John Chang 'chi master'

[arthwollipot]

If you argue that you can actually knock someone down from a distance without physically touching them and you're not using a gun, then you're an idiot

I've always wanted to have someone try to knock me over with their chi.

I apologise for my belligerence earlier in the thread, by the way. I was having a bad night.

 

[jakesteele]

Foolmewunz;5298728]

I seem to recall a certain bearded magician taking him down on an occasion or two....

Debunker’s Law of “Close Enough for Rock ‘n Roll” – to debunk something, all you’ve got to do is come up with a simulacrum of what is being debunked and you’re good to go. In the debunker’s mind a magician’s trick that mimics the phenomena is good as gold.


http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/042007todd.html

I'd imagine we probably have a thread around here about him, but I couldn't locate one. Here's the job the Skeptics Forum did on him.

Fourth or fifth post itemizes the tricks and possible explanations, somewhat.

Possible doesn't mean absolute, which is what a scientist would require.


http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8888[/QUOTE]

 

[Blackwell]

...Possible doesn't mean absolute, which is what a scientist would require...

Says who?
How would you propose that they evaluate a past event?

 

[ugot2bekidding]

For twenty years, I devoted myself to the study of Chinese internal martial arts (Bagua, Taichi, and Hsing Yi). During that time, I came into contact with many famous teachers from legitimate schools (lineages are very important in traditional Chinese martial arts). I can honestly say that not one of them ever...EVER claimed to be able to perform supernatural acts such as those in the OP. These hucksters are laughed at by the traditional practitioners.

I would like to bring up some points about Tai Chi. The art that most in America (and even in much of China) know as "Tai Chi" is not real Tai Chi. Real Tai Chi includes both fast and slow movements during training. The basic form ( that is, solo practice routine) consists of about 90% slow movements and 10% fast, and the second form is 90% fast and 10% slow. And of course the practice of these two forms are just the beginning of the training. This is the original Chen style of Tai Chi. Much of what you see today is some version of the Yang style.

The problem started around the turn of the century, when Yang Cheng Fu realized that hand to hand combat was a dieing art and decided to turn Tai Chi into an exercise that anyone could practice, regardless of physical condition. In doing so, he took out all the fast and strenuous movements (for instance the jump kick and land in a split movement). It's also devoid of any real martial arts training. It's this style, for the most part, that has made its way into the world of woo.

 

[athon]

Possible doesn't mean absolute, which is what a scientist would require.

Actually, science doesn't deal with absolutes and certainties. It deals with possibilities and probabilities.

Athon

 

[jakesteele]

Actually, science doesn't deal with absolutes and certainties. It deals with possibilities and probabilities.

Athon

Science deals with possibilities and probabilities with the intent to arrive at certainties like the moon orbiting around the earth, the earth around the sun in very predicable patterns, E=MC squared, etc. That's the job of science; to turn possibilities and probabilities into certainties whenever possible. So far they have done a damn good job and they still plugging away every day.

 

[jakesteele]

Says who?
How would you propose that they evaluate a past event?

Says me. How do you propose to conclusively debunk a past event?

 

[Blackwell]

Says me. How do you propose to conclusively debunk a past event?

Since when are you the definer of what scientists require? Are you a scientist?

If "debunkers" can duplicate a past event in a mundane way, while the believers or practitioners fail to prove a paranormal source for the event, I would consider it debunked. I would leave that open-ended, however, and not use the word "conclusively," leaving room in the future for practitioners to prove their claims.
They have thus far been unable to do that, of course.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Debunker’s Law of “Close Enough for Rock ‘n Roll” – to debunk something, all you’ve got to do is come up with a simulacrum of what is being debunked and you’re good to go. In the debunker’s mind a magician’s trick that mimics the phenomena is good as gold.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/042007todd.html

I'd imagine we probably have a thread around here about him, but I couldn't locate one. Here's the job the Skeptics Forum did on him.

Possible doesn't mean absolute, which is what a scientist would require.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8888

Apparently you've never heard of Occam's Razor - either that or yours is incredibly dull

 

[MattusMaximus]

Says me. How do you propose to conclusively debunk a past event?

"It happened in the past, so there's no way to ever refute it. Therefore, I must be right!"

 

[athon]

Science deals with possibilities and probabilities with the intent to arrive at certainties like the moon orbiting around the earth, the earth around the sun in very predicable patterns, E=MC squared, etc. That's the job of science; to turn possibilities and probabilities into certainties whenever possible. So far they have done a damn good job and they still plugging away every day.

