Before I start, I know this doesn't really belong in the MMA forum, but the "dim mak" and "chi power" threads were here, and I didn't really know where else to put this thread.
From reading the recent "Dim mak" and "Chi power" threads, it seems many proponents of Eastern medicine, dim mak, and using "chi" for self-defense argue that chi theory is not explained by Western medical science, but is easily explained by Eastern medical science.
The question that bothers me is: Are traditional Eastern medicine (TEM) and chi theory actual sciences? Were they developed using a sound scientific method, or are they simply based on superstition or speculation?
Webster's defines "science" as "knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method." A "scientific method" is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." So, if chi theory and TEM, which is based on chi theory, are to be considered sciences, at least under that definition, there is some need for quantitative measurement.
But how do you measure chi? If you define chi as "bio-energy" or "life energy," then you need a way to measure "bio-energy" or "life energy." There are instruments, methods, and units for measuring electrical energy, thermal energy, and kinetic energy. So how do you measure "bio-energy" or "life energy?" Regarding the use of chi for fighting, you can measure the amount of muscular force put into a strike, but how do you measure the amount of chi in a strike? How do you measure the chi that was disrupted by a dim-mak strike?
I don't doubt that some TEM treatments are effective, but I don't know if it can really be called a "science." I'm just wondering if the theory of balancing the body's chi is a valid explanation for *why* these treatments work. Western perspectives and Eastern perspectives may differ, but the scientific method should be universally applicable.
Anyway, I'm through rambling for now . . . it took me a long time to come up with this brilliant-sounding crap
(actually, it probably sounds retarded.)
I hope I made some sense, though.
From reading the recent "Dim mak" and "Chi power" threads, it seems many proponents of Eastern medicine, dim mak, and using "chi" for self-defense argue that chi theory is not explained by Western medical science, but is easily explained by Eastern medical science.
The question that bothers me is: Are traditional Eastern medicine (TEM) and chi theory actual sciences? Were they developed using a sound scientific method, or are they simply based on superstition or speculation?
Webster's defines "science" as "knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method." A "scientific method" is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." So, if chi theory and TEM, which is based on chi theory, are to be considered sciences, at least under that definition, there is some need for quantitative measurement.
But how do you measure chi? If you define chi as "bio-energy" or "life energy," then you need a way to measure "bio-energy" or "life energy." There are instruments, methods, and units for measuring electrical energy, thermal energy, and kinetic energy. So how do you measure "bio-energy" or "life energy?" Regarding the use of chi for fighting, you can measure the amount of muscular force put into a strike, but how do you measure the amount of chi in a strike? How do you measure the chi that was disrupted by a dim-mak strike?
I don't doubt that some TEM treatments are effective, but I don't know if it can really be called a "science." I'm just wondering if the theory of balancing the body's chi is a valid explanation for *why* these treatments work. Western perspectives and Eastern perspectives may differ, but the scientific method should be universally applicable.
Anyway, I'm through rambling for now . . . it took me a long time to come up with this brilliant-sounding crap

(actually, it probably sounds retarded.)
I hope I made some sense, though.

Comment