Internal training of strength

Nei Jia: the Qigong and Taijiquan Forum Taijiquan and the Internal Martial Arts
141

Oh, and as far as proving my case. How so do you want me to do it? Do you want me to post links to University level Anotomy and Physiology primers that basically explain that:

Connective Tissue has NO contractile capability. Whether you are doing a tai chi form or a barbell bench press, it is your muscles that are doing the movement. Your connective tissue is along for the ride. … Connective tissue does just that: connects things. Whether it be connecting muscle to bone or bone to bone, the tissue itself has no contractile capacity at all and is not responsible for movement

Connective tissue does not contract. The reason why muscles contract is because nerves and muscles meet in a place called the nuero-musclular junction. When an electrical signal from the nervous system passes through this junction, it stimulates a flow of calcium which causes the thick and thin myofabrils to slide across one another. When this occurs, the sarcomere shortens and this generates force, thus moving the body.

Connective tissue lies in the muscle itself (to lubricate and bind individual muscle fibers), outside of the muscle to bind the muscle to the bone, and also on the joints to bind the joints together. Some connective tissue is made up with a lot of elastin, which as the name implies gives it a measure of elasticity. In extreme cases in extreme ranges of motion, this may facilitate a very small amount of the force produced to snap the joint back into an acceptable ROM.

Here is a decent article from the Department of Exercise and Movement Science in the University of Oregon:

http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/drafts/Eccentric_exerc_rehab.doc

It describes how muscles contract to move the body through it’s ROMs and the role that connective tissue plays in said movement.

oh, and btw the main site: http://www.sportsci.org/ is a peer-reviewed non-profit site for sports science research.

I can really just tell you to go to your closest University and pick up their into to Sports Science or Intro to Anatomy and Physiology text books. It will be in there as it widely accepted as the defined role connective tissue plays in movement. As I said, I can link to many such texts as you want. I can also link to studies which explain this as the role of connective tissue or exactly what the role of skeletal muscle is.

What I can’t do is find a study that says connective tissue is not responsible for movement. This is similar to the fact on how I can’t find a study that says the heart is made of cobwebs. The function and composition of the heart is well known. It is stated in many places. Just like to composition and function of connective tissue is also well known and stated in many places.

If you want to infer that the textbooks and scientists are mostly wrong because you have an opinion about a cutting edge property that will make waves in the future, then I will wish you luck. I’ll disagree, but I won’t drag it out like this. New developments come out all the time and eventually leave the old knowledge in the dust. Such is the nature of science. However, that does not mean you can make claims saying something is “revealed through science” when it is still at best, very much in question.

This is something that seems to be out of grasp for some reason.

142

I don’t think anyone contends that connective tissue is “contractive.” However, how bout elastic?:stuck_out_tongue: Oh BTW, muscle tissue is elastic as well.

143

[QUOTE=Ford Prefect;710519]This is something that seems to be out of grasp for some reason.[/QUOTE]

What seems to be out of grasp for so many people is a grip on the throat of reality. Some people want so badly for there to be a degree of “magic” in their lives that they are willing to suspend their common sense and good judgement in favor of a fantasy world that overlays and suppresses the real world.

I believe in qi and qigong, but I don’t attempt to couch what is at its heart a non-scientifically supported training method in pseudo-scientific language in an attempt to make it more palatable to those with a skeptical mindset. I can do X, demonstrate X, so for me whatever got me to X works. How it works is for others to determine, as I’m not overly concerned with the mechanics of some things.

That having been said, the function of the musculo-skeletal system is well documented by medical science, and the bottom line is that connective tissue doesn’t “do” anything beyond hold stuff together.

Again, someone flex their connective tissue and show me how it can be actively controlled for use.

144

[QUOTE=Fu-Pow;710520]I don’t think anyone contends that connective tissue is “contractive.”[/QUOTE]

No, but they’ve said they can “use” connective tissue to increase their strength. If it isn’t under conscious control, it can’t be “used.” It’s along for the ride, holding things together, nothing more.

However, how bout elastic?:stuck_out_tongue: Oh BTW, muscle tissue is elastic as well.

Sure, it’s elastic, but elasticity is a passive property of soft tissue throughout the body.

145

Greetings..

Hi Ford: Is this the quote that has your panties in a wad?

“ultimately, science and experience reveals the connective tissue as a
higher more useful tool in the goals of a dedicated martial artist..”

Now, we can get to the bottom of things.. let’s look at the quote.. “science AND experience”, not science alone.. yes, it is MY interpretation of MY research and MY experience.. just as your assertions are the same.. it seems that in your zeal to be correct and police the boards of such dispicable people as me, you overlooked simple sentence structure… so, you brashly accuse me of lying, misrepresentation, and sordid other transgressions.. get a grip, man, it’s really not all about you and you beliefs..

Science, in the form of studies and cutting edge research, is “revealing” an impressive amount of data related to the CTS and its effect on human health and performance.. from which, I have tested through experience certain aspects of that research and found the statements I have made to be pragmatic examples of those studies and research.. While you feel the responsibility to police the forum through pseudo-intellectual assault, I feel the need to report experiences and science that may benefit my brothers and sisters..

Now, as i understand it (i do hope that qualifies the following) the connective tissue is responsible for cell shape, both expanded (yes, cells expand) contracted..

