Ki & Aikido

[thaiboxerken]

The ones observed by science.

[JerryLove]

Tell me, are you qualified to test these things?

 

Yes, I have a functiontiong brain and an understanding of scientific method.

 

Are you qualified to determine who is and is not qualified?

The ones that rules our objective universe.

Really? I thought the reality of our objecive universe was self-sustaining, and laws of physics attempted to explain it... but I'm more curious which, specific, law of physics you feel is being violated.

 

Your inspecificity and unwillingness to cite is very poor debate tactic and shows a rather irrational approach to the subject.

I highly doubt that you are qualified to judge such things.

I hightly doubt that you are qualified to judge who is qualifieds to interprete data from sensory input... shall we start a transindental discussion on your various worldview presuppositio to determine from whence you derive justification for making such assertions of authority?

But did you use controlled conditions? I doubt it.

That is a different question from the one you asked when you made your initial straw-man caraciture of my comment (by adding in a refusal to do what I had not refused to do).

 

I did perform my experiment double-blind. My sampling group, while chosen almost exclusively of non martial-artists, was not random as it contained primarily family and co-workers.

 

I have also not done peer-repeats, which is because I was not interested in proving it to someone else (and as the peers with the skills to perform it were already convinced).

Why the crap would I want to waste my time doing something that I believe doesn't work?!

Perhaps you now understand my response to "Go get Randi". Why the crap would I waste my time doing something that I believe won't work? In this case, I don't believe that Randi will allow for / accept it. I feel I would need something more emperically concrete (as opposed to statistically concrete), and even then I expect a fight.

You sure do make excuses for avoiding the challenge. The JREF is a small drive away from you, they have and do test claims JUST LIKE YOURS. Yet you insist on making excuses for why you won't do it. Why don't you just be honest and say you don't want your beliefs tested by an objective, third party because you are afraid of the results?

 

You sure do make excuses for not putting in the effort to find out for yourself. Why don't you just be honest and say you don't want your beliefs tested because you are afraid of the results?

[Drunken Monkey]

um can i chime in and say that the physics that rule our universe are actually quite hazy.

 

at its worst, it is all a bunch of guess work;

 

highly sophisticated guess-work that results in rules and principles that seem to describe how/why things work but guess work non-the-less.

 

they aren't totally complete and depending on how far, or close you look, they don't always work.

 

in order to make it work, more guess work is applied.

 

(and then they go and look for 'real' proof)

 

as i said, it all seems to work (as in, the numbers fit and follows predicted results)

 

BUT

 

if a new theory is discovered that renders the old obsolete, then the old is totally over-written as it were.

 

and if both ways seem to work, then they keep both of them.

 

this is how unstable the world of physics is and this is ignoring the whole nature of quantum mechanics and related.

 

you talk of science as if it is a giver of absolute fact.

 

fact is, science can't answer everything.

 

my physics teacher told me.

 

if it blows up, it's chemistry.

 

if it dies, it's biology.

 

if it doesn't work, it's physics.

 

um, should point out that i'm not saying anything about ki here.

 

just pointing out a few things about the sciences/physics.

[JerryLove]

The ones observed by science.

Science is not an entity, it is a field of study... it has no ability to observe.

 

Further, laws are not observed... reality is observed and laws are derived from observation and testing of behaviors (unless you are discussing logical laws, which derive from reason and necessity)

 

Please cite a specific law (such as "The first law of Thermodynamics" or "The law of convservation of inertia" or "the second law of inheretence"), which you feel is being defied.

[Drunken Monkey]

.....things that jerry says more eloquently and succintly than i can.

[Sasori_Te]

This too is what I am trying to get tbken to answer and he won't because I suspect that he doesn't know the first thing about any of the scientific laws that he throws around like they were gospel truth.

[thaiboxerken]

It's not so much that he's violating laws of physics, but that we would have to define new ones to explain his superpower. In order to do this, however, we need to establish that he really does have his claimed superpower.

[Drunken Monkey]

reminds me of a debate i had with someone about the possibilites of using a magnetic field to contain a small piece of anti-matter.....

 

he kept on repeating that you can use a magnetic field to suspend it

 

but couldn't actually say how you would do it.

[thaiboxerken]

It is rather a silly debate. Jerry makes a claim, now he asserts that I have to prove his claim wrong. The burden of evidence is actually Jerry's, he makes the absurd claim, so he should be providing the evidence. He won't, though, but neither do most believers.

[JerryLove]

It's not so much that he's violating laws of physics, but that we would have to define new ones to explain his superpower. In order to do this, however, we need to establish that he really does have his claimed superpower.

This is not true at all in physics. It is very common to speculate, and then create rules to explain your speculation. A simple exaple of this is Einstein and dark-matter.

 

It is eqauly absurd to say that I must explain how something works to establish that it works. If this were true, then we could not prove that anything works because at the most basic level, we don't understand the universe.

 

Finally, I have never claimed that others should consider the subject proven "because I say so". I can do what I have said I can do, and have no desire to lie about it so that you feel better. Nor do I have an interest in the massive investment of time and energy to try to establish it on a clinical level as true.

 

You've admitted that you toss around claims that you haven't even thought through, much less established true (the "break the laws of physics" comment comes to mind)... I fear that you are posting fare more emotionally than rationally.

 

That said, I'm gonna discontinue the physics/Randi argument here. It's silly to be doing this on 4 thread. Narrow it down (prob the other really active one), and I'll go round-and-roudn for a while... though you have said nothing new.