I think FQ is implying that Merseyside is a very safe place Try here: http://www.taichifinder.co.uk Otherwise, let us know what specific training your looking for, i.e. what sort of qigong you want or for what reasons, then maybe people can make some suggestions or point you in the right direction. Cheers!
Yes, I believe in the efficacy of Qigong practise. Not only from my own experience of the art, but also from the 250 or so research papers published on the subject in reputable medical journals. These papers can be found quite easily by searching Medline the medical database. I'd be interested in hearing your empirical evidence for its non value. Very best wishes
You know, I collect these statements to use in explaining to others how information is manipulated, and how clever people are at self delusion. But it's a complex area, and you have to have some desire to improve your education on the subject or you won't get any where. For one, your personal experience isn't quite as important as you think it is. We can be made to experience almost anything - possibly anything. I've experienced farmore amazing things than qigong - spiritual visions, all kinds of things. They were interesting and often valuable, rewarding personal experiences, but in reality, they were products of my psychology, just as what you experience are products of the relationship between your psychology and your physiology which you choose to call 'qigong'. All of those reports, more or less, pertain almost entirely to people's personal experiences - and no amount of personal experience adds up to a fact, I'm afraid; it's a logical fallacy to think that it does, but it requires sitting and thinking about it. Millions of people 'personally experiencing' the 'truth' if God boils down to millions of personal experiences - it doesn't add 'up' to what we call a synthetic awareness of something actually existing in the world. Groups of other people 'directly experience' other gods, or the truth of other religions, political viewpoints; and I should think youcan find a number of studies and testimonials 'proving' that every religion is true and valid - that is, once you've de-educated yourself in to thinking that personal experience is 'proof'. The second thing you can, if you want to, learn, is that we can be made to experience anything - I've seen it happen directly. The last person you can really trust is yourself; and the smarter,more educated you are,the easier it is in many cases for manipulators - or yourself - to convince you that just because you're experiencing it, it is therefore true. It's actually incredibly conceited to believe that just because you experience it it is therefore true, as if what realy matters more than anything is what's going on in your head. Well it ISN'T more important, in terms of actual proof - we share information - we are social beings, and 'map' the world by synthesizing our shared experiences in a sophisticated, evolved way that is specifically designed to weed out the personl experience/delusion factor. No one is denying that breathing exericses or gentle exercise can produce benefits - but even in youe short paragraph you demonstrate pretty much the entire basic anti-methodology that is used to manipulate the information in making a lie seem true, and making a set of psychological experiences seem more true just because there were a number of them. I don't mind what you believe in - what I worry about is that you use these de-education strategies to make yourpoint, without even the slightest awareness that you're doing it. Even now, your personal experience is so important, worth so much more than anything else, that you simply can not possibly conceive that you are wrong in any way... I tell you what, there are at least 250 people who believe in Xenu diue to their direct, personal experiences - not beliefs, experiences, including having illness healed, etc. - it doesn't make it true, and if you put them altogether and call it a 'study', it still isn't true- and if you do 250 studies just like it, it still won't be true - but people will use the statistics to make it appear more true... Just like you made this arguement, to make it appear like there really is a debate on the issue.
Fire-quan, Thanks for the response, or should it be the non response. I asked for EMPIRICAL evidence for Qigong's non value and all you provided was a meaningless load of psychobabble, waffle and personal opinions with no scientific basis in fact. Those "......... reports, more or less, pertain almost entirely to people's personal experiences No they don't. They are peer reviewed medical studies based on quantifiable (and repeatable) measurements, published in reputable medical journals. That is the difference between pure science and your pseudo science. Isn't it nice to feel that everyone else is out of step except you. But thanks for your input anyway, and please look up your dictionary for a definition of empirical. Very best wishes
See, this is what I mean about there having to be some desire on a person's part to deprogramme themselves, and understand how it is that information is used to build false pictures. Instead, as predicatble as clockwork, you go to phase two of the cult-thinkers handbook - 'make it about the critic'. Not only have you presented a magic power - qigong - you've now made it my responsibility to prove that it DOESN'T exist, lol. Not only that, you've made it about me in the sense of personally attacking me, my education, my understanding. I don't actually take it personally - it's an inevitable consequence of the education strategies used by everyone these days, from politicians to religions to martial arts clubs. Allow me to introduce you to the fallacyof 'subreption'. Subreption, in and of itself, means 'an error', usually in thinking, but in philosophy it most usually refers to the error of thinking that you witnessing yourself experiencing something is some kind of objective proof or experience. That isn't psuedo-science, it's Immanuel Kant. Now, you, of course, want people's personal experiences of themselves having experiences, than apply a word to it - 'qigong' - to be taken as evidence that qigong really works - but, that's not how evidence gathering really works. Human beings, whether you think psychobabble or not - in fact it isn't; it's a very useful, necessary insight used to deprogramme people FROM psychobabble - can be brainwashed, coerced, pursuaded, manipulated, in to experienceing almost anything - I don't mean believing, I mean that their minds can made to actually experience visions, sensations, deep emotional, meditative, psychologcal states, etc. This is why there is aparticular category of cult known as the 'psychotherapy cult'. In truth though, all cults and many other groups, use the same principles to greater or lesser degrees. For example, you use the same principles of 