick and land in a split movement). It's also devoid of any real martial arts training. It's this style, for the most part, that has made its way into the world of woo.

[athon]

Possible doesn't mean absolute, which is what a scientist would require.

Actually, science doesn't deal with absolutes and certainties. It deals with possibilities and probabilities.

Athon

[jakesteele]

Actually, science doesn't deal with absolutes and certainties. It deals with possibilities and probabilities.

Athon

Science deals with possibilities and probabilities with the intent to arrive at certainties like the moon orbiting around the earth, the earth around the sun in very predicable patterns, E=MC squared, etc. That's the job of science; to turn possibilities and probabilities into certainties whenever possible. So far they have done a damn good job and they still plugging away every day.

[jakesteele]

Says who?
How would you propose that they evaluate a past event?

Says me. How do you propose to conclusively debunk a past event?

[Blackwell]

Says me. How do you propose to conclusively debunk a past event?

Since when are you the definer of what scientists require? Are you a scientist?

If "debunkers" can duplicate a past event in a mundane way, while the believers or practitioners fail to prove a paranormal source for the event, I would consider it debunked. I would leave that open-ended, however, and not use the word "conclusively," leaving room in the future for practitioners to prove their claims.
They have thus far been unable to do that, of course.

[MattusMaximus]

Debunker’s Law of “Close Enough for Rock ‘n Roll” – to debunk something, all you’ve got to do is come up with a simulacrum of what is being debunked and you’re good to go. In the debunker’s mind a magician’s trick that mimics the phenomena is good as gold.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/042007todd.html

I'd imagine we probably have a thread around here about him, but I couldn't locate one. Here's the job the Skeptics Forum did on him.

Possible doesn't mean absolute, which is what a scientist would require.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8888

Apparently you've never heard of Occam's Razor - either that or yours is incredibly dull :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

Says me. How do you propose to conclusively debunk a past event?

"It happened in the past, so there's no way to ever refute it. Therefore, I must be right!" :rolleyes:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_7747488553b0d8cb4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13129)

[athon]

Science deals with possibilities and probabilities with the intent to arrive at certainties like the moon orbiting around the earth, the earth around the sun in very predicable patterns, E=MC squared, etc. That's the job of science; to turn possibilities and probabilities into certainties whenever possible. So far they have done a damn good job and they still plugging away every day.

Nope.

Philosophically, certainty is impossible. It's always contingent. You're free to believe otherwise, of course, yet it would fly in the face of the conclusions of pretty much every major science philosopher who has written on the topic for the past century.

The job of science is to amass sufficient evidence to support a theory, with the caveat that a new theory/modified theory is possible with new observations.

Athon

[jakesteele]

Apparently you've never heard of Occam's Razor - either that or yours is incredibly dull :rolleyes:

Since we're talking about dull blades, apparently you've never heard of the Law of Ocaam’s Sledge Hammer – the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what, at all costs.

What I'm seeing is a bunch of a priori armchair quarterbacks saying, "Mabye, possibly, perhaps, etc." Now odds are, according to OC, that one or some of these are right. However, to start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what you already believe is the anti-christ of real science. In fact, you might call it Bunk Science, or BS for short.

[arthwollipot]

Law of Ocaam’s Sledge Hammer – the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what, at all costs.Wait - you're asking MattusMaximus if he's familiar with the Sledgehammer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGiLYt9clfQ)?

[athon]

Since we're talking about dull blades, apparently you've never heard of the Law of Ocaam’s Sledge Hammer – the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what, at all costs.

It's always sad when people misunderstand what Occham's Razor is. I think a kitten dies every time it's abused in such a horrendous manner as this.

What I'm seeing is a bunch of a priori armchair quarterbacks saying, "Mabye, possibly, perhaps, etc."

Hands up all those who have studied the history and philosophy of science in some regard.

*hand goes up*

Why, js, your hand is down. Why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

Again, science doesn't deal in certainty. It deals in probability.

Athon

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
What I'm seeing is a bunch of a priori armchair quarterbacks saying, "Mabye, possibly, perhaps, etc." Now odds are, according to OC, that one or some of these are right. However, to start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what you already believe is the anti-christ of real science. In fact, you might call it Bunk Science, or BS for short.

