Right. I did not mean to imply you specifically were straw-manning; only trying to describe my feeling as to how this kind of skepticism can go wrong.
As you alluded, the same thing happens in psychoanalysis. When critics base criticism off of their own incorrect understanding of a phenomenon, the criticism ends up applying only to figments of the critic’s imagination, rather than to any psychoanalyst (or qigong practitioner, etc), who themselves would never hold these contrived beliefs (eg. contrast the critic’s understanding of oedipal complex with the psychoanalyst’s).
This is the kind of behaviour that I do not believe is actually critical.
Not alone for sure,are they?; http://www.skeptics.com.au/
Australian Skeptics accept challenges too,for one.
“1.) They appear go only after the big well-known fraudsters, and often ignore or brush of the smaller guys.
Not very scientific.”
Cannot comment on that.Care to elaborate?
Besides,this does not relate to how “scientific” they are.Or does?
“2.) Reading some of their articles online it is all blowing their own trumpet to make themself looking better.”
Would you like to provide some evidence of this?
“3.) Plenty of those test are “inconclusive” but Randi(example) declares them as failed, which he can do acording to the rules.”
What matters,ultimately,is that those who will fail (they will fail…) have accepted the rules.How do you think they are inconclusive? Also check the thread I brought up.
“4.) While the test might be scientific, the rules under which they are conducted definately favour Randi and similar guys.”
"As you alluded, the same thing happens in psychoanalysis. When critics base criticism off of their own incorrect understanding of a phenomenon, the criticism ends up applying only to figments of the critic’s imagination, rather than to any psychoanalyst (or qigong practitioner, etc), who themselves would never hold these contrived beliefs (eg. contrast the critic’s understanding of oedipal complex with the psychoanalyst’s).
This is the kind of behaviour that I do not believe is actually critical."
Twenty million Chinese yuan donated by Hong Kong philanthropists for the purpose of establishing health insurance policies for China’s top athletes was diverted to certain special ability qigong masters.
great article. I practive qigong but more of this type of educated criticism is need
If Randi is so sceptical of qi gong but would love to be convinced why doesn’t he learn from an wise master who doesn’t just teach for money and test himself!?
Personally, my life isn’t about being a sceptic, ratonalist or trying to solve the mysteries of the universe through science. You can easily work out what you want from life and go and get it. If perfect health and high energy levels is what you require, then i say go do the qi gong. Then evaluate it for yourself. I don’t see the point in reading negative opinions that other people claim to be gospel because they follow some pattern of testing widely believed to be the ultimate way to show fact from fiction.
I think science can be the binds that hold the sceptic down and stop them from realising what they want; the truth! Mainly because, you can’t be sure the truth can be found through scientific methods.
The same goes for being too gullable. You don’t need a study to tell you what to believe. You can tell yourself what to believe and as long as your getting what you want then your fine.
Science is also bound by rational thought. Dualistic conceptual thinking. Maybe thinking about it isn’t the answer at all…
