Ki

[WapCaplet]

Isn't it amazing how much value we give 'science'. Doesn't it take a degree of faith to decide that everything that can be proven scientifically must be true, and anything that can't be proven scientifically must be fake?

 

We have reached a stage where the physical realm is the only one that matters. If you can't prove it physically, then it's fake. That takes a lot of faith, if you ask me.

 

Or maybe it's just easier that way.

 

Wap

[TheDevilAside]

I don't really care.. I think I will rely on natural skill and strength (and luck) to get me through a fight.

[White Warlock]

Doesn't it take a degree of faith to decide that everything that can be proven scientifically must be true, and anything that can't be proven scientifically must be fake?

no

We have reached a stage where the physical realm is the only one that matters. If you can't prove it physically, then it's fake. That takes a lot of faith, if you ask me.

That is not true. To someone not versed in the process of scientific analysis, it can seem as such, but it is hardly the case. Many scientific theories exist that are based on postulation, but that cannot be readily 'proven' due to the lack of physical evidence. There are other theories that are based on mathematical formulae and/or partial data.

 

The key issue here is having a 'basis.' Just because someone says it exists, is not enough. If someone cannot provide a viable explanation as to why something exists, then it is merely a 'faith.' But, anything that has a physical effect, such as that demonstrated by so-called ki masters, 'should' provide a degree of measureable influence. This... is the part where ki demos fail miserably, when put to the test.

 

And, as i said before... it's not merely about whether it is measureable or not, but about the fact that when 'professional' scientists attempt to examine said effects generated by a ki master, nothing happens. The so-called ki master somehow is incapable of producing his effects. Thus whatever can be measured, assuming there is something measureable, does not receive the opportunity to be measured.

[47MartialMan]

Ho...WW I like the way you post.......

 

 

 

SSWW

[White Warlock]

Also, science isn't a single study, so my use of 'scientist' is actually very inappropriate. It is as bad as saying, "technician." What type of technician? Auto mechanic? Computer tech? You get the picture.

 

In actuality, what we should be referring to here is known as the 'scientific method.' Scientific method is a systematic method used to research and answer questions. It involves several steps:

 

Question -- the springboard for the rest of the experiment. It asks, "What do I want to find out?"

 

Research -- finding out as much information about the subject as possible, including past scientific experimentation.

 

Hypothesis -- an "educated guess" of what the results of the experiment will be. The hypothesis is based on experience and prior research.

 

Variables -- something capable of change. There are three types of variables: controlled, independent, and dependent.

 

Controlled variables are kept the same for all tests within an experiment. Changes in controlled variables during an experiment may effect the results. This could lead to misinterpretation of the experiment. Controlled variables are capable of change, but controlled. Examples are: inserting the thermometer the same depth into each cup, using the same volume of each sample, using identical cups, or running each test at the same room temperature.

 

Independent variables are tested and varied within the experiment to see what happens. Examples of independent variable are: soil types and number of minutes.

 

Dependent variables are results from manipulating the independent variables. An example of a dependent variable is temperature.

 

Procedure -- the list of materials and step-by-step instructions for the experiment.

 

Testing -- the actual experimentation phase. Included in the testing is the collection of data.

 

Results -- a summary of what happened during the experiment.

 

Conclusion -- a restatement of the original hypothesis, a summation of the results, and a new statement of how the results related to the hypothesis.

 

Extension -- a way to take the experiment to a new level. Extensions will include questions requiring further research, alternative methods for performing the experiment, other experiments, readings, and resources.

 

(from the University of Washington Department of Atmospheric Sciences)

 

On the efforts is the 'testing' phase that falls flat, because so-called ki masters do not 'produce' results of any kind... even results that are not measureable. Nothing happens.

 

Some have contended that ki is the ability to influence bio-electric energy, but such things could easily be measured, and have not. A variety of other explanations have been posed, but since none of them provide insight, only spiritually guided speculation, or blind faith... it is hardly reasonable to accept at face value. Any more than it would be reasonable that i can pull a rabbit out of my hat.

[Master Jules]

Ive never known the discovery channel to put on anything "bogus" when it comes to science stuff.

[White Warlock]

Well, the unfortunate thing is, they sometimes do. In fact, one 'provided' so-called documentary, of which I can't recall the details of right now... had to be pulled and the offended persons apologized to... as it contained slander. This, in fact, happened only a month or so ago.

 

Media is business and the Discovery channel is not non-profit, so when it comes to what they show... it's ratings that matter, not validity. But, regardless, we're 'assuming' that a show was presented on the Discovery channel. At this point, such data has not been presented... and thus this line of reasoning is moot until such time as the show you purport has been presented as evidence... or at least as a point of debate.

[Neo]

Only 500 years ago "science" taught that the world is flat.

[Master Jules]

and before that....the earth was the center of the universe.

[White Warlock]

No, science did not teach that the world was flat. Religion did. You know, those 'faith' guys?

 

In fact, many mathematicians of the time had given evidence to suggest the world was not flat, but they were intimidated by the church, and accompanying inquisitors, into shutting the hell up. In fact, even before Aristotle, 'spherical' was the postulation.

 

As to the center of the universe, that was also 'religion.' Nice to see that everyone here is so well versed.

 

Unfortunately, Aristotle later presented the Earth as the center, in his theories. But this was later 'subtley' challenged by Ptolemy's theories, who put the earth slightly outside of the center. Copernicus later presented the heliocentric (earth revolving around the Sun) theory.

 

Oh, and here's that dubious Discovery Channel show i mentioned - http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=11484

 

Plenty more where that came from, i just found out.

Edited September 11, 2004 by White Warlock