Ehr, right. However, that is not what we're doing. It is after a long and hard search for any signs of paranormal, with zero finds, that we have come to the working conclusion that a paranormal claim is an extraordinary claim. And thus, that the presense of ordinary evidence to the contrary suffices.

However, any such time as somebody comes up with the extraordinary evidence, we'll listen.

Hans

[jakesteele]

It's always sad when people misunderstand what Occham's Razor is. I think a kitten dies every time it's abused in such a horrendous manner as this.



Hands up all those who have studied the history and philosophy of science in some regard.

*hand goes up*

Why, js, your hand is down. Why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

Again, science doesn't deal in certainty. It deals in probability.

Athon

Maybe this will be easier for you to understand: The Debunker’s Law of Perpetual Simplicity© – a bastardized version of Ocaam’s Razor, which, while not stated outright, is implied throughout, that the simplest explanation is the only explanation. The mindset that all explanations must be mundane at all costs, no matter what the cost.

Oc•cam's razor
Date:
circa 1837
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

(This one I really like the most)
Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. The method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.

Debunker – someone who starts with a conclusion and looks for evidence to support what they already believe. One who holds an a priori belief that it does not exist, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away.
Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking.

What fellows like yourself don’t realize is that you wear two hats. One hat is a skeptic’s hat when dealing with things like relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology, evolution, etc. But when it comes to what you have labeled as Woo, you become insulting, emotionally irrational and, at times, hysterical. Objective, rational, logical, and impartial you’re not.

Again, science does deal in certainties that start out as probabilities, possibilities, etc. This is done with the goal of finding out if something is a certainty. Remember, you are the guys that insist that for anything to be real it must be able to be replicated over and over again by anybody anywhere in the world. Once something reaches that stage, it becomes a certainty. So let me restate: science deals with possibilities and probabilities initially, with the goal of finding out if it is a certainty. If we went with what you’re insisting on, it would mean you would have to have an open mind in the areas of woo based on the possibility that so far it can’t be ruled in out conclusively. With your version of science, it appears unlikely, but still within the realm of feasible possibilities. And please, don’t pull the Unicorn Gambit© as a way to sarcastically say, no, while still trying to maintain the semblance of open mindedness.

[Stray Cat]

Maybe this will be easier for you to understand: The Debunker’s Law of Perpetual Simplicity© – a bastardized version of Ocaam’s Razor, which, while not stated outright, is implied throughout, that the simplest explanation is the only explanation. The mindset that all explanations must be mundane at all costs, no matter what the cost.

Not the ONLY explanation... all that is required for other (maybe more exotic or other alternative mundane) explanations, is for someone to provide some evidence to back up an alternative theory...

... so far, none has been forthcoming.

Oh and we've all heard it before but it's worth pointing out again:
For something to be debunked, it must be full of bunk in the first place.

[Wudang]

This always bear repeating

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1759785#post1759785

and whenever someone talks about their chi I always ask why chinese people say a "good fighter has no chi"?
Hint: like many other words "chi" depends a lot on context and in MA should usually mean either leg strength or breath. And this book
http://www.amazon.com/Shorter-Science-Civilisation-China-Vol/dp/0521218217/ref=pd_sim_b_2
provides a fascinating insight into Taoism -especially that were 2 schools, the naturalists (akin to pre-scientific alchemy) and the shamen who shared a common vocabulary.

[tsig]

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. The method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.

.

Does your skeptic ever come to any conclusions after inquiring about those facts and reasons?

[athon]

Maybe this will be easier for you to understand: The Debunker’s Law of Perpetual Simplicity© – a bastardized version of Ocaam’s Razor, which, while not stated outright, is implied throughout, that the simplest explanation is the only explanation. The mindset that all explanations must be mundane at all costs, no matter what the cost.

Nope.

It is indeed a common misconception of the term. Although the term was coined by Sir William Hamilton, the concept of parsimony is reflected in the works of many scientists and philosophers, from Newton to Popper.

Virtually all of them describe parsimony in terms of an economy of assumptions, and not in terms of simplicity being the 'best' (let alone 'only').

Mundanity doesn't into it at all.

