• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Penn & Teller's "BS" -- Yay or Nay?

Emet said:
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/home.do

(Autocensors prevent linking to Wiki page on the show.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters

Penn and Teller's show is called "Bullsh*t!"

Savage and Hyneman created and appear in "MythBusters".
Click to expand...

Well there is no twisting that around. I confess that I was just teasing about this, or playing "devil's idiot" if you wil. I thought it might inject some amusement into the thread. :)

I know both shows well and have watched them for years. Thanks to all who tried to straighten me out. You are good guys.
 
Last edited:
SOdhner said:
We were just having some fun. If you put everyone who is goofing around a little on ignore the forums might start to get a little quiet.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry-you're on ignore. :D

I'm sorrier still that I didn't get the joke. :o

:)
 
thaiboxerken said:
Your ignorance is not sufficient reason to propose "chi" is at work.
Click to expand...

No need for personal attacks. IMO it is more productive to discuss ideas.

My "ignorance" as you call it could be my hypothesis, in contrast to pgwenthold's one. Through hypothesis testing we could arrive at more valid conclusions.

If you seriously think that a punch (or a strike or a kick) achieves maximum acceleration within one inch, please feel free to post some evidence or your reasoning. I seriously doubt that's the case, but I'm ignorant!

As a starting point, there's an old article from Scientific American available online, called "The Physics of Karate" (1979), as well as a variety of websites, PDF files, and DOC files, talking about the physics involved in martial arts. Forgive me if you don't need any of this to make your point. I do like to read and do research precisely because of my ignorance ;)

@pgwenthold,
On The Physics of Karate Strikes, from the Journal Of How Things Work, there's a thorough explanation regarding mass, acceleration, velocity, etc. The PDF is available online. Since its focus is on breaking boards, I will mention that in a fight the aim of a punch, kick, or strike is inside an opponent. One explanation in terms of physics is to actually reduce the deceleration.

"Karate black belts often advise white belts before their first attempt at breaking not to try to break the board, but to break the floor under the board. This is to ensure that the hand does not decelerate prior to contact with the target..." (emphasis added).
 
RockNroll said:
Proper martial arts are all about physics, and trying to bring woo nonsense into the equation only serves to cheapen them.
Click to expand...

How exactly does training or studying Chi cheapen a martial art? :confused:
Isn't Chi part of many martial arts?
If I called Chi "woo nonsense" I would actually be cheapening the Martial Arts I've practiced (Tai Chi Chuan, Qigong, Karate). In addition, as far as I know it's also part of Hapkido, Aikido, Kung Fu, and many other styles. Not acknowledging Qi, IMO, is disrespectful to the art and to its Eastern origins.
Or are these not proper Martial Arts? Are proper Martial Arts the ones done with light shows and music? Or plain street fighting? :confused:
 
caniswalensis and SOdhner:

Personally, I thought the whole thing was very funny! And getting people wound up correcting you made it even funnier! Great job!
 
Sogtul said:
How exactly does training or studying Chi cheapen a martial art? :confused:
Isn't Chi part of many martial arts?
If I called Chi "woo nonsense" I would actually be cheapening the Martial Arts I've practiced (Tai Chi Chuan, Qigong, Karate). In addition, as far as I know it's also part of Hapkido, Aikido, Kung Fu, and many other styles. Not acknowledging Qi, IMO, is disrespectful to the art and to its Eastern origins.
Or are these not proper Martial Arts? Are proper Martial Arts the ones done with light shows and music? Or plain street fighting? :confused:
Click to expand...

Chi/qi etc. is nonsense. There's no evidence for it and martial arts come down to simple physics, otherwise you wouldn't have practitioners and teachers who don't discuss or believe in chi/qi.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Chi/qi etc. is nonsense. There's no evidence for it and martial arts come down to simple physics, otherwise you wouldn't have practitioners and teachers who don't discuss or believe in chi/qi.
Click to expand...

Moreover, since science does not recognize chi as it was not demonstrated properly and repeatadly yet, any master can come and claim the JREF's $1,000,000 for doing it. None have done that so far, though some tried...

The chi thing is indeed nonesense. It was an attempt by ancient people to try and distinguish between living and non-living matter. The fact that it was part of the myth of a certain martial art and the martial art worked means nothing.

Take accupuncture for example. Peer reviewed medical research demonstrated that pricking the skin does have certain medical effects, however, the ancient wisdom of the masters was completely redundant and a complete layman can randomly inject the needles to reach equal results. That's how science works. You take apart the entire field to see what parts of it are needed and what not.

