Steve Hatfield wrote:
I said I can't compete with the higher education crowd.
****
Sorry I went round in circles.
And I am grateful that you bring your opinions and ideas to a discussion. It's best to put things "out there" and give it a go. Otherwise it's difficult for all of us to get our arms around what people think, how they train, and what works.
Steve Hatfield wrote:
My point wasn't that the Chinese have been doing it longer than we have.
That's debatable. Both our cultures survived, did they not? Somehow the medicine practiced in Europe and the Americas kept them alive. If not then the Chinese would exist, and we would not.
Part of my training in both undergraduate and graduate school was in the history of medicine and infectious disease. I would argue that western practices afforded the Europeans the ability to conquer Native Americans without the use of modern weapons. It is a fact that more Native Americans died of disease than they did by war with the settlers or starvation. Western Europeans conquered infection, influenza, smallpox, sexually transmitted diseases, the plague, and myriad other scourges that subsequently wiped out the residents of the new world they settled in.
China now is playing catch-up to the west academically, politically, and economically. Yes, the Chinese as a large group have done incredible things. And they've made spectacular blunders as well. They are... human! But they're smart too. A third of the people who work beside me in my high-tech field are from China.
Steve Hatfield wrote:
My point was, the further we go back in time, the more simplistic are the explanations for stuff. On either side of the pond.
This is a good time to bring in an important concept - that of Occam's razor.
Wikipedia wrote:
The term "Ockham's razor" first appeared in 1852 in the works of Sir William Hamilton, 9th Baronet (1788–1856), centuries after Ockham's death. Ockham did not invent this "razor"; its association with him may be due to the frequency and effectiveness with which he used it (Ariew 1976). Though Ockham stated the principle in various ways, the most popular version was not written by him, but by John Ponce from Cork in 1639 (Meyer 1957).
The version of the razor most often found in Ockham's work is Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate, “Plurality must never be posited without necessity". For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else, the whole of creation, is radically contingent through and through.
Here's the amazing thing about this. As the 5-element theory supporting acupuncture and kyusho/tuite began to bump up against the scientific method, more and more post hoc rationalizations were needed to support it. The theory began to absorb exception after exception after exception in order to support the very reason for its existence. At some point, Occam's razor dictates that a series of alternate, simpler theories which explain causality in these venues were likely the better ones.
Simple is good. Simple is desirable. But simple
must explain the available data. Newton's laws worked extremely well until we started approaching the speed of light. Then
and only then is when new theories (relativity) were needed to deal with how speed, time, and mass interact with each other.
Steve Hatfield wrote:
I can't believe that some major Chinese medical institutions haven't come out yet and said that "chi" or whatever you want to call it is all bunk.
Peer review journals haven't been involved with the publication of articles supporting a dead theory. They're getting on with the business of physiology, math, physics, and statistics.
Speaking of which... Do you know why there are so many Chinese in my line of work? I've discussed this with them. Other than this country being a brain drain on others... What we speak in my field is a universal language. They speak a language of medicine, math, statistics, and computer software that is universal. They can do the same work I do using a language I use, and not have to worry about the fact that they suk at English.
Steve Hatfield wrote:
are you saying that the word "chi" doesn't exist in chinese medicine or martial arts?
It's quietly being abandoned for words, languages, and theories that work better - one concept at a time.
Steve Hatfield wrote:
I think everyone agrees that there is an "energy" of some sort flowing through our bodies.
Indeed! We talk about it all the time here! And the word "chi" never comes up in my language except for the occasional use of it as a tongue-in-cheek
metaphor to explain the "feeling" you get when all the pieces and parts are working together as they should.
Steve Hatfield wrote:
it travels in specific paths. And there are certain things we can do to enhance its journey, or impede its journey.
"Energy" works for me! It starts with phosphate bonds in ATP, and finishes out the end of my fist. It also involves the use of gravity and potential energy stored chemically, elastically, and positionally.
Steve Hatfield wrote:
I believe more and more doctors are resorting to adding things like "prayer" and finding that they make a difference in recovery.
Duke University is a place where religiosity is studied in medicine. Here are two fascinating findings.
- A person who believes in a loving and forgiving God will have better medical outcomes than a person who believes in a vengeful, punishing God.
... - Prayer DOES help with medical outcomes. But prayer only helps when YOU are the one praying, or you KNOW that others are praying for you. Get 1000 people to pray for your good medical outcome and you don't know about it? You get zero "lift" from the effort.
Wow!

- Bill