Now, I can't say I'm surprised. Many of my past students misunderstood it as well, mostly because people like yourself are so cock-sure that you've got it right without doing a lick of homework on it. Come back to me once you've actually studied a bit of science history and we might have a serious discussion. Until then, I predict will simply be a case of you trying to bluff your way through a subject you evidently know little about, and me saying 'nope' a lot as I shake my head.

Oc•cam's razor
Date:
circa 1837

Strange - the term first appeared in Hamilton's work in 1852, in his work Discussions in Philosophy, Literature and Education. Now, I could be convinced the article it first appeared in within this book might have come from an earlier work ('Discussions' is something of a collection of essays), but as far as my texts indicate, this was the first time the exact term 'Ockham's Razor' was used.

a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

The first part is correct, and is virtually direct translation of the phrase 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda, præter necessitatem'. The second part is debatable and relies on definitions of 'simplicity'. Again, it is more accurate to state it as an economy of assumptions - the more you need to assume, the more room there is for possible flaws in the conclusion. Hence a hypothesis that relies on the least assumptions has the greater chance of being productive.

Now, you can throw unreferenced quotes about all you want. Given you've shown little real understanding of the underlying philosophy, I'm left with my own assumption that you're floundering in a field you've spent little time studying.


What fellows like yourself don’t realize is that you wear two hats. One hat is a skeptic’s hat when dealing with things like relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology, evolution, etc. But when it comes to what you have labeled as Woo, you become insulting, emotionally irrational and, at times, hysterical. Objective, rational, logical, and impartial you’re not.

Something of a generalisation there. I won't dismiss the fact a number of self-proclaimed skeptics are all of those things, but to assume that defines a skeptic is to create a 'no true scottsman' fallacy.

Again, science does deal in certainties that start out as probabilities, possibilities, etc. This is done with the goal of finding out if something is a certainty.

Your insistence that this is the case shows a lot for your self-confidence, but little about your understanding in the matter. You're free to set your understanding apart from centuries of scientific philosophy, of course, but give a lot more people have spent a lot more time studying this, I'm not sure why anybody should give your point a second glance. Certainty in science is a logical impossibility.

Once something reaches that stage, it becomes a certainty. So let me restate: science deals with possibilities and probabilities initially, with the goal of finding out if it is a certainty.

Repetition of something that is wrong doesn't make it right. It just makes you look more foolish.

Science does not deal with certainties. Theories can be overturned or modified with novel evidence. In the absence of said evidence, the theory remains the most useful. It does deal with confidence in a conclusion with view of the possibility of new evidence coming to light. That isn't certainty by any stretch of the fevered imagination.

If we went with what you’re insisting on, it would mean you would have to have an open mind in the areas of woo based on the possibility that so far it can’t be ruled in out conclusively.

Indeed. The door is always left open for the possibility. It costs nothing to be aware that there is no such thing as the final word on an idea. However, it could be quite costly to close one's mind to the possibility of any new evidence.

Athon

[MattusMaximus]

Wait - you're asking MattusMaximus if he's familiar with the Sledgehammer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGiLYt9clfQ)?

Of course, the reason why I wasn't hurt during that demonstration was because I was using my "chi energy" :rolleyes:

[arthwollipot]

and whenever someone talks about their chi I always ask why chinese people say a "good fighter has no chi"? I find it very interesting that there are many schools of codified European martial arts, from the sword and buckler of Tower Manuscript I.33 through the longsword techniques of Lichtenauer and Ringneck; the cut-and-thrust styles of Di Grassi and Fiore through to Agrippa's and Capo Ferro's rapier; and the English swordmasters George Silver and Joseph Swetnam all the way up to 18th century sabre and smallsword. And none of them - not a single one - mention anything to do with chi, breath, inner energy, vibrations, or in fact anything non-measurable. There are no magic powers in the Western Martial Arts. Just brutal and effective methods for maiming or killing one's opponent.

Europeans never needed chi.