Microscopically, tensegrity is seen in the cytoskeleton, where microtubules serve as the discontinuous compression elements and microfilaments and intermediate filaments serve as the continuous tension elements. Mechanotransduction occurs across the cell membrane thanks to integrins, proteins imbedded within the membrane that are connected to both the extracellular matrix and the cytoskeleton. This means that all the cells and extracellular matrix exhibit a continuous mechanical function right down to the genetic material in the nucleus. ********y information activates enzymes and DNA. The icosahedron naturally oscillates between left and right-handed forms with a larger-volume, higher-energy, cubic octahedron as the intermediary. A veritable pumping action results as icosahedrons oscillate. Any energy put into the system (mechanical, electrical, ionic flows) activates this oscillation of life. Thus, functioning on both a metabolic and structural level is inseparable.
The quote above is taken from: http://www.intelligentbody.org.uk/PaulLeeReview.php , indicating the CTS’s involvement at the intra-cellular level and its contribution to structure and mechanical function..

We think the connective tissue/cytoskeleton system combines communication, sensation, signal processing, and power handling components, integrated in a very sophisticated manner that has been honed by millions of years of evolutionary selection. Nature has used all of the possible electronic, photonic, optical, and quantum mechanical tricks to produce a network that is simple, automatic, and virtually flawless in operation.
From: http://theamt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=143 the whole article is quite good..

The cytoskeleton offers the cell a network of microtubules throughout the cell’s cytoplasm that exist in a tensional integrity fabric of microfilaments. These help the cell maintain its shape and give support and integrity to the cell. A variety of cellular organelles are held in place by these cyto-connective tissues. See photos above. Further photos, discussion, and citations are available through Dr. D. E. Ingber at http://web1.tch.harvard.edu/research/ingber/homepage.htm.
from: http://www.hellerwork.com/archives/000923.html

This putty-like tissue surrounds all the muscle fibers. When we’re bunched up, the muscle fibers can’t extend to their maximum length. So it turns out, that when the putty is finally made as long as the maximum lengths of our muscle fibers, the bones and muscles are back to their “designed” organization. And the body actually feels uplifted and operates in a “light” manner. At the same time, it still delivers the maximum amount of power and agility its muscle strengths can provide. The tensegrity design of the human body enables the combination of forces from the different balanced soft connective tissue muscle lengths to lift more weight and apply more power than we’d think it could, based on the size of the muscles.
From: http://www.backfixbodywork.com/Athletic_Performance_Enhancement_Pt_2.htm

Not only is the entire cell now known to be mechanically and electrically interconnected in a “solid state” (Clegg and Drost-Hansen, 1991) or “tensegrity system” (Ingber, 1993, 1998); all the cells in the body are in turn interconnected to one another via the connective tissues (Oschman, 1984, 1996).More accurately, perhaps, we recently discovered that the living continuum is liquid crystalline, with all the properties that make liquid crystals ideal for intercommunication (Ho et al, 1996; Ho, 1997a).
From:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/lcm.php

Dr. Stephen Levin’s research in Biotensegrity holds the view that the body is atensegrity truss system with tension members provided by a matrix of connectivetissues, ligaments, muscles, blood vessels, nerves and fascia. In this model, the bones are considered as spacers, not weight bearers along with incompressible fluids giving shape and form to a soft tissue entity. In keeping with this theory of the body being a soft tissue continuum, Hatsumi Senseidemonstrated to us the concept of a one point therapeutic protocol. This was possiblebecause of the principle of Gairon utilising the interconnectedness of all the biologicalstructures of our bodies. “The continuity or global interconnectedness of the living matrix is essential to the understanding of the body and the role of energetics in health and disease”. Oschman, J. Energy Medicine (P232)He taught us that to apply pressure on one point affected all parts and explained thatwith the body movement “Tai Jutsu” you were able to follow the torsional directionsof vulnerable or damaged tissue. He explained that these points of interaction wereknown as Kyusho, where change at one point had a critical effect on the whole.
From: http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:bNy6ffdTXh0J:www.amatsu.co.uk/pdf/Tension,%2520Integrity%2520and%2520Form.pdf+Connective+tissue+tensegrity&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=25

Now, from just the posted excerpts shown above, i am hopeful that others can begine to consider that the connective tissue is not “just along for the ride”.. it is integral to form and function, and.. that, using one’s powers of reasoning, testing the applied theories, and formulating sound opinions.. science and experience reveals to the “dedicated martial artist” that the connective tissue system is essential and its health and maintenance a crucial and useful tool.. oh, i’m the “dedicated martial artist” in the referenced quote..

Be well…

146

Greetings..

Hi Ford: Is this the quote that has your panties in a wad?

Wouldn’t expect more from you. Bravo.

Now, we can get to the bottom of things.. lets look at the quote.. science AND experience, not science alone.. yes, it is MY interpretation of MY research and MY experience.. just as your assertions are the same.. it seems that in your zeal to be correct and police the boards of such dispicable people as me, you overlooked simple sentence structure so, you brashly accuse me of lying, misrepresentation, and sordid other transgressions.. get a grip, man, its really not all about you and you beliefs..

Interesting cop out. This still doesn’t address the fact that you’ve shown nothing scientific to support your claim. As for beliefs, those would be beliefs of the general sports science community as a whole. Not just my “beliefs”, but facts brought to light through the rigor of the scientific process. Unfortunately, you cannot say the same.

Science, in the form of studies and cutting edge research, is revealing an impressive amount of data related to the CTS and its effect on human health and performance.. from which, I have tested through experience certain aspects of that research and found the statements I have made to be pragmatic examples of those studies and research.. While you feel the responsibility to police the forum through pseudo-intellectual assault, I feel the need to report experiences and science that may benefit my brothers and sisters..