'attack and demean the critic' that the more famous cults notoriously use against their critics, just as you use 'my personal experience' as 'evidence' - the same as all cults do. In fact, your argument presentation isn't about qigong at all - it's entirely about attempting to de-educate others as to the correct and genuine means by which we acquire knowledge. No human has an objective view. We 'synthesize' our subjective views via the 'rational consensus' - something which, over the centuries has evolved sophisticated philosophy to explain and separate personal experience phenomena, and scientific method to allow us to explore empirical facts about the world. The study of both is rational - it exists in over view, examining facts, events, phenomena. However, the cult thinker, like you, confuses the subject of study with the method of study. You think that personal experience is a kind of proof - it isn't. Proof means information processed through the rational consensus's best practice methods. What happens with qigong, obviously, is that people apply a word to a phenomenon, such as a feeling, a mental state. Mental states can produce many interesting effectc - but none of them are really to do with qi, except in your ideological, linguistic construction - i.e. your explanation. But the explanation and the object of it are not the same thing - that would be a 'category error'. What you're arguing with me about is your set of ideas - what you're trying to demean and attack me for, is not accepting your ideology; but what's really happening is we're clashing in terms of what we think is the right way to prove things. You think lists of people's personal experiences are proof - I don't; in fact, no one does, except people who don't know what proof is, or understand that just because some experiences something, adding 'qi gong' or 'god' or 'clear' to it is just a word, applied to the sae phenomenon, but then people are abused for not accepting the specific word or docrtrine - god, clear, qigong. As you are doing with me. Here's an interesting re-education for you - YOU need to prove what you say. YOU need to sift through those journals and provide the best examples of serious scientists peer reviewing the information - and then YOU need to listen to other interpretations of that data, or flaws in the methodology of the scientists. See, the cult thinker makes it all about the critic, but in truth, the laws of proof require the claimer to prove his claims, not the skeptic to disprove them... criticisms self-validate; claims don't. and the more you use underhand tactics to make it about me, me, me, the more you need to be reminded, address the facts, provide the facts. Your proofs and scientific peer reviewed evidence are all humbug, is the truth, which is why you claim it, but when it comes to it, they won't be respectable studies at all, will they? It'll be more like Shaolin Wahnam weekly investigating whether Wong Kiew Kit can cure cancer with qigong, or an election in Zimbabwe.... hey, prove I DIDN'T win that election. Prove I CAN'T levitate. Prove I CAN'T cure cancer. Go on, prove it.. lol.
And of course, I should mention that it is an absloutely textbook cult tactic to end all real, rational means of addressing the evidence - for example, upion hearing criticism, expressing disbelief, then on hearing the reasons for the criticism, immediately dis-engaging from the argument with an 'oh you're stupid I'm not arguing about it any more enjoy your ignorance' type flounce. These things are so well known we already have reasons and explanations for why they happen - argument, discussion, being forced to prove your claims, are all part of the rational consensus - so you have to disengage from it, because whether you are conscious of it or not, the way you 'prove' things is not compatible with the orthodox mechanisms of the rational consensus. If this was your forum, you would very quickly ban me even for engaging you in rational argument. Think about it.
Fire-quan, Thanks again for the interesting reply. A good dose of verbiage always muddies good reasoning and saves having to provide a concise argument. The basis for correct scientific study and experimentation is the production of peer reviewed, verifiable, repeatable, measurements of a phenomenon. Of course if you consider the British Medical Journal and other such regarded publications as the equivalent of the Sun newspaper, then there is little point in debating further. I provided the source of my empirical evidence for the efficacy of Qigong while on the other hand you offered me only your personal opinions. That's the trouble with philosophers, they don't live in the real world. Measurable and repeatable results have no meaning for them. Science is a humbug (to quote you). No I do not attack your intelligence and I respect you right to your opinion. But when your arguments are based entirely on (and only on) your own opinions, then they have no relevance to the discussion. I am debating science. You are debating philosophy. I am debating facts (scientific study) you are debating opinions. I know which argument I prefer to follow. Your phrase sophisticated philosophy is an oxymoron if ever I heard one!!! If I were running this forum, I would welcome you with open arms. Very best wishes
Hmmm… See what I mean? You need to focus on the issues, not the personalities of the people who don’t believe your claims – criticizing claims is one of the vital means by which we put claims to the test, to synthesize understanding about the real world. I’m actually not stupid – actually, I’m brilliant, and highly educated. Sorry, far from being verbiage, the synthesis of knowledge was put forwards by Immanuel Kant, and forms the basis by which we now challenge cults, cultish groups, claims of supernatural power, etc. Unless of course, you are suggesting that your powers of reasoning have superseded Kant’s? Well, gee, let’s see… I think what you need to consider is if your argument was sound, why you never dare sail out of vague waters. As yet, you haven’t produced one single article of these 250 – you’ve simply alluded to them; which is very useful for you, because it’s a little like Schrödinger’s Cat; as long we never see the articles, literally anything could be in them. But I rather suspect that the articles don’t go any where near supporting your claims that ‘qigong’ works – and I rather suspect we’ll be able to demonstrate that the articles don’t actually prove what you think they do. Really, it’s a matter of what people want to believe – I trust people, and their native intelligence, to know when something isn’t right. If you dare, then start providing the articles directly – it is never acceptable to make an unlikely claim, then tell other people to go and find the evidence – and your patronizing attitude in doing that rather reveals you – and I know a humbug when read one!
