Interesting reading for you all.
Sounds like the Chinese version of James Randi to me.
This guy? I guess you could say so.
You read the article,right?
Originally posted by Former castleva
This guy? I guess you could say so.
You read the article,right?
Yeah, I have known about him for quiet some time now.
Opinions on him appear to be split.
Can you tell me more about how they are “split”? I´m a bit curious.
Some more material (related);
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9503/china.html
FC.
Some reckon that is on the right track exposing ALL forms of qi-gong as charlatanism, same as Randi does with his paranormal tests.
Actually both seem to be targeting the same group using the same methods.
Different terminology only, IMHO.
Others feel that he is using his previous knowledge to make a quick cash buck selling himself more than doing anything to either promote or attack Qi-Gong as it seems fit for him at the moment.
Personally, I am all for getting the frauds out there to say that they are doing is nothing more than charlatanism and 19th century snake-oils sales.
But at the same time I think that we need more research into the non-magical aspects of Qi-Gong.
They way I see it many charlatans are using the term of “Qi-Gong” because it sounds like something new and as yet unexplained.
Lets face it most forms of spiritualism were 20th Century inventions.
Old story, new twist, using new names.
IMHO, people like him and James Randi can and often do the same damage as the frauds do to peoples perception.
Cheers.
"Some reckon that is on the right track exposing ALL forms of qi-gong as charlatanism, same as Randi does with his paranormal tests.
Actually both seem to be targeting the same group using the same methods.
Different terminology only, IMHO.
Others feel that he is using his previous knowledge to make a quick cash buck selling himself more than doing anything to either promote or attack Qi-Gong as it seems fit for him at the moment."
I cannot say anything about making cash with that,since I do not know.
However,I think that such work is of great importance for educational purposes.This Sima Nan here is (like Randi) offering a good deal of cash for those able to create a phenomena that the cranks he rightfully exposes claim to.
“IMHO, people like him and James Randi can and often do the same damage as the frauds do to peoples perception.”
This one,I do not fully understand.
Are you saying that on their way to expose bull,they are also in the danger of taking something valuable down with them? (I think it´s up to people to posses THAT amount of reasoning to distinguish between pebbles and jewels…and these guys are after the pebbles)
FC.
“IMHO, people like him and James Randi can and often do the same damage as the frauds do to peoples perception.”
This one,I do not fully understand.
Are you saying that on their way to expose bull,they are also in the danger of taking something valuable down with them? (I think it´s up to people to posses THAT amount of reasoning to distinguish between pebbles and jewels…and these guys are after the pebbles)
Yes, that is what I am saying or atleast my opinion.
There is a lot of good Qi-Gong used in CMA and it already suffers from the reputation of the bad “magical” stuff.
Most people hear Qi-Gong and their head fills images of Mooney like stunts and similar.
Also those “exposee guys” can’t afford someone to “win” their tests as their lifelyhood depends on exposing frauds or atleast on the presumed effort of doing so.
Sorry, I got a very low opinion of James Randi and his ilk, for me those guys are just as low as they guys they are trying to expose.
Cheers.
I hope you might find this relevant:
Former
we have our opinions, you have yours. I doubt debating will change any of our opinions.
“Former
we have our opinions, you have yours. I doubt debating will change any of our opinions.”
I´m not sure if this is relevant.I was not looking for a debate,and I find it hard to believe that someone could actually debate FOR the material I have presented (unless insults count)
Thanks William.
Since I go to randi.org fairly regularly,I´ll bring this up and see what this was all about.
"Yes, that is what I am saying or atleast my opinion.
There is a lot of good Qi-Gong used in CMA and it already suffers from the reputation of the bad “magical” stuff.
Most people hear Qi-Gong and their head fills images of Mooney like stunts and similar.
Also those “exposee guys” can’t afford someone to “win” their tests as their lifelyhood depends on exposing frauds or atleast on the presumed effort of doing so."
I hope you did not get me wrong here,I tried to not let you catch that impression.
I,or this “exposee guy” (well,how much I ever can speak for someone else!) am/are not saying that it is all fraudulent,I do not think that way.If someone gets a kick out of this stuff,it would be rather questionable to call them out.As you say,the magic cranks are there and are not good for the reputation of such arts,“exposee” would be after these ones (as displayed?)
I cannot see how a rational person (with little emotional investment in “trickery”) would be hurt by that.
What do you think?
When you say they cannot afford someone to win,do you think they have any chance in the first place? Are you saying the tests are fudged? I´m yet to see anything that would pass critical examination.
Originally posted by Former castleva
Are you saying that on their way to expose bull,they are also in the danger of taking something valuable down with them?
I think the misgivings people have in these situations can be summed up as “What’s to come of the reasonable approaches to this topic?”
Allready, the public conception is dominated by the unreasonable approaches. When the people who take up the task of education also only address the unreasonable approaches, what hope is there for the reasonable?
