Chi: A real force?

JaredJames

Here's another good one with Simon Pegg: http://www.yourdailymedia.com/video/watch/5298/

gnurf

While we're on the topic of Derren Brown... One of my favorite clips is where he convinces a woman that she can't speak by using a worthless "voodoo" doll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNRnyDwq2NY

JaredJames

Well the point I was making with Derren Brown is that we are all very susceptible to suggestion.

Look at Simon Pegg, he convinced him that what he'd always wanted was a bike - using nothing more than some suggestive objects and words. Damn clever.

nismaratwork

Yep. On NPR today, there was a bit about the Coca Cola recipe, but it boiled down to: Coke is not a beverage, it's a brand. Certainly everyone doesn't fall for every con or suggestion, but saturate an area like Coke, and suddenly those warm afternoons on the beach are, 'Warm afternoons on the beach with coke,' with a fixation on the beverage.

Hell, it should be obvious from our media economy, from the fact that this site can stay alive with more than just donations: MARKETING WORKS. I've clicked through ads here, by accident, out of curiosity, just to give the click, and genuine interest. When every part of our lives is saturated by a message, we begin to internalize it if we don't reject it outright.

Up the emotion and make it faith rather than belief, and marketing is just the relatively benign tip of the iceberg. One thing is clear however: if you're educated, if you are skeptical, then you have a better chance. Nothing is perfect, but it's the best so far in my view.

Oh, and Simon Pegg is hilarious, as is Nick Frost.

JaredJames

One thing I've found after watch everything Derren Brown has done, is that I'm constantly focussing on what people are saying / doing a lot more than previously.

If you do it when you're watching him, even if you don't know what you're looking for, it will start to stand out and become blatantly obvious.

Not that I expect other people to do it, but it puts my mind at rest.

The biggest problem I find, especially with something like Chi, is that no matter how educated / skeptical you are, when you see something you can't explain properly it's human nature to 'develop' an explanation. If that explanation happens to coincide with what others are talking about then it just boosts your belief in it.

nismaratwork

That's the beauty, the true BEAUTY of science... you can still explore this, but we can only hypothesize and test. Unfortunately, that is not how many people are taught to think, and in fact culturally you have (I'd guess) at least a couple of billion people primed to believe in Chi.

Funny thing of course is that kind of culture-bound belief (chi as one example) almost inevitably leads to a host of culture-bound psychological/psychosomatic disorders. Koro springs to mind, and 'Fan Death', which are bound in deeper cultural fears and norms. When so many believe, you have to search for the skeptics, but the nuts get on Larry King.

SpeedOfDark

You're kidding right? No scientists believe in Chi, no real scientists at least. You question this man like he's the one being foolish when he's not. It's not that hard to explain that, if you were to try to chop a brick in the air it would hurt but since you are hitting one brick into another into another the brick breaks very easily. Throw a brick at the ground rather gently and see that the force to break that brick is not that much. Now throw a brick at your foot and I bet much wont happen. It's simply the bricks touching eachother and the force they have that causes them to break not the force of his hand hitting it so hard.


Does anyone have any scientific evidence to prove that Chi is real? Anything at all, even easily disputable evidence or a clear and apparent lie might be better then none. I'm looking to dispute science not nonsense.

JaredJames

You're going to be backing that up with a source I assume? On a similar subject, there are plenty of scientists out there who are deeply religious and believe the world to be 6000 years old. So I don't see how you can make such an assertive claim.
The force imparted by his hand must be equal to that which is required to break the brick plus enough to compensate for any losses (through absorption). The bricks themselves have no 'force' when they're just sitting there (unless you count weight - but that's irrelevant here).
It is his hand hitting them with the required force that causes them to break.
There is none, which, if you'd read the last few pages you'd know. (I'm ignoring the one 'study' that was suggested as it doesn't appear anywhere credible.)

SpeedOfDark

I can't show you a source of scientists who don't believe in chi(I can't show you what isn't, pretty obvious I'd think), but if you can show me a source of scientists who do.\

Also seeing as you just said there is no scientific evidence to prove Chi, then we must conclude that it is false until such is acquired and we can claim this is debunked and not real.

JaredJames

You claimed "No scientists believe in Chi, no real scientists at least.". That is a statement you need to back up. If it is true then I'd expect an article or something proclaiming it. If there is no such article then you can't make that statement as factual.
A lack of evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

(I'm ignoring my own personal views here and referring specifically to the scientific stance on the matter.)

SpeedOfDark

Here's a pretty easy way to understand why no real scientists believe in chi.


If there's no scientific evidence for something REAL scientists don't believe in it and you shouldn't either.

JaredJames

How much evidence is there to support string theory? How many scientists support it? Are these not "real scientists"?

Like I said, there are some very religious but brilliant scientists out there who, despite the evidence, firmly believe the Earth is 6000 years old.
I don't believe in Chi. If you read back through you'd understand this.

SpeedOfDark

Actually there's no many SUPER brilliant scientists who believe in god and there's no good scientists who believes the earth is 6000 years old there isn't even a smart person who thinks this. Really, I can't believe you'd say that the

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer

93% of all members of this organization do not believe in God and these are the best of the best scientists


I actually want to fix that, there are probably less then a handful of HIGHLY EXCEPTIONAL scientists who believe in God

Scientists understand that String Theory may in fact not be a fact, however it is the best thing to describe what happens in the universe as of now. Also, there's only NO experimental data proving it. The reason they thing the String Theory is real is because it explains things that happen in our Universe.

JaredJames

Could you show me exactly where it says about the 93% part? Because I can't find it. I'd also like to see where it says the 7% that do believe in god don't believe the earth age part - or don't they come under the title of "a smart person" despite being in an organisation made up of "the best of the best scientists"?

Again, do you have something that shows "there isn't even a smart person who thinks this" regarding the age of the earth?

You are making claims which there is no proof for. If you claim that no good scientists believe that about the earth you should be able to back it up. Those are the forum rules.

Personally, I agree that no scientist worth their salt should willingly ignore the evidence. But that doesn't mean I can prove that none of them hold the view.

I'm not arguing what scientists may or may not believe - I'm trying to point out you can't make such wild claims without backing them up.

Here is a link to a site here which references various scientific sites and the supreme court. You can ignore the claim, it is the numbers below you're looking at (referenced from the links / sources at the bottom). They show that there is a percentage (5% overall) of scientists who believe in creationism (that includes all fields of science, it comes down to 0.15% for specific life sciences). Thus, rendering your above claim incorrect, as some scientists clearly do believe it.

nismaratwork

SpeedOfDark: Real scientists are human beings too, and they can believe in virtually anything! Hell, that's actually the point of science: have a hypothesis, and maybe spend your entire life trying to work with it. What distinguishes the "real" from the "unreal" (that's for Om Cheeto ) is what a scientist DOES and will admit.

Beyond that, jarednjames has you dead to rights, and in a fit of irony too because what you're saying is anything except scientific. You can't just make a broad sweeping statement that relies on... what you believe. I know, this must be weird coming from the same sources that are always skeptical, but that's PART of skepticism.

You need to entertain notions, explore them (see how DaveC will play devil's advocate sometimes when the science runs thin?), and then hopefully mounting evidence begins to support or refute your claim. Still, if your science is good, you follow the method and are open to full peer review... you can believe in unicorns.

Now, if you just said, "In my view, you can't have a scientific mind and believe in Chi at the same time." I'd still disagree, although I don't believe in chi, but you'd have just let us know what you think. Frankly, a LOT of people might think the same, or they might give extra scrutiny, but that's a GOOD thing. Science and art are all about the end product: if it's beautiful in art, or if it works in science (more to it of course) then the artist or scientist can be a lunatic.

If it's real science, others will be able to come along and by NECESSITY as part of the method, re-create the results. If not, does it matter what the beliefs are, and if so... does it matter what the beliefs are?

JaredJames

I can't believe how many arguments he's won doing that!

nismaratwork

He's smart, and he knows his science. It's not fun when that light is on you, but I find it holds me to a higher standard. Not just DaveC either... you might jump in, Flex is always ready to point out that sometimes I reach in my explanations when simplicity is the way to go. Vanadium will always cut right to the point, but I don't see him much here. Still, it's one those things you just love to hate, and hate to love.

Still... would it be PF without that? Naaaah.