No, you didn’t. You said that I should check Medline. Medline is a vast data base of papers and articles from all over the world – from Wikipedia: “MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) is a literature database of life sciences and biomedical information. It includes medicine, nursing, pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, and health care. MEDLINE covers much of the literature in biology and biochemistry, and fields such as molecular evolution. Listing of an article or journal in MEDLINE is not endorsement” So we see, actually, Medline isn’t in any way an endorsement – many of the papers it collects may well be there for research in hokum, or bogus science. Regardless, whether you like it or not, YOU have to provide the proof for claims you make. This is really a very well known de-education and mis-direction tactic. ‘Critical doubt’ isn’t an opinion, it’s a scientific default. When faced with a claim of magical, supernatural, or unlikely abilities, events, the rational consensus greets it with doubt, as a safety mechanism, and as a mechanism of reasonable, rational argument – it places all the onus on you to provide the rational consensus with evidence. Critical doubt is NOT an opinion, it is a default stance, awaiting proof. These days, using manipulation on that crude a level is more of loss to you than a gain, because people are increasingly educated as to what a manipulative, self serving load of humbug it is. I may as well demand that you disprove my claims of being able to turn people in to tomatoes, and call your lack of belief ‘nothing but an opinion’. Really? Where do they live? On Mars? Attempting to undermine your critics by attacking them personally is what cults do. Rational criticisms and critical doubt, by the by, self validate due to the astounding power, not of philosophy, but of common sense. But I think most people understand that claiming a magic power is the act of someone who isn’t quite in tune with the world, whereas doubting until some reasonable proof is presented, is the act of a well grounded person. And you know, obviously you want to undermine the very people, like Kant, who offered us the tools to recognise humbug – I mean, obviously, you need to undermine them, because I said a post back, your means of presenting evidence is not compatible with common sense, science, or rational thinking.
Now you see, that’s just an outright lie - I have never, and would never call my ally, science, humbug. You sir, are the cuckoo in science's nest. Every time you use a disreputable cult tactic, it backfires. What do people need to see to know that you lie if it suits your aim? They simply need to see you lie. However, to address this, no. You don’t represent the scientific viewpoint at all – you’re merely pretending that your claims have been scientifically verified, then attacking anyone who doubts your claims as anti-scientific - that's what we call an 'elision' - the joining of two things, hoping thereby to fool our awareness while it is distracted - what a cuckoo you are, laying eggs in our nest like that! But, you’ve already demonstrated that you’ll lie, so who do youthink will sit on that egg, after all? However 2, scientific methodology is much more than ‘testing qigong’. The parameters of the experiments themselves have to be examined – for example, is it a taiji form that causes mild health benefits – as in, the actual movements, or is it just getting up and moving about, regardless of the movements? Does the authority commissioning the reports have a vested interest – say, is it from China, where ‘proving’ that qigong, a virtually cost-free medical service, works, is very much within the government’s interest, as it would save them billions in providing real health care. Did the ‘peer review’ stretch to countries outside of China? If someone discovers a new dinosaur in China, the whole scientific community knows about it – so we have to be suspicious if ‘peer review’ stops at China, or only extends to disreputable of fringe scientists outside of China – because if studies really DO show empirical results, scientists all over the world would be able to see and read these reports you cite. Yes you did – and do. You even suggested I check a dictionary. I’m a great deal more educated in this subject than you, actually – you are not in my league, and normally I’d make you pay for this level of private tuition. Critical doubt is not ‘an opinion’, it is the default setting of the rational consensus – open minded, but requiring proof which stands up to scrutiny. Saying ‘you’re entitled to your opinion’ is an attempt to reduce a non-personal, critical evaluation of information, down to a simple ‘disagreement of opinions’ – that’s because reducing things to personal, emotional levels is a means of circumventing actual, cold, rational, scientific scrutiny.
