[h1karu]

For approximately 500 years [science's] argument for its pre-eminence was that it could create beautiful toys: aircraft, railroads, global economies, television, spacecraft. But that is a fool’s argument for truth! I mean, that’s after all how a medicine show operates, you know: the juggler is so good, the medicine must be even better! This is not an entirely rational way to proceed.

-Terrence Mckenna

[nmeofthestate]

"Chi" "flowing through the body"? And, from another comment "quasi-quantum biological enzymes"? (NB: quantum theory pseudo-scientific-bollocks klaxon)

Qigong may get results, but it's certainly pseudoscience. And I bet science will be what eventually explains why it gets results.

[hosh]

Apparently, you have not read that that bollocks klaxon of a paper on arxiv :-) I know a lot of folks see the words, react with aversion, and stop thinking, simply dismissing it out of hand. Bots and all.

As for scientific explanations of qigong: there are a few things that cannot be explained, as it hits the limitations and nature of linguistics and narrative. There will probably be adequate, scientific models of Qigong, but by its very nature, scientific method requires a separation of observer from the observed, and is therefore simply inadequate for explaining anything related to existence or experiencing. You can talk all you want about gravity, but it isn't the same as taking a dive off of a cliff. As such, even though scientific theories may have great predictive powers, they are ultimately not essentially any different than folklore and myth.

And just to be clear: I don't particularly consider qigong as science or even pseudoscience. I consider it a method, or perhaps a strategic advantage. People try to use the "pseudo-science" to persuade others to try qigong. I have no incentive or desire to try to persuade you of the efficacy and validity of qigong.

[tripzilch]

.. but I think we can all say with certainty there is nothing particularly "quantum" about it.

[jvagner]

what's the name for things in science that will be proven in 20 years, but can't be proven today?

what are the limits of science?

i'd also recommend the book "the divided mind" by john sarno to readers of this thread.

[nmeofthestate]

"Ghosts are simply the dark-matter manifestations of a quantum string theory enzyme" is an example of pseudo science. Pseudo science is the wittering of sciency sounding nonsense that purports to be an explanation for something. Any vague chat about "energy" "flowing" like the above is pseudo science.

[h1karu]

I think that you're just quibbling over lexiconic ownership rights. You seem to think that the domain of science owns all of the words that modern man needs in order to describe the direct felt experience of what science has not yet been able to measure.

Words like energy and flow are often used as metaphors so their use does not automatically imply that one is trying to pass anything off as hard science.

Even the word quantum can be used as a pointer to the idea of non-duality or non-locality without implying a direct connection to hard science. It all just depends on how it's used and what the person was actually trying to get across.

I think that the label 'pseudo science' should be reserved for when a person is definitely trying to invoke hard science when it is uncalled for. It should not be applied haphazardly whenever a person uses a particular set of keywords. After all we are thinking human beings capable of extracting many layers of meaning from sentences beyond a mere analysis of keywords aren't we ?

Then again I suppose there are quite a large number of bots posting on the Internet these days. sigh

[hosh]

>Then again I suppose there are quite a large number of bots posting on the Internet these days. sigh

@h1karu Are you suggesting that humans are now failing the Turing Test? :-D