I have a hard time believing it too, but I'm and biomed engineer and a kung fu practicioner. I know enough about physics and human physiology to say that there is an infinite amount of knowledge still to be gained from the intracies of the human body on cellular, molecular, sub-molecular, etc. basis. It would be arrogant to fully dismiss any knowledge gained by people of the past because it doesn't fit our empirical data standard.

Saying that your alternative health system is to any degree effective against some disease -- that is an empirical statement, which means it can and should be scientifically tested. There are no two ways about it.

Human beings are very good at woobly talk, and then feeling good about their own woobly talk. This does not mean there is any usefulness to such talk — although, of course, a person is free to demonstrate the effectiveness of their woo at any time.

But then, I'm sure that attempting to demonstrate it would mean you've already fallen victim to Western thinking, and it's too late for you.

From the western perspective, deep breathing oxygenates the blood and whatnot, but how can this be explained from the lived experience? How does your qualitative state change? How does it feel?

Well, fair enough, there is the hard problem of consciousness. That's an excellent point. But the thing about that problem is that, outside of science, no one's managed to make noticeable progress on it; all that a non-scientific approach does is rephrase the problem. "How are physical entities able to experience things? Psycho-physical energy!"

By contrast, neurology alone has made whopping strides, actually giving answers to specific questions about what's going on when she feels curious, when he thinks about California, and when I meditate. It's that "Western" thinking -- which is really everyone's thinking, because Indian and Chinese scientists use it too -- that's truly transcendental.

Indeed, yes, that all still leaves a solid kernel of the core question, the bewildering and exhilarating enigma of sentience.

That question.

Well, what else would the spirits want but for us to try and answer?

So, no, you will never discover a "chi particle." They are two different models for looking at the same thing. Each model has its own strengths. If you want to build a computer, use the western one. If you want to understand what it means to be a living human being, the eastern one is infinitely more meaningful. Also, try pranayama if you have any doubts. See how in influences your awareness. From the western perspective, deep breathing oxygenates the blood and whatnot, but how can this be explained from the lived experience? How does your qualitative state change? How does it feel? Chi is called "psycho-physical energy", which accounts for one's lived experience. They are just two different ways to talk about the same thing.

Articles like this evoke emotional responses in those who choose the western model. Why does it have to be so emotive and one sided? This strikes me as something like Bill O'Reilly yelling at a guest who has had his mic turned off. Those who side with Bill eat it up, but everyone else watching has witnessed an act of propaganda and not a "fair and balanced" discussion.

"Electricity is a physical phenomenon that centres upon the behaviour of charged particles: it is a form of energy created by the movement of electrons, positrons, ions and other subatomic particles, all of which are the stuff of molecules and cells. As a result, the work done and the forces generated by this energy or by these moving particles can be described in simple mathematical equations..."

The movement of the small bioelectric DC currents studied here and in numerous other articles by this research team (as opposed to the "AC" type movement of an action potential along a nerve), may flow through and between cells finding a path of least resistance. Such a flow may create a "channel" that (like a shipping lane) represents the real movement of traffic without actually creating a tangible structure. (Eg you will not be able to detect a shipping lane in a photograph of any given area of sea, nevertheless, the lines on a map refer to a real traffic phenomenon).

If this is the case, then it explains why the experiment described here: Electrical Correlates of Acupuncture Points was able to detect discernible electrical differences between certain acupuncture points and the surrounding tissues. The team that wrote this paper was mainly engaged in researching limb regeneration and the piezoelectrical properties of bone, and decided to research the acupuncture question because someone asked and, as scientists with a suitably equipped lab, they decided the question was worth answering.

Please note that the claims I wish to advance here are not very extraordinary. Please take notice of what I am NOT arguing. The above, and the many other experiments into DC bioelectrical fields and their roles in neural tube and organ formation and limb budding in fetuses, in amphibian limb regeneration, in wound healing and many other physiological processes still being researched, do NOT provide support for a theory of vitalism. They merely add a new electrical dimension to our primarily chemical-based understanding of physiology, and some would argue that it is the missing dimension. Chemicals alone, for example, struggle to explain how a limb finds its way into a particular shape. The discovery of active electrical fields that precede, and perhaps guide, the developing limb may help explain the mystery of shape. (These fields are readily detectable in the water surrounding amphibian eggs with their developing fetuses. They appear to precede limb bud formation by a matter of hours or days, depending on the species. Experiments disrupting these electrical fields in various ways readily produce a range of developmental errors - errors of shape).

However, although bioelectricalfields do not equal vitalism, they MAY be able to suggest a biologically plausible explanation for some of the effects of acupuncture, and certainly do not contradict the theory, if you restrict the theory to the simple assertion that there is a flow of something [possibly electrical current] along specific pathways in the body, while disregarding the aspects of the theory that relate to the relation between humans and the cosmos. Please note this is a small claim, not an extraordinary one.

Whatever "Qi" MEANT to either the ancient Chinese, or to modern Chinese practitioners of acupuncture - and it is by no means clear to Western scholars of Chinese language and culture that this concept AT ALL resembles the Western concept of vitalism - what they may have been DOING, then and now, is manipulating/modifying the body's medically verified bioelectrical fields. With, perhaps, lesser or greater effects depending on many factors, not least the practitioner's own level of deftness and skill.

