Originally posted by drew hempel
reply to post by Bedlam
O.K. so far you've
1) ignored the double blinded Mayo Clinic study because it's not published yet.
How can I do otherwise? It's not published. All you've got is an abstract.
2) ignored the singled blinded Harvard study because it's funded by a foundation that wants qigong to be real.
3) Dismissed the others because they're just abstracts, or are scientists IN A VIDEO and therefore not worth watching -- or are by researchers not
at prestigious schools.
It's generally a bad sign when you have a single blind study at a place that is an advocate for what they're studying. By the way, it wasn't done
at Harvard, now, was it? Some guy from Harvard was on the author list, but not as top billing. The guy from the foundation was. For all you know your
Harvard guy was a lab assistant, or did the stats.
New Jersey University of Dentistry? Come on.
edit: Abstracts do not contain enough information for someone to evaluate. They're meant to give you about a paragraph outlining what the paper
covers, so you can see if you're interested at a glance. If what you post as "PROOF!!11" is abstracts, and the root paper isn't published
anywhere, then they're not worth anything. I get that you don't read scholarly papers as part of your day-to-day routine, but the abstract part
isn't all that useful, except as a quick guide to see if the paper is what you're looking for.
4) Finally there's the Western science explanation for qigong -- the biophoton model. I've presented an array of biophoton studies.
I await your excuses on biophoton research as the Western explanation for qigong.
The clock is ticking.
No, it's the usual copy/paste barrage with the same old tired mantra at the end - If you don't read, critique, and fully research these two hundred
links I've smacked down here in 15 minutes from google, YOU FAIL!, which seems to be a staple of the mystic side of ATS. It's intended to throw two
or three dozen hours of work at someone, which the more sane of us are unwilling to put in. I spent several hours last night actually READING the
links you posted before, only to find some of them didn't even apply to the topic, and the rest weren't all that good.
Here's my fresh new alternative. YOU read them, you obviously haven't been so far, and YOU pick say, two or three which you feel have rigorous
controls, researchers skilled in that field, decent p-values, no pesky financial obligations to or special interest in the subject, and what would be
really nice, something that's been independently replicated and passed not only the initial review boards for publication, but which have stood up to
review from the readers. Then I'll be happy to take a look at them.
Remember this is your final chance to completely dismiss the reality of civilizations twice as old as Western civlization -- the prana of India and
the qi of China. Then there's the Bushmen culture where this all comes from -- the original humans of 90% of human history.
So it's you versus 90% of human history. Only you get to decide who is right.
I'm betting that you're right.
Well, why are you leaving out the Ba'al worshippers? Ba'al was a big deal for centuries, because he gives people magic power. And of course, you've
got to feed a few infants to the ovens for him, so what? Then of course, the Aztecs, hey, they were a near SUPER race, right? What's a few heads
chopped off and hearts ripped out, when you can appease the gods and become a demi-god yourself? Same with the Druids, eh?
All through human history, there's been a LOT of religious or mystical practices. Not all of them are useful, or correct, or have any correlation to
reality. Some do, here and there, many don't. People have a bad design problem with magical thinking and confirmation bias, and that's why we've
painstakingly developed this neat tool called science to try to trim away error, delusion and wishful thinking. Admit it, and come into the light
bequeathed to us by the Greeks, and renewed in the Renaissance. You know you can do it.
PS: In the morning I'm off to a customer site for a week, you can WIN (ha ha!) all week, because I won't have time or access to ATS. Actually won't
have that much time today. So you can go do 20-30 hours of research on your papers you want to use as exemplars.
[edit on 21-4-2010 by Bedlam]