Interesting how calling out an obviously fallacy about science on a public discussion forum is now “policing” the forum. Were you “policing” the forum when you initially responded to my post? Right…

Please list the exact studies that are revealing an impressive amount of data related to CTS’s effect on human performance. Here we go again…

Now, as i understand it (i do hope that qualifies the following) the connective tissue is responsible for cell shape, both expanded (yes, cells expand) contracted..

Technically “connective tissue” has a lot of functions. Connective tissue is a catch-all term that includes blood, bone, and other such tissues with a wide variety of functions. As far as providing locomotion for the body and it’s appendages, muscle is responsible for that.

The quote above is taken from: http://www.intelligentbody.org.uk/PaulLeeReview.php , indicating the CTS’s involvement at the intra-cellular level and its contribution to structure and mechanical function..

The above quote had to do with a review of a conference and nothing to do with a peer-reviewed study that demonstrates that CTS moves the body. Mechanical does not = “make the body move”.

From: http://theamt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=143 the whole article is quite good..

“We think” being the key words with no rational basis for that thought that would hold up to scientific scrutiny. No studies… just an article from a random site.

The cytoskeleton offers the cell a network of microtubules throughout the cell’s cytoplasm that exist in a tensional integrity fabric of microfilaments…

from: http://www.hellerwork.com/archives/000923.html

And what is this supposed to prove? Yet again, this is not a study, just an article on a site trying to sell what it is saying.

This putty-like tissue surrounds all the muscle fibers. When we’re bunched up, the muscle fibers can’t extend to their maximum length. So it turns out, that when the putty is finally made as long as the maximum lengths of our muscle fibers, the bones and muscles are back to their “designed” organization… From: http://www.backfixbodywork.com/Athletic_Performance_Enhancement_Pt_2.htm

More speculation with no scientific grounding. No citations of a scientific study or even a study relating CTS and human performance. You do know what a scientific, peer-reviewed study is, right? I am beginning to think not with your insistance that these are reliable sources.

By the way, all muscle fibers are indeed surrounded by connective tissue. Take a lucky guess at the way to cause that tissue to strengthen and hypertrophy: high intensity resistance training.

Not really going to bother with the others as it is more of the same. Excerpts from articles and not actual scientific studies. Even then, they do not say anything about CTS as it relates to human performance in combat or even athletics in more than passing mention.

Now, from just the posted excerpts shown above, i am hopeful that others can begine to consider that the connective tissue is not “just along for the ride”.. it is integral to form and function, and.. that, using one’s powers of reasoning, testing the applied theories, and formulating sound opinions.. science and experience reveals to the “dedicated martial artist” that the connective tissue system is essential and its health and maintenance a crucial and useful tool.. oh, i’m the “dedicated martial artist” in the referenced quote..

Be well…

Sure it’s integral in form and function. An internal combusion engine is what moves a normal car. Yes? Now how would that function or look with any nuts or bolts? It would obviously fall apart and do nothing, which demonstrates connective tissues important role. However, what role do the nuts and bolts play other than connecting the engine parts? They are just along for the ride as the engine provides the power output to send the car forward.

Luckily for us, we are not engines. We can increase our “engine strength” by heavy resistance training and an ancillary benefit of said training is that our nuts and bolts (tendons, ligaments/intra-muscular connective tissue) also becomes stronger. You do not become stronger because your connective tissue is stronger.

Again, all this is relatively simple and part of most intro courses in sports science and physiology. If you believe contrary, then it is in conflict with science and not because of it. You could of course post studies which support your case. You’ve yet to do so. You could change your quote to:

Ultimately, articles on the internet and experience reveal that connective tissue is the higher, more useful tool for a dedicated martial artist…

Leave science out of it. Oh and the dedicated martial artist in that quote is you.

Be well…

147

HEY!!!

You guys are bogarting my pi$$ing contest with Fu Pow and spiralstair!!:mad:

I guess its my turn to sit back and watch!!:wink:

148

WTF is “tensegrity?”

“The word ‘tensegrity’ is an invention: a contraction of ‘tensional integrity.’ Tensegrity describes a structural-relationship principle in which structural shape is guarenteed by the finitely closed, comprehensively continuous, tensional behaviors of the system and not by the discontinuous and exclusively local compressional member behaviors. Tensegrity provides the ability to yield increasingly without ultimately breaking or coming asunder”

That’s from www.tensegrity.com, and appears to be nothing more than a neat-o word created by someone who has rediscovered the wheel and is trying really hard to convince the rest of us that it’s something new… Hmmm… :rolleyes: Structural shape is guaranteed by its component parts. Ya think? :wink:

All those quotes seem to come from the same non-scientific, self-promoting sites attempting to get people to believe their theories.

It’s like when I was in massage therapy school… The people who believed in polarity therapy (a pseudo-qigong based “therapy”) would cite no end of pro-polarity “evidence,” but couldn’t cite any independent, objective proof of the validity of polarity treatments (the bulk of which are no more than holding one’s hands near “energy centers” on the body, often without making any physical contact whatsoever).

Sounds like new-age BS. I’m willing to believe something that stands commonly held “fact” on its ear, but not without something independent to contrast against the “beliefs” of converts to an idea.

Yet again, let’s see someone consciously employ their connective tissue to improve their power/strength/technique. Compare a non-CTS movement with one using CTS “strength.” If it can’t be done, it can’t be done.

149

Greetings..

Ford: We hold differing values as to the basis of our belief systems.. you seem to be content to rest on proven fact.. i look to the cutting edge of exploration and peer into your future.. while you are correct, the articles i cite are not “peer reviewed”, they are studies made by reputable professionals.. they work diligently to expand our knowledge-base.. to improve our condition .. to enhance our experience of living.. those that are steadfastly attached to “just the facts, ma’am”, will be last beneficiaries when the “peers” bless the work..

Interesting cop out. This still doesn’t address the fact that you’ve shown nothing scientific to support your claim. As for beliefs, those would be beliefs of the general sports science community as a whole. Not just my “beliefs”, but facts brought to light through the rigor of the scientific process. Unfortunately, you cannot say the same.
LOL, not a “cop out”, just an illustration of your inability to reason through the issues.. you saw something you didn’t like and invoked the inquisition, i’m used to people like you, you’re amusing.. I have referenced numerous reports by people of science, cutting edge researchers.. you, spout the rhetorical dogma of “peer review”.. you respond to equally direct questions by avoidance and diversion.. you arbitrarily label data that doesn’t conform to your beliefs as dubious or self-serving, in hopes that it diminishes the data’s perceived value.. and, what have you achieved? Your characterization of the CTS indicates a prejudice against knowledge that you find undesirable.. i have avoided referencing “medical” references due to length and complexity, you know, like Johns Hopkins, Princeton, the “dubious” institutions.. there is much to be gained from an unprejudiced investigation of the information i have referenced… But, i am not inclined to mentor you through all of the data, try it for yourself.. i jest, i realize i am wasting my time and yours.. your have iron to pump, people to persecute and “peers” to embrace.. me?, i’ve got a life to live, a broad horizon to explore.. i’m not waiting for “peer reviews” to set my course, i have faith in my own experiences..

Interesting how calling out an obviously fallacy about science on a public discussion forum is now “policing” the forum. Were you “policing” the forum when you initially responded to my post? Right…
An “obvious fallacy”?.. please continue the the mantra in hopes that if it’s heard enough it will be believed.. i’ve cited references by medical doctors, scientists, and researchers.. you, rail against the obvious, anchored in "facts, oblivious to direct experience, and failing to respond to any of the queries put to you.. The “obvious fallacy” is no more than a difference of perspectives.. No, i wasn’t “policing” the forum, i was responding to your assertion of “bad information”..

Technically “connective tissue” has a lot of functions. Connective tissue is a catch-all term that includes blood, bone, and other such tissues with a wide variety of functions. As far as providing locomotion for the body and it’s appendages, muscle is responsible for that.
Perhaps, a visit to medical sites referenced by “connective tissue” would shed some light on your understanding of “muscle”.. the CTS is intergal even to muscular operation, and.. the CTS’s beneficial contribution is compromised by over-developed or over-used muscules.. the issue i am trying to put forth is the appropriate balance necessary for optimum performance..

“We think” being the key words with no rational basis for that thought that would hold up to scientific scrutiny. No studies… just an article from a random site
C’mon, Ford, play your own game.. refute it with references, you know, “peer reviewed” studies that refute the statement.. these are researchers working with a world-wide network of doctors, scientists and other researchers.. “no rational basis”?, THAT is the irrational statement..

Again, all this is relatively simple and part of most intro courses in sports science and physiology. If you believe contrary, then it is in conflict with science and not because of it. You could of course post studies which support your case. You’ve yet to do so.
I have posted evidence of a more in-depth understanding of the inner workings of the human body, i have stated that the postings are for anyone’s benefit AND to be evaluated by the observer accordingly, i state that the references for use as the observer sees fit.. i am not trying to convert people, only trying to offer them options in their quest for excellence.. conversely, you would have them reject anything not approved by you..

You do not become stronger because your connective tissue is stronger.
Yep, here we go again.. back it up, show us where there is a study that confirms this.. you know, “peer reviewed” and all.. or, just admit it’s simply part of your dogmatic belief system..

Ultimately, articles on the internet, supported by scientific researchers, and experience reveal that connective tissue is the higher, more useful tool for a dedicated martial artist… There, i think that should balance our differences..

YiLiQuan1:

Yet again, let’s see someone consciously employ their connective tissue to improve their power/strength/technique. Compare a non-CTS movement with one using CTS “strength.” If it can’t be done, it can’t be done.
I can do it, i can introduce to many others that can, as well.. it’s easier than you think.. oops, that has an element of an unfounded assumption…

All those quotes seem to come from the same non-scientific, self-promoting sites attempting to get people to believe their theories.
Really, could you point out the basis for that statement.. those people (scientists and researchers, or.. practitioners based on science and research) put their theories out there for public scrutiny, for contradictory “evidence”, and for the benefit of those willing to see beyond the dogma..

In closing, i will cite a quote of a friend.. “you can lead a jacka$$ to knowledge, but you can’t make him think”…

Be well..

150

Bob,

Let’s make this easy. You post scientific studies from peer-reviewed journals asserting your case to be true, and I will post mine. Here are mine:

Fung Y (1981) Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissue Springer-Verlag :302

Komi P (1984) Physiological and biomechanical correlates of muscle function Exercise and Sports Science Review 14: 81-121

Vidiik A (1973) Functional Properties of collagenous tissues Int Review of Connective Tissue Res 9:265-305

Goldspink G (1978) Muscle energetics in animal locomotion Mechanics and Energetics of Animal Locomotion : 57-81 (I think you’d like this one because it talks of the crucial role that stored elastic energy in the tendons plays in energy conservation during tasks)

Kovelik A (1978) Prevention of overstress to the skeletal-joint system in weight lifters Teoriya i Praktika Fizischeskoi Kultury 4: 36-39

Of course you will need access to medical journals for this. Having a background in science and working in a science-related field, I have such access. Here are some links to free content on blackwell-synergy.com. This will give you an idea as to what a proper a scientific study in the realm of physiology looks like. These are from the peer-reviewed Journal of Physiology:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1113/jphysiol.2005.094615

