John Chang 'chi master'

Wudang said:
and whenever someone talks about their chi I always ask why chinese people say a "good fighter has no chi"?
Click to expand...
I find it very interesting that there are many schools of codified European martial arts, from the sword and buckler of Tower Manuscript I.33 through the longsword techniques of Lichtenauer and Ringneck; the cut-and-thrust styles of Di Grassi and Fiore through to Agrippa's and Capo Ferro's rapier; and the English swordmasters George Silver and Joseph Swetnam all the way up to 18th century sabre and smallsword. And none of them - not a single one - mention anything to do with chi, breath, inner energy, vibrations, or in fact anything non-measurable. There are no magic powers in the Western Martial Arts. Just brutal and effective methods for maiming or killing one's opponent.

Europeans never needed chi.
 
arthwollipot said:
I find it very interesting that there are many schools of codified European martial arts, from the sword and buckler of Tower Manuscript I.33 through the longsword techniques of Lichtenauer and Ringneck; the cut-and-thrust styles of Di Grassi and Fiore through to Agrippa's and Capo Ferro's rapier; and the English swordmasters George Silver and Joseph Swetnam all the way up to 18th century sabre and smallsword. And none of them - not a single one - mention anything to do with chi, breath, inner energy, vibrations, or in fact anything non-measurable. There are no magic powers in the Western Martial Arts. Just brutal and effective methods for maiming or killing one's opponent.

Europeans never needed chi.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. I'm trying to study sword forms because I've made myself a fire sword ( a bokken wrapped in kevlar tape and soaked in white gas ) and so far all the eastern martial arts schools I've talked to want me to enrol in their program with weapons training coming "when they feel I'm ready"

So far I've been watching videos on youtube but most of those are pretty "high end" and not really suitable for an amature like me but I have been able to learn some things from them and adapt them for use with a sword that's, well, on fire. There's a few fire sword videos out there but most of the performers appear to be doing just what I'm doing, winging it.

We do have a choreographed fight scene with four of us all going at it but that took literally, months to work out and I'd be rather embarrassed to light up my sword and freestyle it, solo, lest someone who was familiar with proper technique was in the audience. Sure I've done it but audience appreciation seems to hinge solely on the fact that I have this thing in my hands rather than my actual skill with it.

Maybe I could track down an SCA guy? They use western martial arts and after researching some of the terms in your post, I'm thinking a flaming buckler might be a nice effect too.
 
Along the same line, Musashi makes no mention of "chi" in his Book Of Five Rings swordfighting manual.
Bruce Lee, in his Tao Of Jeet Kun Do (which was alas, only an outline for a much larger work) mentions modern exercise physiology and training methods, but not a word about such mysterious energies.

All of the so-called demonstrations I've seen are downright laughable to anyone who has any knowledge of body mechanics (and a spate of "strong-man" tricks).
 
Stray Cat said:
Not the ONLY explanation... all that is required for other (maybe more exotic or other alternative mundane) explanations, is for someone to provide some evidence to back up an alternative theory...

... so far, none has been forthcoming.

Oh and we've all heard it before but it's worth pointing out again:
For something to be debunked, it must be full of bunk in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Not the James Rand Style. As I said, a lot of what he does is nothing more than Bunk Science (BS). And yes, we can get into specifics if you'd like.

His single greatest trick is Sleight of Mind© - doing a magic trick that appears, on the surface, to be the same thing when in fact, there was no real debunking that occurred.
 
Last edited:
athon said:
Nope.

It is indeed a common misconception of the term. Although the term was coined by Sir William Hamilton, the concept of parsimony is reflected in the works of many scientists and philosophers, from Newton to Popper.

Virtually all of them describe parsimony in terms of an economy of assumptions, and not in terms of simplicity being the 'best' (let alone 'only').

Mundanity doesn't into it at all.

Now, I can't say I'm surprised. Many of my past students misunderstood it as well, mostly because people like yourself are so cock-sure that you've got it right without doing a lick of homework on it. Come back to me once you've actually studied a bit of science history and we might have a serious discussion. Until then, I predict will simply be a case of you trying to bluff your way through a subject you evidently know little about, and me saying 'nope' a lot as I shake my head.