Nope.

Philosophically, certainty is impossible. It's always contingent. You're free to believe otherwise, of course, yet it would fly in the face of the conclusions of pretty much every major science philosopher who has written on the topic for the past century.

The job of science is to amass sufficient evidence to support a theory, with the caveat that a new theory/modified theory is possible with new observations.

Athon

 

[jakesteele]

Apparently you've never heard of Occam's Razor - either that or yours is incredibly dull

Since we're talking about dull blades, apparently you've never heard of the Law of Ocaam’s Sledge Hammer – the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what, at all costs.

What I'm seeing is a bunch of a priori armchair quarterbacks saying, "Mabye, possibly, perhaps, etc." Now odds are, according to OC, that one or some of these are right. However, to start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what you already believe is the anti-christ of real science. In fact, you might call it Bunk Science, or BS for short.

 

[arthwollipot]

Law of Ocaam’s Sledge Hammer – the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what, at all costs.

Wait - you're asking MattusMaximus if he's familiar with the Sledgehammer?

 

[athon]

Since we're talking about dull blades, apparently you've never heard of the Law of Ocaam’s Sledge Hammer – the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what, at all costs.

It's always sad when people misunderstand what Occham's Razor is. I think a kitten dies every time it's abused in such a horrendous manner as this.

What I'm seeing is a bunch of a priori armchair quarterbacks saying, "Mabye, possibly, perhaps, etc."

Hands up all those who have studied the history and philosophy of science in some regard.

*hand goes up*

Why, js, your hand is down. Why am I not surprised.

Again, science doesn't deal in certainty. It deals in probability.

Athon

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
What I'm seeing is a bunch of a priori armchair quarterbacks saying, "Mabye, possibly, perhaps, etc." Now odds are, according to OC, that one or some of these are right. However, to start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what you already believe is the anti-christ of real science. In fact, you might call it Bunk Science, or BS for short.

Ehr, right. However, that is not what we're doing. It is after a long and hard search for any signs of paranormal, with zero finds, that we have come to the working conclusion that a paranormal claim is an extraordinary claim. And thus, that the presense of ordinary evidence to the contrary suffices.

However, any such time as somebody comes up with the extraordinary evidence, we'll listen.

Hans

 

[jakesteele]

It's always sad when people misunderstand what Occham's Razor is. I think a kitten dies every time it's abused in such a horrendous manner as this.



Hands up all those who have studied the history and philosophy of science in some regard.

*hand goes up*

Why, js, your hand is down. Why am I not surprised.

Again, science doesn't deal in certainty. It deals in probability.

Athon

Maybe this will be easier for you to understand: The Debunker’s Law of Perpetual Simplicity© – a bastardized version of Ocaam’s Razor, which, while not stated outright, is implied throughout, that the simplest explanation is the only explanation. The mindset that all explanations must be mundane at all costs, no matter what the cost.

Oc•cam's razor
Date:
circa 1837
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

(This one I really like the most)
Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. The method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.

Debunker – someone who starts with a conclusion and looks for evidence to support what they already believe. One who holds an a priori belief that it does not exist, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away.
Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking.

What fellows like yourself don’t realize is that you wear two hats. One hat is a skeptic’s hat when dealing with things like relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology, evolution, etc. But when it comes to what you have labeled as Woo, you become insulting, emotionally irrational and, at times, hysterical. Objective, rational, logical, and impartial you’re not.

Again, science does deal in certainties that start out as probabilities, possibilities, etc. This is done with the goal of finding out if something is a certainty. Remember, you are the guys that insist that for anything to be real it must be able to be replicated over and over again by anybody anywhere in the world. Once something reaches that stage, it becomes a certainty. So let me restate: science deals with possibilities and probabilities initially, with the goal of finding out if it is a certainty. If we went with what you’re insisting on, it would mean you would have to have an open mind in the areas of woo based on the possibility that so far it can’t be ruled in out conclusively. With your version of science, it appears unlikely, but still within the realm of feasible possibilities. And please, don’t pull the Unicorn Gambit© as a way to sarcastically say, no, while still trying to maintain the semblance of open mindedness.

 

[Stray Cat]

Maybe this will be easier for you to understand: The Debunker’s Law of Perpetual Simplicity© – a bastardized version of Ocaam’s Razor, which, while not stated outright, is implied throughout, that the simplest explanation is the only explanation. The mindset that all explanations must be mundane at all costs, no matter what the cost.