Extract:

Alkalosis enhances human exercise performance, and reduces K+ loss in contracting rat muscle. We investigated alkalosis effects on K+ regulation, ionic regulation and fatigue during intense exercise in nine untrained volunteers. Concentric finger flexions were conducted at 75% peak work rate (3 W) until fatigue, under alkalosis (Alk, NaHCO3, 0.3 g kg1) and control (Con, CaCO3) conditions, 1 month apart in a randomised, double-blind, crossover design. …

Subjects

Nine healthy untrained volunteers, comprising five males and four females, gave written, informed consent and participated in the study. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Victoria University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee, and conforms to the Declaration of Helsinki. Physical characteristics of the subjects…

Pre-experiment peak exercise performance tests. Leg cycling incremental exercise
was 3.52 0.30 l min1 (49.9 4.2 ml kg 1min1), and peak work rate was 269 25 W. In contrast, incremental finger flexion exercise test peak work rate (WRpeak) was only 4.06 0.34 W, and the peak force was 19.22 1.27 N. …

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.00389.x

This is what scientific studies look like They are not articles from websites that are written by people trying to sell products. They are not articles from websites that speculate greatly with no scientific references backing them up. Lastly, they are not articles from websites that are written to appear scientific but are not peer-reviewed.

Books asserting my case (and the collective case of the physiology community as a whole) are easily found:

[u]McArdle: Exercise Physiology 5/e[/u] (This is what Harvard Medical School uses for related courses)

[u]Jenkins: Anatomy and Physiology [/u](Again this is what Harvard Medical School uses for their related courses)

Here are some online references. You will have to pay for online subscriptions to the medical journals, but this may help:

Ingber D (2005) Tissue adaption to mechanical forces in healthy and aging tissues. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
Volume 15 Page 199 - August 2005

Komi P et al (1992) Biomechanical loading of Achilles tendon during normal locomotion. Clin Sports Med. 1992 Jul;11(3):521-31

Booth and Tseng (1993) Olympic Goal: Molecular and Cellular Approaches to Understanding Muscle Adaptation News Physiol Sci 8: 165-169, 1993

Zajac F (1989) Muscle and tendon: properties, models, scaling, and application to biomechanics and motor control. Critical Review Biomedical Engineering 1989;17(4):359-411.

Book solely on the subject: Human Tendons - Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology http://www.humankinetics.com/PRODUCTS/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?ISBN=0873224841&

I could list the phsyiology and biomechanics texts used by every accreditted university since they are all very similar and say the same things about connective tissue properties. I figured Harvard Medical School gave me the most bang for my buck. Also, I actually have these books as Harvard is down the street from me and I’ve taken lectures and night courses (both for fun) there.

Your turn. Please list peer-reviewed studies or at the very least physiology books used in the biology/medical courses of accreditted universities which assert your case. You have shown complete ignorance of the scientific process. If something is not peer-reviewed, it is not science. It does not hold up to scientific rigor. This is the very backbone of science: the ability of your peers to review your work and replicate/confirm your conclusions. Even men like Einstein were subject to peer-review and had to answer many criticisms. Even men like Einstein were 100% wrong when criticising some of his peer’s work (Bohr and Quantum Mechanics). This leads to open discussion and debate, which in turn leads to the truth being revealed.

All scientists must be extremely open minded because there is no dogma. If data is presented that changes popularly held beliefs, then it is scrutinized. If it is shown to be true, then it is accepted. Even cutting edge science is subject to peer-reviewal in order to evolve and gain acceptance. Please post evidence of such peer-reviewed studies that support you case.

If you want to go by the fact that it is extrapolation from scientific studies that have not been tested via the scientific process (and are thus not science), then that is fine. Be cutting edge. You just can’t claim it science.

151

And for everybody else reading this thread (ie Bob don’t respond to this post),

I am the very first person to admit that science does not have all the answers. There are plenty of phenomena that can NOT be explained by science yet. This is displayed in the fact that I indeed practice Tai Chi and Qi Qong. I do the Tai Chi (Yang) long form every other day. On the off days, I do various styles of Yoga. I do Qi Qong every other day. The off days are filled with Zen Meditation as an attempt to vew things from a non-rational basis. Things I experience in practicing all these things can’t be explained by science.

As a human, I can attempt to rationalize things. For instance, during qi qong training when I’m leading qi through my body and can physically make some areas warm to the touch. I can rationalize this away concentration on a certain area which premotes nervous system activation/blood flow/etc to that area thus making me feel these effects. That is not science though. It is an answer based on my understanding of science, but it is just speculation.

Do you see the difference?

Science = hypothesis, experimental structure, experiment, experimental results, conclusions drawn from results, published in medical journal and reviewed by peers of the field.

Speculation = Taking a scientific study or general held scientific beliefs and then using that branch off into explaining something. There is no hypothesis (in actuality most of the articles being posted here would serve similarly as a hypothesis), but it is not followed with proper scientific structure, a gathering of test results, and an objective look at the results to be weighed against the hypothesis. There is none of this, hence it is speculation.

Science is not something that should be *******ized and used as a means to undermine itself. It is based on the very thing that allowed man to be able to rise up out of the realm of animals: rational thought and reason. Every twisting of a scientific principle is a twisting attack on reason and rational thought. Where does it end? I for one, do believe such a thing is a dispicable act and if left unchecked can cause gross damage to the world that we know. That is why I’m arguing scientific points here. Not because I think science has the answer to every question or that science is my “belief” structure. A “belief structure” goes against everything science is.

152

Hi Ford,
Great post. One really gets the feeling you have for the necessity of proof.
Here’s your progression:
Science = hypothesis, experimental structure, experiment, experimental results, conclusions drawn from results, published in medical journal and reviewed by peers of the field.

Here’s another one using yours for a springboard:
T’ai Chi= Hypothesis: a worthwhile pursuit, even a “path” to the Big One, understanding Self.
experimental structure: the practice of traditional T’ai Chi forms
Experiment: lifelong practice while undergoing the natural changes of growing old
experimental results: an honest self assessment, rooted in demonstratable changes in function and behavior of body and personality
conclusions drawn from results: what it is possible to pass on through transmission to the next generation that can be reproduced in their practice
published in medical journal and reviewed by peers of the field: The peer review is ongoing in Tai Chi, it’s called push hands.

One thing I think that Science still lacks is an ability to bring us any closer to understanding ‘Who’ it ‘Is’ that it is doing the studying. The ‘I’ eludes science, but maybe not T’ai Chi.

Science has given birth to the Skeptical Mind, and we are all better off for it. To have too much a skeptical mind though, IMO, is like a sea anchor off the back of your ship. You’re still sailing, but your missing how fast you could be going.

Anyway, thanks for sharing.

153

[QUOTE=Ford Prefect;710702]

Science is not something that should be *******ized and used as a means to undermine itself. It is based on the very thing that allowed man to be able to rise up out of the realm of animals: rational thought and reason. Every twisting of a scientific principle is a twisting attack on reason and rational thought. Where does it end? I for one, do believe such a thing is a dispicable act and if left unchecked can cause gross damage to the world that we know. That is why I’m arguing scientific points here. Not because I think science has the answer to every question or that science is my “belief” structure. A “belief structure” goes against everything science is.[/QUOTE]

The truth is that science operates both on logic and intuition. The monumental discoveries in science often weren’t put together logically and rationally, often there was a hunch, or feeling or an sudden insight after long periods of thought.

I actually work in science and consider myself something of a historian of science and I can tell you that your view of science is skewed. Actually, science does have a “belief” structure, it can become dogmatic. Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions?”

What you are talkng about is “normal” science, everyday science that proceeds incrementally, logically, rationally but there is also such thing as a ‘scientific revolution’ created when the data no longer fits the rational explanation and a “crisis” ensues. That’s when scientists start investigating intuitions, gut instincts.

154

[QUOTE=Ford Prefect;710702]

Speculation = Taking a scientific study or general held scientific beliefs and then using that branch off into explaining something. There is no hypothesis (in actuality most of the articles being posted here would serve similarly as a hypothesis), but it is not followed with proper scientific structure, a gathering of test results, and an objective look at the results to be weighed against the hypothesis. There is none of this, hence it is speculation.[/quote]

Your “speculation” is also what is known as inference and scientists infer things all the time. Then they go back and get all the data to back it up.

In some fields of science the data is not readily available, most of the field is dominated by inferences…is it still science?

Furthermore, science often misses the forest for the trees. Science is subjective in the sense that the scientist chooses what to train his focus on. Its a blind bias that can never be fully accounted for.

Just because a scientist hasn’t “studied” it doesn’t mean it does or doesn’t exist. We can INFER based on the evidence that such and such violates this scientifically studied fact but that’s not really science…as you’ve already pointed out.

The truth in this case is that some very experienced and intutive people figured out a unique way to use the human body for the purpose of martial arts. They didn’t have a well developed scientific method and quite frankly, they didn’t need it. They explained how it worked with the paradigms available to them.

As moderns we’re looking to science for the answers. We’re inferring based on some research that has proceeded us. But science has to get past the dogma and look at this first. Look at IMA and see how it is different, a lot might be learned about the potential ways of using the human body…to not is to be dogmatic.

155

[QUOTE=spiralstair;710731]Hi Ford,
Great post. One really gets the feeling you have for the necessity of proof.
Here’s your progression:
Science = hypothesis, experimental structure, experiment, experimental results, conclusions drawn from results, published in medical journal and reviewed by peers of the field.

Here’s another one using yours for a springboard:
T’ai Chi= Hypothesis: a worthwhile pursuit, even a “path” to the Big One, understanding Self.
experimental structure: the practice of traditional T’ai Chi forms
Experiment: lifelong practice while undergoing the natural changes of growing old
experimental results: an honest self assessment, rooted in demonstratable changes in function and behavior of body and personality
conclusions drawn from results: what it is possible to pass on through transmission to the next generation that can be reproduced in their practice
published in medical journal and reviewed by peers of the field: The peer review is ongoing in Tai Chi, it’s called push hands.

One thing I think that Science still lacks is an ability to bring us any closer to understanding ‘Who’ it ‘Is’ that it is doing the studying. The ‘I’ eludes science, but maybe not T’ai Chi.

Science has given birth to the Skeptical Mind, and we are all better off for it. To have too much a skeptical mind though, IMO, is like a sea anchor off the back of your ship. You’re still sailing, but your missing how fast you could be going.

Anyway, thanks for sharing.[/QUOTE]

Spiralstair,

I appreciate the attempt at understanding. Those unfamiliar with the scientific method have the harder time grasping it’s nuances. In your experiment:

Hypothesis: How is a worthwhile pursuit being defined? What is the exact definition you are using? How can it be quantifiable measured? How will you go about getting these measurements? Is the measurement purely objective or is it subjective on basis of the study participant? If a hypothesis is not measurable, then it is not science.