Strange - the term first appeared in Hamilton's work in 1852, in his work Discussions in Philosophy, Literature and Education. Now, I could be convinced the article it first appeared in within this book might have come from an earlier work ('Discussions' is something of a collection of essays), but as far as my texts indicate, this was the first time the exact term 'Ockham's Razor' was used.



The first part is correct, and is virtually direct translation of the phrase 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda, præter necessitatem'. The second part is debatable and relies on definitions of 'simplicity'. Again, it is more accurate to state it as an economy of assumptions - the more you need to assume, the more room there is for possible flaws in the conclusion. Hence a hypothesis that relies on the least assumptions has the greater chance of being productive.

Now, you can throw unreferenced quotes about all you want. Given you've shown little real understanding of the underlying philosophy, I'm left with my own assumption that you're floundering in a field you've spent little time studying.




Something of a generalisation there. I won't dismiss the fact a number of self-proclaimed skeptics are all of those things, but to assume that defines a skeptic is to create a 'no true scottsman' fallacy.



Your insistence that this is the case shows a lot for your self-confidence, but little about your understanding in the matter. You're free to set your understanding apart from centuries of scientific philosophy, of course, but give a lot more people have spent a lot more time studying this, I'm not sure why anybody should give your point a second glance. Certainty in science is a logical impossibility.



Repetition of something that is wrong doesn't make it right. It just makes you look more foolish.

Science does not deal with certainties. Theories can be overturned or modified with novel evidence. In the absence of said evidence, the theory remains the most useful. It does deal with confidence in a conclusion with view of the possibility of new evidence coming to light. That isn't certainty by any stretch of the fevered imagination.

Indeed. The door is always left open for the possibility. It costs nothing to be aware that there is no such thing as the final word on an idea. However, it could be quite costly to close one's mind to the possibility of any new evidence.

Athon
Click to expand...

Now, read my fingertips: The Debunker’s Law of Perpetual Simplicity© – a bastardized version of Occam’s Razor, which, while not stated outright, is implied throughout, that the simplest explanation is the only explanation. The mindset that all explanations must be mundane/plausible at all costs, no matter what the cost.

Now, That is my coined phrase to describe what I've heard on these forums over and over again. By repeated and doggedly trying to define OC you are barking up the wrong tree. Either agree or disagree with the principle I have put forth. It's not OC, it is a A belief that:

1. Since a thing could be faked, it must be faked

2. Whatever is claimed is…something else

3. Belief that all UFO photos are fake, especially the real ones

4. Absence of proof is proof of absence

In the time I've been on debunker forums I have never heard a debunker even come close to saying, "Well, another possibility is that it could be the real deal, albeit, remote." The closest I've ever seen you guys come is with the Drake Equation where guys like Phil Plait will say that it wouldn't surprise him if there was some form of life due to the staggering numbers. I call that the Law of Hedging their bet (just in case): prone to say, “Hey, I just want to know the truth, whatever the truth is I want to know, I’m the first to want to know the truth." This is a way of trying to appear open minded, objective, rational, unbiased and logical.

However you want to define OC, the most common usage of it today is "the simplest solution is usually the best." Or in your case, pertaining to any area of woo, "It is always the best".

Or, this guy put it, which describes a debunker's mindset:

Albert Einstein:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Also, "Once something reaches that stage, it becomes a certainty. So let me restate: science deals with possibilities and probabilities initially, with the goal of finding out if it is a certainty."

We have theories like quantum loop gravity, string theory, big bang, etc. These are all fairly feasible avenues of exploration that seek to arrive at one specific goal: certainty as to what it is and what it ain't. Something you can count on first time every time.

Here's an example: http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm (List of things mistaken for UFOs (alien craft) by Donald Menzel, a noted debunker of the 50s and 60s. There are 9 major categories with a bunch of variation on a theme under each heading. This is Occam's Sledge Hammer. The same thing over and over ad infinitum in spite an ever growing list of sightings. The list keeps getting stretched thiner and thiner.
 
Last edited:
jakesteele said:
The mindset that all explanations must be mundane/plausible at all costs, no matter what the cost.
Click to expand...

Cowspoo

Everybody wants woo to exist, there's no conspiracy to suppress it.