I’m reminded of the faux-science prank going around a while ago about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. Clever pop culture; but absolute junk science - why? Because it was such a disproportional treatment of the topic. This example makes it pretty obvious. But this is exactly the situation with Randi, et al.
Let´s see…
Are you saying that critical approaches to what appears to be junk,may serve to “confirm” people´s/public´s misunderstanding of what is not so?
I´m yet to see what the problem is within this,should it exist.
Will you blease elaborate?
(Like your avatar.It almost carries it with the same influence on thought as mine does)
Originally posted by Former castleva
Are you saying that critical approaches to what appears to be junk,may serve to “confirm” people´s/public´s misunderstanding of what is not so?
No, I’m saying there’s nothing critical about this brand of skepticism; for the same reasons there’s nothing critical about the dihydrogen monoxide scare.
FC.
Some problems that I have with Randi and similar guys:
1.) They appear go only after the big well-known fraudsters, and often ignore or brush of the smaller guys.
Not very scientific.
2.) Reading some of their articles online it is all blowing their own trumpet to make themself looking better.
3.) Plenty of those test are “inconclusive” but Randi(example) declares them as failed, which he can do acording to the rules.
4.) While the test might be scientific, the rules under which they are conducted definately favour Randi and similar guys.
Just a few points, if we want to dicsuss Randi and his methods we better start a new thread.
I fail to see how your analogy applies,so far,but thanks for writing.
Just for the record then,here´s one such report to be analyzed;
http://www.randi.org/jr/082203.html
BTW,wonder if psychoanalysis should be considered science.
Originally posted by Former castleva
I fail to see how your analogy applies
For example; both of them start with a conclusion and work back towards observations. Both of them address only those components of the phenomenon which approve their a priori conclusion.
It’s these errors which make the dihydrogen monoxide scare so absurd, despite being true. Since this brand of skepticism contains the same errors, we can conclude it to be equally absurd.
By any means, these approaches disqualify it as science.
What bothers me is that it masguerades as science. Following Freud, I feel that there is no thing so unhealthy for the individual, or society, as delusion.
wonder if psychoanalysis should be considered science.
Psychoanalysis isn’t a monolithic movement, but rather contains a wide variety of models and methods. Some psychoanalytic ventures could rightly be called scientific; others, surely not. Is it worth noting the same is true of physics?
“What bothers me is that is masguerades as science. Following Freud, I feel that there is no thing so unhealthy for the individual, or society, as delusion.”
Agreed.
“Psychoanalysis isn’t a monolithic movement, but rather contains a wide variety of models and methods. Some psychoanalytic ventures could rightly be called scientific; others, surely not. Is it worth noting the same is true of physics?”
Not too much of a physicist here,but I´d say yes and then no…
I think that the grounds they start from are too different to compare in such a manner.
Generally speaking then,could you point out your idea on what parts of it are scientific and what not?
“For example; both of them start with a conclusion and work back towards observations. Both of them address only those components of the phenomenon which approve their a priori conclusion.”
Would not addressing those components,even if they are “only those” components be reasonable enough,as far as they don´t generate conclusions too great (either step on the “slippery slope” or “gamble”,so to speak) ?
Originally posted by Former castleva
Not too much of a physicist here,but I´d say yes and then no…
I think that the grounds they start from are too different to compare in such a manner.
What does “the grounds they start from” have to do with whether or not something is science? Something is science for following the scientific method (rationalism), not for belonging to a cultural transmission which the majority of people deem arbitrarily to call science (relativism).
Generally speaking then,could you point out your idea on what parts of it are scientific and what not?
Parts of a body of knowledge don’t sit around following the scientific method, so I don’t understand your question.
There have been ventures in psychoanalysis which followed the scientific method; I would call this science. There have been ventures in physics which haven’t; I would not call this science.
Would not addressing those components,even if they are “only those” components be reasonable enough,as far as they don´t generate conclusions too great (either step on the “slippery slope” or “gamble”,so to speak)?
What I find unreasonable is that it pretends to be science when it is not; and that it operates under a consistent “straw man” fallacy as to it’s topic matter - by treating the lowest common denominator as if it’s descriptive of the whole movement.
“What I find unreasonable is that it pretends to be science when it is not; and that it operates under a consistent “straw man” fallacy as to it’s topic matter - by treating the lowest common denominator as if it’s descriptive of the whole movement.”
Finally.
This is what I have been after,I can see the point clearly enough now.That would certainly qualify as a strawman,but you have to be careful when handing out strawmen titles for the reason that when it may appear as if the “lowest” example was used to attack the “whole movement”,it may not be.One needs to be clear about that.For example,see the tile of this thread.Someone might think that I´m attacking the whole community,the whole art or whatever should be in question (unless of course,should what I described as “bad qigong” represent a lot of the movement)