Yeah that's essentially bogus too. You're body detoxes all the time. It's what your liver does rather well.
Ok I see how you think, I'm beginning to see more clearly the arguments of the two sides. So if I may point out my reflection: Side A will only accept things based on university education and science by certain established standards. Side B seems to accept things based on experience and results they've noticed. (All practitioners should have their base in solid education and I do think it's advisable to go through the traditional route (University) and proceed from there for doctors) So... continuing, Side A will claim it's not science and therefore shouldn't be practiced. Side B will claim they've received positive results despite conclusive empirical research. For me personally, I'm after results and when mainstream medicine has failed me, (and it has in some areas) I look into alternative medicine (which I've found results). So in my personal experience, a proper doctor is one with an open mind (mainstream or alternative) -- when a patient goes in to find out what is wrong and the doctor fails to discover it, it doesn't do much good to tell the patient "it's all in your head." Perhaps it's all in their head, too much ego and they failed so they blame it on the patient. So anyways, this debate of chi will continue until it has been accepted by whatever deemed standards. I appreciate your feedback, I understand where you are coming from, I hope you too can understand where I'm coming from.
Again...that's not it really. Even the most rational person will still go with their experience and their results. I'd say we're pretty much hardwired to do that, university educated or not. However, I think the difference is that side A recognises that but ALSO recognises that we are easily fooled (knowingly and unknowingly) and that things can often be different to how they appear to us personally. As such I (side A) put more stock in a gathering of properly collected results (the scientific way of doing things) than I do in individually gathered experience because it is simply just more reliable in establishing facts.
For example the phrase "seen it with my own eyes" and eye witness testimony are often highly touted as forms of good evidence that something happened, exists or is valid. Side A know they are not good forms. VERY fallible and prone to missfiring. Any process that seeks to minimise such things is bound to produce more reliable results by default.
I know what you are saying, I've been fooled before, one needs a solid footing in education. Well, here's a more eloquent way of explaining experience and noticeable results. It's by the big man, the big brain, Einstein: "The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them." Intuition (the ability to understand something without the need for conscious reasoning) through sympathetic understanding (relating or producing an effect in response to a similar action elsewhere) of experience has worked well for me in qigong and healing. Personally I've experienced great things in qigong and this intuitive understanding from sympathetic experience seems to be the best route to take since there seems to be a lot of misconceptions and bad information. It is experiential learning, best learned through practice. But, I also put trust in authorities like Einstein and prominent people in the field like Dr. Klinghardt, who is a licensed medical doctor, went through med school, an additional 3 years of psychology and has worked with the psychologist Milton Erickson. He was the Medical Director at one of the United States largest pain clinics (Santa Fe Pain Center). It was there that he became aware of the limitations of conventional medicine when dealing with chronic conditions. He has also studied acupuncture and homeopathy and his approach to medicine and healing is a fine blend. So that is how I approach it. Through experience and reputable people. But I know I'm also prone to misconceptions from hearsay stuff I pick up on the way, so I've learned a lot by posting thoughts on this forum because not everybody will just accept what I think. I've broken a few of my own myths, which is good because it leads to deeper understanding.
Oh dear...this is going from bad to worse. First chi and now homeopathy. I'll be honest and say I use homeopathy as a sort of woo-woo barometer. If you believe it works then I believe I can safely ignore your input into almost any discussion. It's sort of the lowest common denominator of what you'll believe. If Dr. Klinghardt advocates homeopathy then he's not exactly going to be a paragon of rational thought and insight sadly. If anyone believes in homeopathy I have a bridge in London I own that I'd like to sell you.
Yeah I'm not familiar with homeopathy, but just listing out his fields of study. Overall I think he's achieved a lot (I won't go into all the details). I value his perspective, I wouldn't throw away the whole lot because he's explored further than what others are comfortable with.
I wouldn't say I'm doing that...it's more that if he's explored something that is so CLEARLY nonsense and inneffective that anyone with half a brain and 10 minutes can see it's nonsense for themselves that I'll have to back up my great big digger full of salt before looking into anything else he's advocates. It's like having a conversation with someone that seems normal right up until they say they believe in fairies. Kind of taints what they've already said and will say in the future.
If an expert is exploring an area that few in the mainstream are, perhaps they notice something that most aren't noticing. For example, I came across dowsing recently as I was reading up on Einstein. This is how they explain dowsing: “The dowser, by concentrating on the hidden object (such as water), is somehow able to tune in to the energy force or "vibration" of the object which, in turn, forces the dowsing rod or stick to move. The dowsing tool may act as a kind of amplifier or antenna for tuning into the energy.” Albert Einstein, however, was convinced of the authenticity of dowsing. He said, "I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do astrology, as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time." Some well-known names from history practiced dowsing, including Leonardo De Vinci, Robert Boyle (considered the father of modern chemistry), Charles Richet (a Nobel Prize winner), General Rommel of the German Army, and General George S. Patton. How's that from going to chi to homeopathy to dowsing? Better get that digger ready Leonardo Da Vinci is a genius who was well before his time, likewise so was Einstein, add that up and throw in a couple more leading thinkers of their time and one begins to wonder, “perhaps there is much more than what mainstream medicine can explain.” Einstein does qigong :meditate: (not really though)
Dowsing has failed every single time it has been tested in an impartial manner- it was discredited years ago
Sit down with Davinci, Einstein, Boyle et al for 10 minutes and explain the ideomotor effect and how dowsing has failed every test ever devised and I can almost guarantee your list of notable individuals would dwindle quite a bit.
I think there is also a lot of confusion - possibly deliberately - between "experimented with' and "was a believer and advocate of" I am a christian and karateka formerly, but neither apply to me anymore
“For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity.”