[Stray Cat]

Europeans never needed chi.
Of course they didn't... they had God fighting with them on their side. :duck:

[Stout]

I find it very interesting that there are many schools of codified European martial arts, from the sword and buckler of Tower Manuscript I.33 through the longsword techniques of Lichtenauer and Ringneck; the cut-and-thrust styles of Di Grassi and Fiore through to Agrippa's and Capo Ferro's rapier; and the English swordmasters George Silver and Joseph Swetnam all the way up to 18th century sabre and smallsword. And none of them - not a single one - mention anything to do with chi, breath, inner energy, vibrations, or in fact anything non-measurable. There are no magic powers in the Western Martial Arts. Just brutal and effective methods for maiming or killing one's opponent.

Europeans never needed chi.

Interesting point. I'm trying to study sword forms because I've made myself a fire sword ( a bokken wrapped in kevlar tape and soaked in white gas ) and so far all the eastern martial arts schools I've talked to want me to enrol in their program with weapons training coming "when they feel I'm ready"

So far I've been watching videos on youtube but most of those are pretty "high end" and not really suitable for an amature like me but I have been able to learn some things from them and adapt them for use with a sword that's, well, on fire. There's a few fire sword videos out there but most of the performers appear to be doing just what I'm doing, winging it.

We do have a choreographed fight scene with four of us all going at it but that took literally, months to work out and I'd be rather embarrassed to light up my sword and freestyle it, solo, lest someone who was familiar with proper technique was in the audience. Sure I've done it but audience appreciation seems to hinge solely on the fact that I have this thing in my hands rather than my actual skill with it.

Maybe I could track down an SCA guy? They use western martial arts and after researching some of the terms in your post, I'm thinking a flaming buckler might be a nice effect too.

[Bikewer]

Along the same line, Musashi makes no mention of "chi" in his Book Of Five Rings swordfighting manual.
Bruce Lee, in his Tao Of Jeet Kun Do (which was alas, only an outline for a much larger work) mentions modern exercise physiology and training methods, but not a word about such mysterious energies.

All of the so-called demonstrations I've seen are downright laughable to anyone who has any knowledge of body mechanics (and a spate of "strong-man" tricks).

[jakesteele]

Not the ONLY explanation... all that is required for other (maybe more exotic or other alternative mundane) explanations, is for someone to provide some evidence to back up an alternative theory...

... so far, none has been forthcoming.

Oh and we've all heard it before but it's worth pointing out again:
For something to be debunked, it must be full of bunk in the first place.

Not the James Rand Style. As I said, a lot of what he does is nothing more than Bunk Science (BS). And yes, we can get into specifics if you'd like.

His single greatest trick is Sleight of Mind© - doing a magic trick that appears, on the surface, to be the same thing when in fact, there was no real debunking that occurred.

[jakesteele]

Nope.

It is indeed a common misconception of the term. Although the term was coined by Sir William Hamilton, the concept of parsimony is reflected in the works of many scientists and philosophers, from Newton to Popper.

Virtually all of them describe parsimony in terms of an economy of assumptions, and not in terms of simplicity being the 'best' (let alone 'only').

Mundanity doesn't into it at all.

Now, I can't say I'm surprised. Many of my past students misunderstood it as well, mostly because people like yourself are so cock-sure that you've got it right without doing a lick of homework on it. Come back to me once you've actually studied a bit of science history and we might have a serious discussion. Until then, I predict will simply be a case of you trying to bluff your way through a subject you evidently know little about, and me saying 'nope' a lot as I shake my head.



Strange - the term first appeared in Hamilton's work in 1852, in his work Discussions in Philosophy, Literature and Education. Now, I could be convinced the article it first appeared in within this book might have come from an earlier work ('Discussions' is something of a collection of essays), but as far as my texts indicate, this was the first time the exact term 'Ockham's Razor' was used.



The first part is correct, and is virtually direct translation of the phrase 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda, præter necessitatem'. The second part is debatable and relies on definitions of 'simplicity'. Again, it is more accurate to state it as an economy of assumptions - the more you need to assume, the more room there is for possible flaws in the conclusion. Hence a hypothesis that relies on the least assumptions has the greater chance of being productive.

Now, you can throw unreferenced quotes about all you want. Given you've shown little real understanding of the underlying philosophy, I'm left with my own assumption that you're floundering in a field you've spent little time studying.