Removing chi from martial arts while still producing results shows that it's not real and claiming that removing it cheapens the art is basically the same as saying the sun revolves around just so you won't cheapen religion.

It's just plain silly. We do not accept things without proper evidence and we do not ignore the ones we have.
 
Not acknowledging Qi, IMO, is disrespectful to the art and to its Eastern origins.
Click to expand...
And pretending something exists without evidence/despite evidence to the contrary is disrespectful of my scientific training and its Western origins.

See, that's the problem with the victim card--either way you spin this, one of us gets to play it because our views are mutually exclusive. That's why scientists reject the whole concept all together and rely on evidence. Respect, as such, has a marginal place (ostensibly) in science.
 
GrandMasterFox said:
It's just plain silly. We do not accept things without proper evidence and we do not ignore the ones we have.
Click to expand...

Isn't research a good way to gather evidence?
I'm not talking about ancient myths in which people were able to fly and had superhuman powers. I'm talking about coming up with an operational definition of Chi and its measures. Part of the bias in the modern research I've seen is that some researchers do believe in Chi. The research -which I've already posted- is done at universities and reviewed by peers. That's a pretty decent approach.

Isn't that the way knowledge evolves? I have not seen any evidence saying with 100% certainty that Chi does not exist.

In fact, for many people 2 aspects of Chi as vital energy are breathing and proper nutrition. Perfectly consistent with modern medicine and scientific research. In fact, some old nutritional guidelines may be even better than modern ones. Can a person who eats well and knows how to breathe claim the $1 million? :D

BTW, your example about acupuncture is incorrect, at least in my experience. I've only seen one acupuncturist, and she's also an M.D. There was nothing random about the places she selected to insert needles (or apply pressure). And yes, there's also modern scientific research about pressure points and their overlap with trigger points. There are good and bad practitioners in both fields.
 
Dinwar said:
And pretending something exists without evidence/despite evidence to the contrary is disrespectful of my scientific training and its Western origins.

See, that's the problem with the victim card--either way you spin this, one of us gets to play it because our views are mutually exclusive. That's why scientists reject the whole concept all together and rely on evidence. Respect, as such, has a marginal place (ostensibly) in science.
Click to expand...

Many people with Western scientific training, myself included, have no problem with Chi. Not all scientists reject the concept, which should be evident given the current research. I do believe that more research is needed, as is typically the case with Western scientific research. If the idea of Chi is rejected after exhaustive research is conducted, so be it. I have no problem with that. So far, there's a lot of modern support for those old ideas. Obviously, there are also charlatans out there. In fact I registered here looking for information on Kam Yuen. He's a "Kung-Fu GrandMaster Healer" and IMO a hoax, selling BS to gullible people.
 
Sogtul said:
BTW, your example about acupuncture is incorrect, at least in my experience. I've only seen one acupuncturist, and she's also an M.D. There was nothing random about the places she selected to insert needles (or apply pressure).
Click to expand...

I want to make sure you didn't misunderstand what was being said: it's not that acupuncturists don't have specific rules or methods that they use to decide where they put the needles, it's that research has clearly shown that following those rules/guidelines is no more effective than if someone just did it randomly. That means that the placement of the needles, no matter how deliberate OR random, is not something that makes accupuncture work.
 
I do believe that more research is needed, as is typically the case with Western scientific research.
Click to expand...
Two things come to mind reading this sentence. The first is, no kidding. Research is ongoing--that's what scientists DO, is research. Once there's no more research needed, science will stop.

The second is that this sentence implies that Eastern mysticism does not need more research. I don't care where the mysticism came from, mysticism as such is not worth my time. It has the same odds of being correct as Tarot cards or fairy tales, and I give it as much seriousness.

So far, there's a lot of modern support for those old ideas.
Click to expand...
Okay. What is chi?

I'm not talking about ancient myths in which people were able to fly and had superhuman powers. I'm talking about coming up with an operational definition of Chi and its measures.
Click to expand...
You first have to demonstrate that there's something to explain. So far, no martial art I've seen (and none that the people I've spoken with have seen) can't be explained by a knowledge of vectors.

In other words, I first have to establish that the dragon in my garage exists before you can start proposing tests to see what species it is.
 
TheSkepticCanuck said:
caniswalensis and SOdhner:

Personally, I thought the whole thing was very funny! And getting people wound up correcting you made it even funnier! Great job!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words. :)

I really thought people would just laugh at how badly mistaken I seemed to be. I didn't want to iritate anybody.

Regards, Canis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom