Chi is an energy, and so is Emotion.

[swansont]

The article also implies that we overlook things. The reason bumblebees was initially thought to have broken the laws of flight was because they did a mathematical calculation on smooth wings.

 

"Insect flight and wing movements can be quite complicated. Wings aren't rigid. They bend and twist. Stroke angles change. New, improved models take that into account."

 

There is still a possibility that we overlooked something here too, even if it cannot be seen (for now).

 

Th thing is, science (actual science) places limits on such things. The experiments and final calculations aren't carried out on a napkin at a dinner party, though. If there is such a thing as chi, its effect on the energy states of atoms is exceedingly small, because of the level of agreement we see between theory — which doesn't include chi — and experiment.

[Strange]

However , it also shows that a person can do it.

 

Again. Penn and Teller. Or "You'll believe a man can fly"

 

A video is not good enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of evidence.

[Phi for All]

The article also implies that we overlook things. The reason bumblebees was initially thought to have broken the laws of flight was because they did a mathematical calculation on smooth wings.

 

"Insect flight and wing movements can be quite complicated. Wings aren't rigid. They bend and twist. Stroke angles change. New, improved models take that into account." [/size]

 

There is still a possibility that we overlooked something here too, even if it cannot be seen (for now).

This is a great example of confirmation bias mistakenly strengthening a conclusion that was not reached by reason. You've always believed in this bit of misinformation about the bumblebees, but until today didn't know why it was wrong. It was explained very rationally from multiple sources, yet you remain convinced "we overlooked something here too".

 

Until you actually study the relevant scientific concepts, you'll remain convinced of your "belief" in chi. Nobody will ever be able to convince you that chi doesn't exist. But when you learn to see explanations for natural phenomena rationally, with a critical eye towards the processes and evidence that support them, you'll be able to understand why the way we reach our conclusions needs to be as trustworthy as possible.

[Tzurain]

This is a great example of confirmation bias mistakenly strengthening a conclusion that was not reached by reason. You've always believed in this bit of misinformation about the bumblebees, but until today didn't know why it was wrong. It was explained very rationally from multiple sources, yet you remain convinced "we overlooked something here too".

 

Until you actually study the relevant scientific concepts, you'll remain convinced of your "belief" in chi. Nobody will ever be able to convince you that chi doesn't exist. But when you learn to see explanations for natural phenomena rationally, with a critical eye towards the processes and evidence that support them, you'll be able to understand why the way we reach our conclusions needs to be as trustworthy as possible.

I did not claim to believe in Chi. I am just looking into a speculation from an optimistic standpoint.

 

But I suppose you are somewhat right, I will have to look into the subject further.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Tzurain

[swansont]

I did not claim to believe in Chi. I am just looking into a speculation from an optimistic standpoint.

 

But I suppose you are somewhat right, I will have to look into the subject further.

 

A skeptical viewpoint is required. One can't look at some phenomenon and conclude "chi" unless all other known effects can be ruled out. IOW, the null hypothesis is that chi is nonexistent, and one must gather conclusive evidence that it is real before acceptance.

[Strange]

One can't look at some phenomenon and conclude "chi" unless all other known effects can be ruled out.

 

There are (at least) two reasons for this.

 

One is that (as swansont) has already pointed out, we have a set of theories based on known forces. These work extremely well so there seems to be no room for a new force. Note that there are many cases where a new "thing" (from planets to fundamental particles) has been discovered because it was found that the standard, known physics did not match what we observe. That does not appear to be the case with Qi.

 

The other is Occam's Razor (which is, perhaps, just a generalization of the above): don't create more entities than necessary. If you are proposing a new entity, then you need very good reasons to include it. Not just some anecdotes and videos. It has to be necessary; i.e. our theories will not work without it.

[Phi for All]

I did not claim to believe in Chi. I am just looking into a speculation from an optimistic standpoint.

 

I've had to distinguish, for myself, between faith, hope, and trust as types of belief. Faith is belief with no evidence whatsoever, believing based on gut feelings, persuasive arguments, and emotions. Hope is what you describe above, you want it to be true but don't feel as strongly as someone with faith would. You aren't likely to change your life about this, but it's a belief you won't be able to rid yourself of until you learn more. Trust is belief in things you can verify, phenomena that have been studied using the scientific method, reviewed and re-reviewed by many people trying to find the most reliable explanations.

 

Things you believe in that have little or nothing to support them, these are almost impossible for you to get rid of. You'll be the most adamant believer because you don't have all those pesky facts and evidence against to deal with. Oddly though, as much as some people think scientists are caught up in their theories and refuse to think outside the box, if you were to take any, I repeat ANY mainstream theory, and provide equal or greater evidence for a counter theory that explains more or explains it better, and if nobody could refute your claims, the scientific community would embrace your theory as the new mainstream.