newberry wrote:

bassdriver wrote:I googled this

Cool. So Bassdriver, do you agree that the scientific method is a good way to understand the natural world? Is there a better way?

you make me laugh. yes I fully agree with you: the scientific method is a good way.

bassdriver wrote:and to get back on topic.... this is a nice form of tai chi in my opinion.

Holy crap does that look like it would pop my knees out of their sockets!!!

vockins wrote:I'm getting acupuncture treatment now for bell's palsy. The procedure is definitely better than the Western alternative, which is to hope for the best.

So my face is about at 80% of what it was now. I don't have to blink with my hand anymore. Any further improvement would just be cosmetic.

If I got Bell's Palsy again, I don't think I'd go for accupuncture again. Needles in the face isn't that great a way to pass the time considering the negligible benefits of the treatment. Perhaps the results are more dramatic for other people. It wasn't for me.

That said, when the palsy was pretty bad and I couldn't blink, the dude would stick me in my forehead and my eye would close like nothing happened. Take it out, it's back to palsy. That was interesting.

The massage guy kicked ass, though. Better than a handjob.

The scientific method is good for some things. Hopefully my example of "love" earlier in the thread illustrated how it's useless for some of the more important things in life, which are not measurable or repeatable as the scientific method requires for their study.

When the scientific method is used by unbiased experts to prove something, that can be worth something. As others have pointed out in this thread, the "unbiased" part is key when looking at medecine, which is a form of science, as there is no objectivity with regard to medecine in the western world, where you've got your Phillip Morris or your Pfizer or whoever it is paying lots of money for studies that show exactly what they want, where medecines are approved or not approved in a timely fashion based on how much money one party gave to another, etc.

The most interesting science doesn't fit inside the scientific method, either. When they use science to prove that there are 10 or 12 or however many dimensions to physical space (maybe in a thousand years?) then it will be possible to put together experiments to prove string theory or whatnot. Likewise, the scientific community can perform experiments that involve "approaching the speed of light" type scenarios, or "speed of light" type scenarios, but those are always going to be suspect for folks like me. If I was there to make sure nobody bumped a decimal place or made a mistake when recording the state of the vaccuum, etc, then I'd be more inclined to take the results as gospel.

I have seen scientific studies performed, by people I know, for institutions beholden to the federal government, where things were massaged into a "scientific" format because the real "scientific" results gave the wrong answer, the answer that the people with the millions/billions of dollars didn't want to see. This is the way it works, sorry to say.

The scientific method is a great thing for many applications, but certainly not all. Same goes for statistical analysis in general.

Everyone should be aware of the fact that proving the existence of some things is exceedingly difficult, and in many cases, beyond the capacity of modern man. Maybe in a thousand years. In the meantime, whoever has a desire to prove something, if they have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, they stand the best chance of proving it. It costs what, a couple hundred bucks to get an x-ray of your broken finger. Imagine how much it would cost to do anaylsis at every possible wavelength of the energy state of someone who claims to be conversant in affecting their body's "chi", as they perform whatever actions they're going to perform. The monitoring equipment necessary would probably cost more than most of us will make in our entire lifetimes.

When the scientific method is used by unbiased experts to prove something, that can be worth something.

If bias is allowed to taint the study or trial or whatever, that's not good science. Of course I'm for science done properly, which means acknowledging bias but doing everything possible to not let it get in the way (double blind studies for example). If you don't use the scientific method, how do you avoid bias, and rule out spontaneous remission, placebo effect, etc? I very often hear proponents of alternative medicine point out how the scientific method can be corrupted, but if you don't use it, how do you avoid these pitfalls? What's a better way?

he most interesting science doesn't fit inside the scientific method, either. When they use science to prove that there are 10 or 12 or however many dimensions to physical space (maybe in a thousand years?) then it will be possible to put together experiments to prove string theory or whatnot. Likewise, the scientific community can perform experiments that involve "approaching the speed of light" type scenarios, or "speed of light" type scenarios, but those are always going to be suspect for folks like me. If I was there to make sure nobody bumped a decimal place or made a mistake when recording the state of the vaccuum, etc, then I'd be more inclined to take the results as gospel.

I don't understand; how does the "most interesting science" not "fit inside the scientific method?" Einstein's discoveries are pretty mind boggling and surprising, but time has proved that they were scientifically sound. I would never take any scientific findings "as gospel." That's not good science. With science, you realize that any previous finding could be wrong, if there is new, solid evidence to contradict it.

I have seen scientific studies performed, by people I know, for institutions beholden to the federal government, where things were massaged into a "scientific" format because the real "scientific" results gave the wrong answer, the answer that the people with the millions/billions of dollars didn't want to see. This is the way it works, sorry to say.

So should we just discard science? What is your point? Of course the above example is bad, and we should fight against this. What's a better way than the scientific method to study health treatments and other natural phenomena? Even if you don't use the scientific method, you have to deal with avoiding corruption and greed--that's everywhere, including alternative medicine.

The scientific method is a great thing for many applications, but certainly not all.

Everyone should be aware of the fact that proving the existence of some things is exceedingly difficult, and in many cases, beyond the capacity of modern man.

I agree completely.

Imagine how much it would cost to do anaylsis at every possible wavelength of the energy state of someone who claims to be conversant in affecting their body's "chi", as they perform whatever actions they're going to perform. The monitoring equipment necessary would probably cost more than most of us will make in our entire lifetimes.

May I ask how you came to determine the cost of this research? What kind of monitoring equipment are you referring to?

eta: Also, the link Bassdriver posted was to an article showing how a scientific study shows that Tai chi may have significant health benefits. Isn't that kind of research worth spending money on?

Standing up to the Chi no-punch knockout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM_qg5d1YGI

Who knew the position of your toes or tongue would could keep you from getting KO'd?

I think that the academic community is very good at meticulously conducting research and weeding out/toning up the shitty theories. We're certainly advancing faster than ever before.

Science might not ever reveal the solution to ALL the mysteries of life and the universe, but I suspect that it could do so given infinite time to work with.

I think science can and will explain love (if it hasn't already [going camping soon so no time to google but i'm sure there are people working on that]). I think that anything currently unknown about how something like Tai Chi works is not "unknowable" but not known yet.

Tai Chi seems interesting to me, but it also seems like a sponge for bullshit and fools. And John (from the beginning of this thread), I'd just like to shout a big "WTF?" at your bullshit about babies hanging from adult fingers because they haven't yet learned to block chi or whatever. To quote Steve Albini, "extraordinarily retarded".