Something of a generalisation there. I won't dismiss the fact a number of self-proclaimed skeptics are all of those things, but to assume that defines a skeptic is to create a 'no true scottsman' fallacy.



Your insistence that this is the case shows a lot for your self-confidence, but little about your understanding in the matter. You're free to set your understanding apart from centuries of scientific philosophy, of course, but give a lot more people have spent a lot more time studying this, I'm not sure why anybody should give your point a second glance. Certainty in science is a logical impossibility.



Repetition of something that is wrong doesn't make it right. It just makes you look more foolish.

Science does not deal with certainties. Theories can be overturned or modified with novel evidence. In the absence of said evidence, the theory remains the most useful. It does deal with confidence in a conclusion with view of the possibility of new evidence coming to light. That isn't certainty by any stretch of the fevered imagination.

Indeed. The door is always left open for the possibility. It costs nothing to be aware that there is no such thing as the final word on an idea. However, it could be quite costly to close one's mind to the possibility of any new evidence.

Athon

Now, read my fingertips: The Debunker’s Law of Perpetual Simplicity© – a bastardized version of Occam’s Razor, which, while not stated outright, is implied throughout, that the simplest explanation is the only explanation. The mindset that all explanations must be mundane/plausible at all costs, no matter what the cost.

Now, That is my coined phrase to describe what I've heard on these forums over and over again. By repeated and doggedly trying to define OC you are barking up the wrong tree. Either agree or disagree with the principle I have put forth. It's not OC, it is a A belief that:

1. Since a thing could be faked, it must be faked

2. Whatever is claimed is…something else

3. Belief that all UFO photos are fake, especially the real ones

4. Absence of proof is proof of absence

In the time I've been on debunker forums I have never heard a debunker even come close to saying, "Well, another possibility is that it could be the real deal, albeit, remote." The closest I've ever seen you guys come is with the Drake Equation where guys like Phil Plait will say that it wouldn't surprise him if there was some form of life due to the staggering numbers. I call that the Law of Hedging their bet (just in case): prone to say, “Hey, I just want to know the truth, whatever the truth is I want to know, I’m the first to want to know the truth." This is a way of trying to appear open minded, objective, rational, unbiased and logical.

However you want to define OC, the most common usage of it today is "the simplest solution is usually the best." Or in your case, pertaining to any area of woo, "It is always the best".

Or, this guy put it, which describes a debunker's mindset:

Albert Einstein:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Also, "Once something reaches that stage, it becomes a certainty. So let me restate: science deals with possibilities and probabilities initially, with the goal of finding out if it is a certainty."

We have theories like quantum loop gravity, string theory, big bang, etc. These are all fairly feasible avenues of exploration that seek to arrive at one specific goal: certainty as to what it is and what it ain't. Something you can count on first time every time.

Here's an example: http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm (List of things mistaken for UFOs (alien craft) by Donald Menzel, a noted debunker of the 50s and 60s. There are 9 major categories with a bunch of variation on a theme under each heading. This is Occam's Sledge Hammer. The same thing over and over ad infinitum in spite an ever growing list of sightings. The list keeps getting stretched thiner and thiner.

[Stout]

The mindset that all explanations must be mundane/plausible at all costs, no matter what the cost.

Cowspoo

Everybody wants woo to exist, there's no conspiracy to suppress it.

When i see a video, like the one in the OP where somebody shoots himself in the meaty part of the palm, the part where anybody whose ever swung a hammer for a living knows is easily calloused, with a possibly clapped out child's pellet gun then claim that they're using some sort of magic to protect themself, the BS meter goes wild.

Let Chang try protecting his eye from the pellet or better yet, use something that's actually dangerous, like a .22 round. then I'll be impressed.

I want UFOs to exist, that would be cool ( 'cept for the anal probes, that would suck ) but until one actually shows itself rather than sneaking around being all fast and glowy, I'm going to remain skeptical that there's extraterrestrials joyriding around and buzzing our planet getting their kicks.

As the poster on Fox Mulder's wall said "I want to believe", quite often it's that want that drives our perceptions of reality.

[Stray Cat]

Not the James Rand Style. As I said, a lot of what he does is nothing more than Bunk Science (BS). And yes, we can get into specifics if you'd like.