Experiment: That is a fine experiment. Although you will need more test subjects and for due-dilligence sake balance that against those who do not practice Tai Chi.

Experimental Results: This should be the measurements that were supposed to alluded to in your hypothesis or statement of experimental model/methods.

Conclusions: This is where you draw logical conclusions based on the measurements using logic. Fallacious logical arguments need to be avoided like the plague as it is the death bell in any peer-review process. As I said, reason and rational thought is the backbone of science.

Peer-review: This is where similar educated professionals review the work and replicate the results and/or confirm the conclusions. In this example, push hands skill does not correlate to the hypothesis.

Science isn’t concerned with the “I”. It is meant to purely objective. “I” makes things subjective. Unless you want to drone on with Kant’s critique of reason, the objectivity is the most important aspect of the scientific method. This allows the experiementing scientists and their reviewing peers to weigh the value of the data on its merit alone, and not on preconceived notions or personal biases.

Objectivity has given birth to a branch of philosophy called Objectivism. Amung the more noteable devotees is Ayn Rand who is the author of Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged being her most famous peice. Objectivism attempts to deal with the “I” that science leaves behind in an objective sense. Like science, it relies on rational thought and reason.

Now I try to balance such things out with my pursuit of Zen meditation amung other branches of philosophy. The answer to koans is not rational or reasonable in the scientific sense. It in a sense is supposed to free ones mind from the rational reality of experience.

As for skepticism, that is one of the building blocks that science is built on. If somebody came along and said, “The sun revolves around the earth”, they can’t just proclaim it science because the fellow happens to be a scientist. No. The other scientists say “prove it”. The claimee then must create testable criteria to prove his hypothesis. The scientific community will again approach it with skepticism. After looking over the data, confirming it, and replicating, then the claim will be accepted or thrown away. That is how science stays pure with only testable and verifiable knowledge.

This is also why a “belief system” as it were runs contradictory to science. New data is adopted often and theories are modified because of it. Nobody is opposed to a theory being turned on its head. It’s actually quite an exciting time when something like that happens. However, for a theory to be turned on its head, it will have to be because of proven data. Some people view this as the scientific community being pig headed and dogmatists similar to those in a religion. It couldn’t be further from the truth. New information that can be proven is embraced with open arms. Science is dynamic. The very nature of dogma is to remain static. The problem is that if you make a scientific claim, then you must back it up with a testable and verifiable results.

156

[QUOTE=Fu-Pow;710737]The truth is that science operates both on logic and intuition. The monumental discoveries in science often weren’t put together logically and rationally, often there was a hunch, or feeling or an sudden insight after long periods of thought.

I actually work in science and consider myself something of a historian of science and I can tell you that your view of science is skewed. Actually, science does have a “belief” structure, it can become dogmatic. Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions?”

What you are talkng about is “normal” science, everyday science that proceeds incrementally, logically, rationally but there is also such thing as a ‘scientific revolution’ created when the data no longer fits the rational explanation and a “crisis” ensues. That’s when scientists start investigating intuitions, gut instincts.[/QUOTE]

Incorrect. Because something stems from a hunch, feeling, or a sudden insight does not mean the method that is then undertaken to test this hunch is not scientific. Hypothesis are made, experimental models are drawn up, and data is collected.

Is every hunch correct? Does every hunch lead to a scientific breakthrough? The obvious answer is no. The difference between one that is breakthrough and one that isn’t, is that the one that is a breakthrough is then backed up through the scientific method.

Science certainly doesn’t have a belief structure. Sir Karl Popper states it well when he says: “…in science there is no ‘knowledge’, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. … This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.”

If you were so inclined, you’d find similar quotes from such eminent physicists as Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman.

157

Your “speculation” is also what is known as inference and scientists infer things all the time. Then they go back and get all the data to back it up.

Precisely. They go and get the data to back it up…

In some fields of science the data is not readily available, most of the field is dominated by inferences…is it still science?

Examples please? You could use evolutionary biology as an example as there are no testable hypothesis that can be conducted in scientific experiments. However, if you want to say that it is dominated by inferences, then you show a lack of understanding.

Furthermore, science often misses the forest for the trees. Science is subjective in the sense that the scientist chooses what to train his focus on. Its a blind bias that can never be fully accounted for.

Actually that’s part and parcel to Kant’s critique which was written in the 1500’s (if I remember correctly). It’s not a new thought. I’m sure you’ve heard of philosopher Robert Prussik, the author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, who delves into this very topic quite extensively.

The reason why the scientific structure is not rocked by this is because, experiments that are chosen to be conducted are surely subjected. However, those experiments are then conducted in an objectove manner and are likewise reviewed and verified in an objective manner. If “subjectivity” were truly the only thing support science, then that would mean all scientists would have to be on board. Theories would be static. If anything, this has proven to be 100% incorrect.

Just because a scientist hasn’t “studied” it doesn’t mean it does or doesn’t exist. We can INFER based on the evidence that such and such violates this scientifically studied fact but that’s not really science…as you’ve already pointed out.

I agree 100%. However, that inference that has not yet withstood the rigor of the scientific method is not science anymore than any unproven idea is science.

The truth in this case is that some very experienced and intutive people figured out a unique way to use the human body for the purpose of martial arts. They didn’t have a well developed scientific method and quite frankly, they didn’t need it. They explained how it worked with the paradigms available to them.

Very good. It is not science though. That is the whole point of my post. I assume you missed it. In a nutshell, I said science can’t explain everything. There are things that science can’t measure or attempt to explain as of yet. However, the things it can measure adhere to strict guidelines.

As moderns we’re looking to science for the answers. We’re inferring based on some research that has proceeded us. But science has to get past the dogma and look at this first. Look at IMA and see how it is different, a lot might be learned about the potential ways of using the human body…to not is to be dogmatic.

And there are plenty of studies being done on alternative medicines. I’m anxiously awaiting for the results of one such trial done on accupuncture that is lasting over a few years. Just because science has yet to test something does not mean that it will never do it. There are infinite possibilities to test out there. Scientists wants to make breakthroughs. Coaches want their athletes to excel. It’s not like every scientist has gotten together and said “OK. This IMA stuff is a huge threat to us. Let’s ignore it and stick to old dogma.” It’s laughable to consider dogma is holding science back.

158

[QUOTE=Ford Prefect;710742]Incorrect. Because something stems from a hunch, feeling, or a sudden insight does not mean the method that is then undertaken to test this hunch is not scientific. Hypothesis are made, experimental models are drawn up, and data is collected. [/quote]

Uh yeah that’s what I said. I wasn’t arguing the empirical part of your science but rather that science is all logic and rational. Its not, a good scientist has good intuition as well. The ones that don’t get very far.

Is every hunch correct? Does every hunch lead to a scientific breakthrough? The obvious answer is no. The difference between one that is breakthrough and one that isn’t, is that the one that is a breakthrough is then backed up through the scientific method.

Where did I say that every hunch is correct? Again, your arguing empiricism I’m arguing the rational nature of science.

Science certainly doesn’t have a belief structure.

The underlying belief structure of science is that the universe is ultimately understandable by the hypothetical-empirical method. While that method certainly has taught us alot about the universe it has also shown its limitations. Alot of what passes for “science” is lacking in empricial data…cosmology comes to mind or particle physics where your average scientist gets to collide particles like once every 5 years.

Sir Karl Popper states it well when he says: “…in science there is no ‘knowledge’, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. … This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.”

I agree but not sure what that has to do with what I’m saying.

159

[QUOTE=Ford Prefect;710743]
Examples please? You could use evolutionary biology as an example as there are no testable hypothesis that can be conducted in scientific experiments. However, if you want to say that it is dominated by inferences, then you show a lack of understanding. [/quote]

In this case the theory is supported by the lack of evidence to refute it as much as the evidence that supports it.

Actually that’s part and parcel to Kant’s critique which was written in the 1500’s (if I remember correctly). It’s not a new thought. I’m sure you’ve heard of philosopher Robert Prussik, the author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, who delves into this very topic quite extensively.

I’ve read that book. Its all really about Plato vs Aristotle. The universe “in here” vs. the universe “out there.”

The reason why the scientific structure is not rocked by this is because, experiments that are chosen to be conducted are surely subjected. However, those experiments are then conducted in an objectove manner and are likewise reviewed and verified in an objective manner. If “subjectivity” were truly the only thing support science, then that would mean all scientists would have to be on board. Theories would be static. If anything, this has proven to be 100% incorrect.

I’m not trying to “rock” science. What I’m trying to say is that science subjectively determines what is considered valid inquiry.

I agree 100%. However, that inference that has not yet withstood the rigor of the scientific method is not science anymore than any unproven idea is science.

Absolutely.

And there are plenty of studies being done on alternative medicines. I’m anxiously awaiting for the results of one such trial done on accupuncture that is lasting over a few years. Just because science has yet to test something does not mean that it will never do it. There are infinite possibilities to test out there. Scientists wants to make breakthroughs. Coaches want their athletes to excel. It’s not like every scientist has gotten together and said “OK. This IMA stuff is a huge threat to us. Let’s ignore it and stick to old dogma.” It’s laughable to consider dogma is holding science back.

No. What I’m saying, and what I’ve been saying is its not even on the radar of science. Some will argue that it shouldn’t be (obviously debatable) but I can say that as a skeptical person and practioner of martial arts for ten years that there is something unusual going on with IMA, not “mystical” but something that isn’t easily explainable either.

Try this experiment. Put weight on on of your legs with your hand on the quadricep muscle. What happens? The quad tenses up in a response to gravity. Now my Taiji teacher did exactly the same thing and I put my hand on his quad. I didn’t feel the muscle tense at all. It felt like a pulse went through the muscle and it was completely soft again. His weight was still on the leg. It was weird. He’s had me do the same thing when he is pushing on a person and again the shoulder totally soft.

So what is doing the action? Something inside? Is it a displacement of weight across the structure? As a rational person I’m looking for answers but none readily present themselves and yet there is the “data”, my senses perceiving this strange phenomena. Granted the sense can be deceived and impartial measuring devices would help provide clarification but there it is.

160

Uh yeah that’s what I said. I wasn’t arguing the empirical part of your science but rather that science is all logic and rational. Its not, a good scientist has good intuition as well. The ones that don’t get very far.

And I was making it clear that his intuition plays only a role as a creative impetus. The scientist then tests his intuition via the scientific method.

The underlying belief structure of science is that the universe is ultimately understandable by the hypothetical-empirical method. While that method certainly has taught us alot about the universe it has also shown its limitations. Alot of what passes for “science” is lacking in empricial data…cosmology comes to mind or particle physics where your average scientist gets to collide particles like once every 5 years.

Herein lies your error. Science is not an attempt to explain everything in the universe. It is merely a platform to explain to explain that which can be observed, quantified, and measured in a consistent manner. Some scientists may believe that they’ll eventually explain the whole universe, but science is merely a method for understanding the natural world.

I agree but not sure what that has to do with what I’m saying.

Because you are trying to say their scientific dogma… There is not.