Not the ONLY explanation... all that is required for other (maybe more exotic or other alternative mundane) explanations, is for someone to provide some evidence to back up an alternative theory...

... so far, none has been forthcoming.

Oh and we've all heard it before but it's worth pointing out again:
For something to be debunked, it must be full of bunk in the first place.

 

[Wudang]

This always bear repeating

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1759785#post1759785

and whenever someone talks about their chi I always ask why chinese people say a "good fighter has no chi"?
Hint: like many other words "chi" depends a lot on context and in MA should usually mean either leg strength or breath. And this book
http://www.amazon.com/Shorter-Science-Civilisation-China-Vol/dp/0521218217/ref=pd_sim_b_2
provides a fascinating insight into Taoism -especially that were 2 schools, the naturalists (akin to pre-scientific alchemy) and the shamen who shared a common vocabulary.

 

[tsig]

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. The method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.

.

Does your skeptic ever come to any conclusions after inquiring about those facts and reasons?

 

[athon]

Maybe this will be easier for you to understand: The Debunker’s Law of Perpetual Simplicity© – a bastardized version of Ocaam’s Razor, which, while not stated outright, is implied throughout, that the simplest explanation is the only explanation. The mindset that all explanations must be mundane at all costs, no matter what the cost.

Nope.

It is indeed a common misconception of the term. Although the term was coined by Sir William Hamilton, the concept of parsimony is reflected in the works of many scientists and philosophers, from Newton to Popper.

Virtually all of them describe parsimony in terms of an economy of assumptions, and not in terms of simplicity being the 'best' (let alone 'only').

Mundanity doesn't into it at all.

Now, I can't say I'm surprised. Many of my past students misunderstood it as well, mostly because people like yourself are so cock-sure that you've got it right without doing a lick of homework on it. Come back to me once you've actually studied a bit of science history and we might have a serious discussion. Until then, I predict will simply be a case of you trying to bluff your way through a subject you evidently know little about, and me saying 'nope' a lot as I shake my head.

Oc•cam's razor
Date:
circa 1837

Strange - the term first appeared in Hamilton's work in 1852, in his work Discussions in Philosophy, Literature and Education. Now, I could be convinced the article it first appeared in within this book might have come from an earlier work ('Discussions' is something of a collection of essays), but as far as my texts indicate, this was the first time the exact term 'Ockham's Razor' was used.

a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

The first part is correct, and is virtually direct translation of the phrase 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda, præter necessitatem'. The second part is debatable and relies on definitions of 'simplicity'. Again, it is more accurate to state it as an economy of assumptions - the more you need to assume, the more room there is for possible flaws in the conclusion. Hence a hypothesis that relies on the least assumptions has the greater chance of being productive.

Now, you can throw unreferenced quotes about all you want. Given you've shown little real understanding of the underlying philosophy, I'm left with my own assumption that you're floundering in a field you've spent little time studying.

What fellows like yourself don’t realize is that you wear two hats. One hat is a skeptic’s hat when dealing with things like relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology, evolution, etc. But when it comes to what you have labeled as Woo, you become insulting, emotionally irrational and, at times, hysterical. Objective, rational, logical, and impartial you’re not.

Something of a generalisation there. I won't dismiss the fact a number of self-proclaimed skeptics are all of those things, but to assume that defines a skeptic is to create a 'no true scottsman' fallacy.

Again, science does deal in certainties that start out as probabilities, possibilities, etc. This is done with the goal of finding out if something is a certainty.

Your insistence that this is the case shows a lot for your self-confidence, but little about your understanding in the matter. You're free to set your understanding apart from centuries of scientific philosophy, of course, but give a lot more people have spent a lot more time studying this, I'm not sure why anybody should give your point a second glance. Certainty in science is a logical impossibility.

Once something reaches that stage, it becomes a certainty. So let me restate: science deals with possibilities and probabilities initially, with the goal of finding out if it is a certainty.

Repetition of something that is wrong doesn't make it right. It just makes you look more foolish.

Science does not deal with certainties. Theories can be overturned or modified with novel evidence. In the absence of said evidence, the theory remains the most useful. It does deal with confidence in a conclusion with view of the possibility of new evidence coming to light. That isn't certainty by any stretch of the fevered imagination.

If we went with what you’re insisting on, it would mean you would have to have an open mind in the areas of woo based on the possibility that so far it can’t be ruled in out conclusively.

Indeed. The door is always left open for the possibility. It costs nothing to be aware that there is no such thing as the final word on an idea. However, it could be quite costly to close one's mind to the possibility of any new evidence.

Athon