Biological plausibility is not necessarily an argument in favour of a wholehearted acceptance of acupuncture - obviously, it must still prove its worth and effectiveness in fair tests vs other treatments, and vs. placebo (and the question of what would constitute a "placebo" acupuncture treatment remains contentious, while it is practically impossible to figure out how you could "blind" a practitioner - although surgery and other medical procedures would also suffer from the second difficulty - a surgeon would know whether s/he has done the real procedure or a placebo - so the solution for "blinding" an acupuncturist may turn out to be whatever method is used to "blind" a surgeon).

However, the claim I do feel is perfectly justifiable, given the establishment of some biological plausibility for acupuncture and acupuncture channels, is that acupuncture should not be dismissed out of hand. A small, but significant claim, for which I feel I have put forward at least a suitable evidence-based starting place. And there is the possibility that future evidence may confirm biological benefits to the manipulation of bioelectrical DC fields - whether by acupuncture or by some other means.

Like the Greek philosophers, the ancient Taoists were a mixture of philosopher and scientist. They developed theories to explain the Qi phenomenon based on the available science and knowledge of the day, and like all philosophers tended to write about it in rather abstract terms.

However, some self proclaimed Taoists were no more than con men, who naturally sought to find a commercial application for Qi. Combine this with the liberties taken by writers of the popular entertainment of the day (opera, books and bards/storytellers) and you have a great deal of exaggeration.

A comparison could be made to the development of human psychology/behaviour and the understanding of mental illness in the West. That there is a seemingly limitless supply of quack remedies for mental and emotional illnesses, and the fact that there is still a great deal of disagreement over how our minds actually work even today, does not make the work of Sigmund Freud and those that came after him acts of fraud or superstition inspired fantasy.

So what's your point? Before its discovery, was magnetite ever a necessary explanation for the uncanny abilities of the homing pigeon? We just took for granted that the birds instinctively knew which way to fly, but "Because they do" is just as inadequate as "Because God did it" in terms of explanatory power.

No scientist would ever take "because they do" as an explanation. Someone interested in the phenomenon would test a series of hypotheses such as is the pidgeon responding to;air currents, polarised light, star fields, geography, magnetic fields, anything else. Once established that it was magnetic fields (if it is) they would then go on to find an empirical mechanism for that to work, which if you are correct (I haven't checked) someone did. Qi is not equivalent to magnetite or for that matter to Einstein's cosmological constant the presence of both of which can be falsified. Qi is pure vitalism, as it is presented in the eastern tradition only trained practitioners can subjectively detect it.

Nes,

I'm happy with where we left off. Your responses indicate to me that although you don't believe in Qi, you are open-minded. This puts you in an entirely different category than the naysayers. Thanks for sharing your anecdotes and all, they're certainly interesting.

Steve,

To suggest that all the time there are things to know, Qi could possible be the the solution is still GOTG reasoning.

1) How much clearer can I make it that this is not my argument? I'm not saying, "See the gap in our knowledge? It's evidence for Qi." I'm not trying to prove or argue for Qi. I've stated this three times now. A GOTG argument happens when there's a gap in scientific knowledge and some believer points to that gap as evidence for God. If I'm not pointing to the gaps in our knowledge as evidence for Qi, how does this claim stand?

And let's digress for a second about what is and isn't a GOTG argument. Scientists posit hypotheses, concepts and ideas to fill gaps in knowledge quite often. Nobody charged Einstein with making a GOTG argument for supposing his cosmological constant explained the gaps in the knowledge of his day, did they? Of course not. So please, save the GOTG card for where it is actually appropriate.

2) An argument from personal incredulity occurs when I say, "I can't / won't / don't believe you, so I'm right / my position makes more sense." If I'm not making a positive claim for Qi, how does this claim stand?

3) So what am I saying, then? You said,

So far as we currently understand all the phenomena investigated to date no vital force/Qi/spirit essence etc has ever been a necessary explanation.

So what's your point? Before its discovery, was magnetite ever a necessary explanation for the uncanny abilities of the homing pigeon? We just took for granted that the birds instinctively knew which way to fly, but "Because they do" is just as inadequate as "Because God did it" in terms of explanatory power.

There is nothing to suggest that currently unexplained phenomena will require anything other than naturalist solutions.

Of course not, because science proceeds from an assumption of methodological naturalism whose very definition allows only naturalist solutions by default. Natural is simply an adjective used to denote that which we can deduce empirically, and that which we can deduce empirically has been expanding exponentially for some time now. Is there anything to suggest Qi would not be a 'naturalist solution' if it were discovered?

Before Einstein and QM people didn't think unexplained phenomena would require anything other than Newtonian solutions, either. They were clearly wrong.

Regarding Metzke, as the article says, there are people who have tried what he did and died anyway, and there are people who have done the opposite, stressing out constantly, who have lived. His case looks like a rare (and I need to stress that this is rare) "edge of the bell curve" case, that's all.

Could you further respect the person who sees compelling evidence and/or has good reason to believe that Qi / spirit exists? That would seem fair.

The person? Yes, most certainly. I may think that my mother is mistaken, but I haven't lost all respect for her because of that.

The idea or belief itself? Not unless the person is willing to share the evidence. Sadly, every bit of evidence I've seen can more easily be explained as confirmation bias, placebo, regression to the mean, etc., etc. So at this point, no I can not.