His single greatest trick is Sleight of Mind© - doing a magic trick that appears, on the surface, to be the same thing when in fact, there was no real debunking that occurred.
Randi provides ONE possible mundane explanation for an effect claimed to be done by paranormal powers by a woo...

Woo makes a claim
Claim is refuted by showing a mundane method

Surely it's now down to the woo to provide proof that he has not used the method demonstrated by Randi.

It's easy to understand really but I can also understand woo's not liking it because it would involve providing some solid proof... which of course, they don't have.

So can you find someone who can demonstrate in real controlled conditions a display of Chi energy like Chang claims?

[arthwollipot]

Maybe I could track down an SCA guy? They use western martial arts and after researching some of the terms in your post, I'm thinking a flaming buckler might be a nice effect too.If you do, make sure it's a fencer, not a heavy. The fencers study WMA, but from what I know, SCA heavy fighting doesn't have much resemblance to any WMA I'm familiar with.

[plumjam]

Chi's existence was confirmed many years ago by statisticians.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chi-SquaredTest.html

Or are we supposed to believe that all statisticians are liars when there's a significant probability that only about half of them are?

[Jeff Corey]

That's chi squared, grasshopper. Much more powerful than mere chi. What you are saying is just a load of chit.

[Stray Cat]

Or are we supposed to believe that all statisticians are liars when there's a significant probability that only about half of them are?
Indeed only half are liars... the problem being that no one knows which half it is :D

[ponderingturtle]

Science deals with possibilities and probabilities with the intent to arrive at certainties like the moon orbiting around the earth, the earth around the sun in very predicable patterns, E=MC squared, etc. That's the job of science; to turn possibilities and probabilities into certainties whenever possible. So far they have done a damn good job and they still plugging away every day.

If this guy can do this with out fraud why isn't he working for the Million Dollar Challange?

[MattusMaximus]

So the other day I made a blog post about martial arts and "chi" (linky (http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/physics-of-karate-no-woo-required/)) and I concluded the post thusly...

The moral of the story is simple: when it’s you and your beliefs vs. the laws of physics, physics always wins.

Then yesterday, someone posted the following on my comment section:

When Yan Xin went up against physics…physics lost. Of course, he actually studies the qigong, rather than studying martial arts while believing in qigong. Sadly, that distinction is lost on most believers and skeptics alike.

So who is this so-called Yan Xin? Some kind of "chi-whammy" guru?

[MattusMaximus]

If this guy can do this with out fraud why isn't he working for the Million Dollar Challange?

Probably because it's "against his religious/spiritual beliefs" to do such things for money :rolleyes:

Question: Why can't these folks just win the million dollars and give the money to starving kids?

Answer: Probably the fact that they can't do what they claim.

[arthwollipot]

So who is this so-called Yan Xin? Some kind of "chi-whammy" guru?Let me Google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Yan+Xin). :D

[MattusMaximus]

Let me Google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Yan+Xin). :D

Smart ass :)

I like "Dr." Yan Xin's page on "scientific research" (http://www.yanxinqigong.net/research/index.htm) which makes a number of bold claims, claiming support from various scientific institutions, yet provides no link to any of this "research".

Likewise, when I responded to the person who left that comment on my blog about Yan Xin for elaboration on the claims that "he beat physics", I got crickets chirping.

Color me unimpressed.

[arthwollipot]

Smart ass :):p

[Wudang]

Note the reference to Werner Heisenburg.

On an earlier point you'd be hard pressed to find an antique chinese martials manual refer to chi - even the classics of tai chi don't. It's usually been grafted on later - even with relatively modern arts like Dachengchuan. Although some refer to the exercises as "chi kung" they would not normally have been considered as such.

[ve2vfd]

Reminds me of when I used to study Aikido in my late 20's... I loved that martial art, but my Sensei was the ultimate woowoo-man... He pushed chi (ki), mind over matter, eastern mysticism, magnet therapy and every possible form of bull you can imagine.

I used to get into interminable arguments with him over woo... he could never explain how I - who did not believe in ki or any woo at all - could possibly perform as well as some of his hardcore believers.

Pat