When i see a video, like the one in the OP where somebody shoots himself in the meaty part of the palm, the part where anybody whose ever swung a hammer for a living knows is easily calloused, with a possibly clapped out child's pellet gun then claim that they're using some sort of magic to protect themself, the BS meter goes wild.

Let Chang try protecting his eye from the pellet or better yet, use something that's actually dangerous, like a .22 round. then I'll be impressed.

I want UFOs to exist, that would be cool ( 'cept for the anal probes, that would suck ) but until one actually shows itself rather than sneaking around being all fast and glowy, I'm going to remain skeptical that there's extraterrestrials joyriding around and buzzing our planet getting their kicks.

As the poster on Fox Mulder's wall said "I want to believe", quite often it's that want that drives our perceptions of reality.
 
jakesteele said:
Not the James Rand Style. As I said, a lot of what he does is nothing more than Bunk Science (BS). And yes, we can get into specifics if you'd like.

His single greatest trick is Sleight of Mind© - doing a magic trick that appears, on the surface, to be the same thing when in fact, there was no real debunking that occurred.
Click to expand...
Randi provides ONE possible mundane explanation for an effect claimed to be done by paranormal powers by a woo...

Woo makes a claim
Claim is refuted by showing a mundane method

Surely it's now down to the woo to provide proof that he has not used the method demonstrated by Randi.

It's easy to understand really but I can also understand woo's not liking it because it would involve providing some solid proof... which of course, they don't have.

So can you find someone who can demonstrate in real controlled conditions a display of Chi energy like Chang claims?
 
[OT]
Stout said:
Maybe I could track down an SCA guy? They use western martial arts and after researching some of the terms in your post, I'm thinking a flaming buckler might be a nice effect too.
Click to expand...
If you do, make sure it's a fencer, not a heavy. The fencers study WMA, but from what I know, SCA heavy fighting doesn't have much resemblance to any WMA I'm familiar with.
[/OT]
 
That's chi squared, grasshopper. Much more powerful than mere chi. What you are saying is just a load of chit.
 
plumjam said:
Or are we supposed to believe that all statisticians are liars when there's a significant probability that only about half of them are?
Click to expand...
Indeed only half are liars... the problem being that no one knows which half it is :D
 
jakesteele said:
Science deals with possibilities and probabilities with the intent to arrive at certainties like the moon orbiting around the earth, the earth around the sun in very predicable patterns, E=MC squared, etc. That's the job of science; to turn possibilities and probabilities into certainties whenever possible. So far they have done a damn good job and they still plugging away every day.
Click to expand...

If this guy can do this with out fraud why isn't he working for the Million Dollar Challange?
 
So the other day I made a blog post about martial arts and "chi" (linky) and I concluded the post thusly...

The moral of the story is simple: when it’s you and your beliefs vs. the laws of physics, physics always wins.
Click to expand...

Then yesterday, someone posted the following on my comment section:

When Yan Xin went up against physics…physics lost. Of course, he actually studies the qigong, rather than studying martial arts while believing in qigong. Sadly, that distinction is lost on most believers and skeptics alike.
Click to expand...

So who is this so-called Yan Xin? Some kind of "chi-whammy" guru?
 
ponderingturtle said:
If this guy can do this with out fraud why isn't he working for the Million Dollar Challange?
Click to expand...

Probably because it's "against his religious/spiritual beliefs" to do such things for money :rolleyes:

Question: Why can't these folks just win the million dollars and give the money to starving kids?

Answer: Probably the fact that they can't do what they claim.
 
arthwollipot said:
Let me Google that for you. :D
Click to expand...

Smart ass :)

I like "Dr." Yan Xin's page on "scientific research" which makes a number of bold claims, claiming support from various scientific institutions, yet provides no link to any of this "research".

Likewise, when I responded to the person who left that comment on my blog about Yan Xin for elaboration on the claims that "he beat physics", I got crickets chirping.

Color me unimpressed.
 
Note the reference to Werner Heisenburg.

On an earlier point you'd be hard pressed to find an antique chinese martials manual refer to chi - even the classics of tai chi don't. It's usually been grafted on later - even with relatively modern arts like Dachengchuan. Although some refer to the exercises as "chi kung" they would not normally have been considered as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom