• 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.

Another "Chi" demonstration

I think that people believe in Chi because it feeds their fantasies, they simply want it to be true. Imagine being able to defend yourself against the whole Chinese army while sipping a cup of coffee and filing your tax returns, wouldn't that be sweet? We're talking about superpowers after all. With the right amount of wishful thinking, simple little tricks like the one in your link will be seen as undeniable evidence for the existence of Chi, just like that fuzzy picture of my grandpa's bowler hat will be seen as undeniable proof for the existence of aliens by UFO enthusiasts.

I have actually more trouble understanding why people believe in some of the really trivial stuff like spoonbending or dead people playing Wheel of Fortune with their relatives.
 
Gee, there wouldn't be anyone under that tablecloth, now, would there?

giant_rolleyes.gif

From: www.haxed.co.uk
 
Hypernicus said:
What tricks are those?
Click to expand...
Well, I could think of a number of ways to fake this, and I'm not even a magician.

I think any even modestly competent magician would consider this plain vanilla.

The water bowl is very telling: If there was some force acting on it why would the water splash all over the place? Unless that force is something, like a string, pulling the bowl along.

Hans
 
Heheh, watched it again. When he breaks the glass, you can actually see the tablecloth lurching under it.

It would be a bit more impressive if it was done on an open table. Wouldn't exclude trickery, obviously, still.....

Hans
 
The knife trick is even worse.

First, he cuts only with a small part of the edge. Second, he controls how hard the knife hits his skin.

Why are the glass and the bricks so close to the edge? And why can't we see what happens from the other angle?

Cheap, cheap, cheap...
 
MRC_Hans said:
The water bowl is very telling: If there was some force acting on it why would the water splash all over the place? Unless that force is something, like a string, pulling the bowl along.
Click to expand...

Isn't a string a force? If your first statement is correct, "if there was some force acting on it why would water splash all over the place?" then it should apply to all forces, including strings.

If you're referring to some sort of mystical force, is that how chi is typically described as acting on bodies? I've only heard the claim it acts like any other pushing/pulling force (except it's invisible and unmeasurable, otherwise it wouldn't be mystical I guess.)

Not that I buy into this video. I find it odd how he stands for the jar one (he is off to the side, avoiding being in line with the jar, and why the cover over the jar?)

The water one reminded me of the jerky movement magnets have when you put one on top of the table, and pull it along with another from underneath. Although that could also be attributed to the water sloshing back in the bowl after hitting the far side.

The camera angles are all horrible (the corridor is strangley narrow to prevent movement around the table, why not a stage of some sort?) and the captions block a lot.
 
CFLarsen said:
The knife trick is even worse.

First, he cuts only with a small part of the edge. Second, he controls how hard the knife hits his skin.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen this before. Notice how much force is required to cut is demo stuff (wood I think), that's a pretty dull knife. Then he makes two slashes across his body but it's impossible to tell how hard the pressure is. Then he strikes himself head-on with more force (although still not that much apparently). Most knives work better in a slicing motion. Grab a knife and try to cut something by pushing directly down. Even if it's sharp it'll be much, much more difficult than dragging the knife across it.

This is why the guillotine has that angled blade instead of a flat one. It creates the slicing motion to get a cleaner cut.
 
kevin said:
Isn't a string a force? If your first statement is correct, "if there was some force acting on it why would water splash all over the place?" then it should apply to all forces, including strings.

If you're referring to some sort of mystical force, is that how chi is typically described as acting on bodies? I've only heard the claim it acts like any other pushing/pulling force (except it's invisible and unmeasurable, otherwise it wouldn't be mystical I guess.)
Click to expand...

My point is that the force, which is probably a string, evidently works on the bowl only, not the water. I would assume, but could, of course, be wrong, that Chi would work both on the water and the bowl.

Hans
 
About the knife, yes it appears to be pretty dull, judging from the force he needs to apply to cut the pencil or whatever it is. Also, he is not really slashing himself, he is more like rolling the conviniently curved blade over his belly.

Hans
 
I hope people are putting these arguments up as comments on that video. (I'll have to check it from home, myself)
 
Wherefore art thou Hypernicus?

Hypernicus said:
What tricks are those?
Click to expand...

Yes, the table is covered by a cloth that is obviously hiding an assistant underneath. The water bowl appears to have a dark ring around the bottom which could be from a concealed magnet which mates to a magnet pulled along from underneath by the assistant. It makes no sense that Chi power would cause the herky-jerky motion of a magnet and affect only the light plastic bowl and not the water itself. All the other tricks are at the edge of the table not visible by the camera where the assistant can hit the bottle and other items with a hammer or pull them down. And, of course, the claimant is in control of the blade so of course he's not cut.

So, Hypernicus, it looks like you uncloaked yourself just to argue that these tricks were real Chi magic. Why don't you share a little more of yourself with us beyond "Hello World?" How do you feel that someone allegedly doing Chi magic, which you presumably believe is real, is actually pulling a con job?
 
Last edited:
So, Hypernicus, it looks like you uncloaked yourself just to argue that these tricks were real Chi magic.
Click to expand...
Where in this thread have I done that?

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.


presumably believe is real, is actually pulling a con job
Click to expand...
Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2. Therefore X is true.

Nothing can be proven by avoiding A==A. Which means Chi can't avoid the laws of this universe.
 
Hypernicus said:
Where in this thread have I done that?

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.



Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2. Therefore X is true.

Nothing can be proven by avoiding A==A. Which means Chi can't avoid the laws of this universe.
Click to expand...

No offense, but I could see how someone could interpret your comment as a defense of Chi. "What tricks are those?" Could sound like a challenge in the right context.

So...what IS your opinion of the video?

To me it looks like garden variety poo.
 
Last edited:
So what is your opinion of the video?
Click to expand...
I simply was interested in hearing others reasoning about the Chi-video,
or maybe someone even knew exactly how to pull the tricks. That doesn't mean I believe in something that can't be proven. What is true can be proven, what can be proven is true. A==A.
 
No offense, but I could see how someone could interpret your comment as a defense of Chi. "What tricks are those?" Could sound like a challenge in the right context.
Click to expand...
It could, and it could also sound like something else. This case happen to be someone chose one of the ways to interpret it and argued out from the one-way he selected and claimed it to be true. Which means he don't believe in A==A.
 
Hypernicus said:
I simply was interested in hearing others reasoning about the Chi-video,
or maybe someone even knew exactly how to pull the tricks. That doesn't mean I believe in something that can't be proven. What is true can be proven, what can be proven is true. A==A.
Click to expand...

I imagine these particular tricks would lend themselves very well to scientific investigation. The existance of a chi force could be "proven" just like any other force of nature.

What is your opinion of chi? Does it exist? Perhaps you are undecided?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom