Re: new numbers / More ways to heal than you know.

[Guest guest]

Hi, .

NO, what you just wrote IS NOT SCIENCE. Science is not defined by you.

Once again you are on the pseudoscience train to bully another member of this

group.. full speed!

What you are saying simply is not true.

there is plenty of scientific data on Qi and you are simply not aware of

it.

Quit using the word " science " to intimidate people here and try to discredit

their discussions with your self appointed know-it-all-ism.

you don't have ALL the scientific knowledge in the world, so stop acting

like the arbiter of Science which you are not.

Roni is bringing an interesting point to this group, information that some might

not know and might be very interested in learning about. So don't be rude and

arrogant and impose your ideas once again.

So what if you think science knows nothing about qi. Tell that to a pile of

bricks that is being demolished by a hand. Qi is real and its mysteries are

powerful.

There are tons of experiments on the effects of external Qi of Qigong on

Biomolecules. Qigong masters have been studied for years now and the fact that

there are some things that " scientits " can not fully explain does not negate the

existence of Qi as there is simply just too much evidence. This only speaks of

the shortcomings of science and the fact that they are the ones that don't

understand it. Qi is there.

Besides we all know of many cases where a group of scientists agree on something

and another group disagrees. Did you know that there are tons of scientist

studying qi? They are finding amazing information and discovering things never

seen before. Look it up .

Ying and Yang are not typical western scientific issues, they are like love.

Can science explain anything about love? No. Yet it is one of the most

powerful life altering elements of life.

I quote you : " There really isn't any science in a discussion of qi or of

yin/yang. " this is so ignorant and arrogant of your part, not to mention

rude to Roni.

This is not the Group and Roni can mention science in a discussion

of Qi and Ying and Yang or anything she might well please. Just because you

are not up on the latest finding on the studies of the finer issues concerning

energy, consciousness in our universe does not mean what you are saying is of

any value to this group. And believe me what you are saying has no value to

this group because it is a lie.

Learn some about theses things you know nothing about and take a humility pill

before you write about this again. Your demagoguery is getting thin.

Sincerely,

Now feel free to attack me. Have a ball.

>

> Hi, Roni. Scientists understand the energy of our bodies pretty darned

> well and qi isn't anywhere to be seen. As for yin and yang, science is

> not only concerned with the fact that something " works " but attempts to

> understand the principles that cause it to work. Yin/yang are

> scientifically much less than Newton's laws of motion and IMHO

> philosophically much more. There really isn't any science in a

> discussion of qi or of yin/yang. There are no proposals for any method

> to detect or measure them. OTOH the theory of electromagnetism is

> pretty much fleshed out. That IS science.

>

> Regards,

>

> .

> .

>

>

> > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

> > <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20new%20numbers>

> > matchermaam <matchermaam>

> >

> >

> > Mon May 9, 2011 6:09 pm (PDT)

> >

> >

> >

> > Qi is basically the energy that runs through our bodies. Don't forget

> > that our bodies do all the things they do based on the electrical

> > impulses that come to the brain from conscious and unconcious stimuli.

> > As for yin and yang, I'm sure you

> > have heard " For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. "

> > That is basically the same thing. Nothing could exist without balance.

> > The language used to explain these things may be different, but the

> > science is the same. I'm really not fluent in all the Chinese language

> > equivilents, but I'm sure you get the idea.

> >

> > Roni

>

[Guest guest]

Hello, Marie. Your post is a bit far out but I'll try to respond

intelligently to a few points where possible. Please see below...

..

..

>

> Posted by: " maria p " khusha8@...

>

<mailto:khusha8@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20new%20numbers%20%2F%20More%20ways%2\

0to%20heal%20than%20you%20know%2E>

> khusha8 <khusha8>

>

>

> Fri May 13, 2011 11:17 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> Hi, .

>

> NO, what you just wrote IS NOT SCIENCE. Science is not defined by you.

..

..

If you really want to know what actually is encompassed by science then

take a look here:

..

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>

..

If you see anything inconsistent with what I've been saying please QUOTE

ME CORRECTLY and then point out what it is.

Incidentally, there are two statements on that page that confirm my

posit that we cannot PROVE that the Earth is spherical. Here is one:

..

> Note that this method can never absolutely *verify* (prove the truth

> of) /*2*/. It can only *falsify

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability>* /*2*/.^[16]

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-15> (This is

> what Einstein meant when he said, " No amount of experimentation can

> ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. "

..

Perhaps you will find Einstein's statement as humorous as you find mine;

more likely you will fail to understand it. Here's another:

..

> A scientific theory hinges on empirical

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical> findings, and remains subject

> to falsification <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability> if new

> evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty>.

..

..

There you have a specific statement that scientifically no theory [The

Earth is spherical, not flat] is ever considered certain. If you

understand these statements then you are not quite so LOL now.

..

..

>

> Once again you are on the pseudoscience train to bully another member

> of this group.. full speed!

..

..

No such thing. I present " facts " that so far you have failed to show

conflict with science in any way. That does not meet any definition of

" bullying " that I have seen.

..

>

> What you are saying simply is not true.

..

..

If you assert that anything I have written PLEASE QUOTE ME CORRECTLY and

point out specifically what statement is wrong. You can't; you're just

going to keep blathering about " bullying " and " pseudoscience " and blah

blah blah...

..

>

> there is plenty of scientific data on Qi and you are simply not

> aware of it.

..

..

Ah, but I am aware of it. See this page from Wikipedia [Yes, I'm aware

that Wikipedia is not the most credible source. However, it in

innumerable cases reflects credible sources and is convenient]:

..

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#Scientific_investigation

..

Here is a relevant quote you will find there:

..

>

>> There have been a number of studies of qi, especially in the sense

>> used by traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture. These studies

>> have often been problematic, and are hard to compare to each other,

>> as they lack a common nomenclature.^

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-White-21> Some studies

>> claim to have been able to measure qi, or the effects of manipulating

>> qi, such as through acupuncture^ , but the proposed existence of qi

>> has been rejected by the scientific community.

>>

>> A United States National Institures of Health consensus statement on

>> acupuncture in 1997 noted that concepts such as qi " are difficult to

>> reconcile with contemporary biomedical information. " ^

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-NIH-22> In 2007 the MD

>> Cancer Center at the University of Texas published an

>> article ^ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-23> covering the

>> concepts by which qi is believed to work and research into possible

>> benefits for cancer patients. A review^

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-24> of clinical trials

>> investigating the use of internal qigong for pain management found

>> no convincing evidence that it was effective.

>>

..

That seems to correspond rather well to what I've been saying and to

contradict what you're saying. However, if it's wrong and there is

credible support for the existence and effacy of Qi then you should not

have a problem listing a few. Unfortunately I rather suspect you would

not recognize a credible source it you saw one.

..

..

>

> Quit using the word " science " to intimidate people here and try to

> discredit their discussions with your self appointed know-it-all-ism.

..

..

I have gone to great lengths to state repeatedly that I am not a

scientist and I am not a doctor and that I do not have any formal

credentials in any field. Thus to suggest that I think I know it all is

rather pathetic. Not even the most brilliant and best educated

scientist knows it all; and I don't even approach that level. I suspect

the archives will support the idea that I have a pretty firm grasp of

some of the more basic elements of science. Further, I was a member of

the Fidonet echos on science and physics BBS's before the internet

conquered the world. I do not have a problem discussing science with

real scientists.

Why would you be intimidated by the word " science " ? Those who truly do

not value science would have no reason to be upset if they find science

[something in which they place no credibility] disagrees with them.

>

>

> you don't have ALL the scientific knowledge in the world, so

> stop acting like the arbiter of Science which you are not.

..

..

If you have a problem with any statement of mine pertaining to science

please QUOTE ME CORRECTLY and point it out.

..

..

>

> Roni is bringing an interesting point to this group, information that

> some might not know and might be very interested in learning about. So

> don't be rude and arrogant and impose your ideas once again.

..

..

It is not rude to post my ideas that contrast with the ideas of someone

else. It is not rude to post WHY my ideas are as they are. Anyone can

continue to believe however they desire. However, it is less likely

that you will continue to believe there is scientific support for the

foolish ideas that I point out are in conflict with science if you

understand my posts.

..

..

>

> So what if you think science knows nothing about qi. Tell that to a

> pile of bricks that is being demolished by a hand. Qi is real and its

> mysteries are powerful.

..

..

I leave you to talk to a pile of bricks. I have enough problem trying

to have an intelligent conversation with you. I think the two

statements quoted above [... " the proposed existence of qi has been

rejected by the scientific community " ] and [ " A review^

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-24> of clinical trials

investigating the use of internal qigong for pain management found no

convincing evidence that it was effective " ] is consistent with the views

I have posted and with the views of the scientific world. You have

stated that is not correct and have ridiculed me for posting it, but you

have never posted a single source that disagrees.

..

..

>

> There are tons of experiments on the effects of external Qi of Qigong

> on Biomolecules.

..

..

You keep saying that, but you keep posting nothing. I have posted what

is the consensus of science, which refutes what you say.

..

..

> Qigong masters have been studied for years now and the fact that there

> are some things that " scientits " can not fully explain does not negate

> the existence of Qi as there is simply just too much evidence. This

> only speaks of the shortcomings of science and the fact that they are

> the ones that don't understand it. Qi is there.

..

..

You keep saying that. Yet you post nothing; not even some crap totally

lacking in credibility. Are we supposed to ignore the consensus of

science [as I posted above] and take your unsupported word?

..

..

>

> Besides we all know of many cases where a group of scientists agree on

> something and another group disagrees. Did you know that there are

> tons of scientist studying qi? They are finding amazing information

> and discovering things never seen before. Look it up .

..

..

I did look it up. Again. And I posted one small example [two quotes]

above that represents the consensus of science. Yet you have not posted

one reference to a credible study of Qi; nor named even ONE of the

" tons " of scientists who are studying qi.

..

..

>

> Ying and Yang are not typical western scientific issues, they are like

> love. Can science explain anything about love? No. Yet it is one of

> the most powerful life altering elements of life.

..

..

Love is an emotion; it has AFAIK no physical attributes which can be

detected or measured. Ying and Yang are presented as real physical

objects in at least some discussions. If an object is real then

scientists don't care if it is Eastern or Western; they want to detect

it and measure its attributes. AFAIK neither Eastern nor Western

scientists have detected or measured qi or ying-yang.

..

..

>

> I quote you : " There really isn't any science in a discussion of

> qi or of yin/yang. " this is so ignorant and arrogant of your

> part, not to mention rude to Roni.

..

..

It is an accurate statement and as such should not be considered rude.

Rudeness is attacking a person; acceptable debate is presenting a

contrasting viewpoint and providing supporting evidence for that

viewpoint. The two statements I quoted above [... " the proposed

existence of qi has been rejected by the scientific community " ] and [ " A

review^ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-24> of clinical

trials investigating the use of internal qigong for pain management

found no convincing evidence that it was effective " ] refer only to qi

but I suspect could be equally applied to ying-yang. They are the

consensus of science, and are consistent with what I have posted.

..

..

>

> This is not the Group and Roni can mention science in a

> discussion of Qi and Ying and Yang or anything she might well please.

..

..

Roni can certainly post any subject she desires; and for you to suggest

I want to limit her right to do that is less than brilliant.

..

..

> Just because you are not up on the latest finding on the studies of

> the finer issues concerning energy, consciousness in our universe does

> not mean what you are saying is of any value to this group. And

> believe me what you are saying has no value to this group because it

> is a lie.

..

..

I'll " believe you " when you make a statement that makes sense or that is

supported by credible evidence. I've posted ample evidence that much of

what you say is totally unsupported in science AND that what I have

posted IS supported in science. You have posted nothing except a poorly

thought-out opinion and completely false " facts " to contradict what I

have posted. That won't fly.

..

..

>

> Learn some about theses things you know nothing about and take a

> humility pill before you write about this again. Your demagoguery is

> getting thin.

..

..

Read about " science " ; " scientific method " ; " qi " ; and " ying-yang " on

Wikipedia and if you understand any of it you probably won't post such

preposterous falsehoods here. There's no need to attack you; your

unfounded opinions make a sufficient target.

..

..

>

> Sincerely,

>

>

>

> Now feel free to attack me. Have a ball.

>

>

> >

> > Hi, Roni. Scientists understand the energy of our bodies pretty darned

> > well and qi isn't anywhere to be seen. As for yin and yang, science is

> > not only concerned with the fact that something " works " but attempts to

> > understand the principles that cause it to work. Yin/yang are

> > scientifically much less than Newton's laws of motion and IMHO

> > philosophically much more. There really isn't any science in a

> > discussion of qi or of yin/yang. There are no proposals for any method

> > to detect or measure them. OTOH the theory of electromagnetism is

> > pretty much fleshed out. That IS science.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

[Guest guest]

     First, let me say that and I have debated different things for a long

time. We don't attack one another, just the subject, which is the basis of

debate.

 

I believe in open mindedness, and don't believe totally in anything I am told by

any establishment whether eastern or western or anywhere in betweeen. The reason

is that although I am interested in everything, people are the ones professing

this or that, no matter where it's from. It's actually the so called authorities

on these things that I don't trust. Statistics don't lie but people make

statistics and people lie, and therefore, to me, are subject to question.

 

There are things my doctors have given me that are supposed to work, and clearly

with me they either didn't work or I reacted to them at even severely reduced

dosages. It has taken me a long time to convince my doctors that my body reacts

weirdly to different things, medications and even so called natural things like

supplements. Now they work with me because they have seen for themselves what

happens to me. We each have to find our own particular path to health and it

really doesn't matter which path we use, so long as it helps us and doesn't hurt

us.

 

One cannot state with certainty that this or that is the final answer. The world

and the universe and understanding is constantly changing, and being open to

that change is the (in my opinion) best way for our species to survive. We have

been compared to weeds by some scientist whose name I can't remember. His point

was that humans are adaptable, and as such insure their survival.

 

So, whether someone is on one side of this issue or the other, I would suggest

that being open to the other side is in your best interests. I know it is to

mine.

 

Roni

From: <res075oh@...>

hypothyroidism ; JAMES <res075oh@...>

Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 3:48 PM

Subject: Re: new numbers / More ways to heal than you know.

Hello, Marie.  Your post is a bit far out but I'll try to respond

intelligently to a few points where possible.  Please see below...

..

..

>

>      Posted by: " maria p " khusha8@...

>     

<mailto:khusha8@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20new%20numbers%20%2F%20More%20ways%2\

0to%20heal%20than%20you%20know%2E>

>      khusha8 <khusha8>

>

>

>        Fri May 13, 2011 11:17 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> Hi, .

>

> NO, what you just wrote IS NOT SCIENCE. Science is not defined by you.

..

..

If you really want to know what actually is encompassed by science then

take a look here:

..

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>

..

If you see anything inconsistent with what I've been saying please QUOTE

ME CORRECTLY and then point out what it is.

Incidentally, there are two statements on that page that confirm my

posit that we cannot PROVE that the Earth is spherical.  Here is one:

..

> Note that this method can never absolutely *verify* (prove the truth

> of) /*2*/. It can only *falsify

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability>* /*2*/.^[16]

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-15> (This is

> what Einstein meant when he said, " No amount of experimentation can

> ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. "

..

Perhaps you will find Einstein's statement as humorous as you find mine;

more likely you will fail to understand it.  Here's another:

..

> A scientific theory hinges on empirical

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical> findings, and remains subject

> to falsification <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability> if new

> evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty>.

..

..

There you have a specific statement that scientifically no theory [The

Earth is spherical, not flat] is ever considered certain.  If you

understand these statements then you are not quite so LOL now.

..

..

>

> Once again you are on the pseudoscience train to bully another member

> of this group.. full speed!

..

..

No such thing.  I present " facts " that so far you have failed to show

conflict with science in any way.  That does not meet any definition of

" bullying " that I have seen.

..

>

> What you are saying simply is not true.

..

..

If you assert that anything I have written PLEASE QUOTE ME CORRECTLY and

point out specifically what statement is wrong.  You can't; you're just

going to keep blathering about " bullying " and " pseudoscience " and blah

blah blah...

..

>

> there is plenty of scientific data on Qi and you are simply not

> aware of it.

..

..

Ah, but I am aware of it.  See this page from Wikipedia [Yes, I'm aware

that Wikipedia is not the most credible source.  However, it in

innumerable cases reflects credible sources and is convenient]:

..

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#Scientific_investigation

..

Here is a relevant quote you will find there:

..

>

>> There have been a number of studies of qi, especially in the sense

>> used by traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture. These studies

>> have often been problematic, and are hard to compare to each other,

>> as they lack a common nomenclature.^

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-White-21> Some studies

>> claim to have been able to measure qi, or the effects of manipulating

>> qi, such as through acupuncture^ , but the proposed existence of qi

>> has been rejected by the scientific community.

>>

>> A  United States National Institures of Health consensus statement on

>> acupuncture in 1997 noted that concepts such as qi " are difficult to

>> reconcile with contemporary biomedical information. " ^

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-NIH-22> In 2007 the MD

>> Cancer Center at the University of Texas published an

>> article ^ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-23> covering the

>> concepts by which qi is believed to work and research into possible

>> benefits for cancer patients. A review^

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-24> of clinical trials

>> investigating the use of internal  qigong for pain management found

>> no convincing evidence that it was effective.

>>

..

That seems to correspond rather well to what I've been saying and to

contradict what you're saying.  However, if it's wrong and there is

credible support for the existence and effacy of Qi then you should not

have a problem listing a few.  Unfortunately I rather suspect you would

not recognize a credible source it you saw one.

..

..

>

> Quit using the word " science " to intimidate people here and try to

> discredit their discussions with your self appointed know-it-all-ism.

..

..

I have gone to great lengths to state repeatedly that I am not a

scientist and I am not a doctor and that I do not have any formal

credentials in any field.  Thus to suggest that I think I know it all is

rather pathetic.  Not even the most brilliant and best educated

scientist knows it all; and I don't even approach that level.  I suspect

the archives will support the idea that I have a pretty firm grasp of

some of the more basic elements of science.  Further, I was a member of

the Fidonet echos on science and physics BBS's before the internet

conquered the world.  I do not have a problem discussing science with

real scientists.

Why would you be intimidated by the word " science " ?  Those who truly do

not value science would have no reason to be upset if they find science

[something in which they place no credibility] disagrees with them.

>

>

> you don't have ALL the scientific knowledge in the world, so

> stop acting like the arbiter of Science which you are not.

..

..

If you have a problem with any statement of mine pertaining to science

please QUOTE ME CORRECTLY and point it out.

..

..

>

> Roni is bringing an interesting point to this group, information that

> some might not know and might be very interested in learning about. So

> don't be rude and arrogant and impose your ideas once again.

..

..

It is not rude to post my ideas that contrast with the ideas of someone

else.  It is not rude to post WHY my ideas are as they are.  Anyone can

continue to believe however they desire.  However, it is less likely

that you will continue to believe there is scientific support for the

foolish ideas that I point out are in conflict with science if you

understand my posts.

..

..

>

> So what if you think science knows nothing about qi. Tell that to a

> pile of bricks that is being demolished by a hand. Qi is real and its

> mysteries are powerful.

..

..

I leave you to talk to a pile of bricks.  I have enough problem trying

to have an intelligent conversation with you.  I think the two

statements quoted above [... " the proposed existence of qi has been

rejected by the scientific community " ] and [ " A review^

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-24> of clinical trials

investigating the use of internal  qigong for pain management found no

convincing evidence that it was effective " ] is consistent with the views

I have posted and with the views of the scientific world.  You have

stated that is not correct and have ridiculed me for posting it, but you

have never posted a single source that disagrees.

..

..

>

> There are tons of experiments on the effects of external Qi of Qigong

> on Biomolecules.

..

..

You keep saying that, but you keep posting nothing.  I have posted what

is the consensus of science, which refutes what you say.

..

..

> Qigong masters have been studied for years now and the fact that there

> are some things that " scientits " can not fully explain does not negate

> the existence of Qi as there is simply just too much evidence. This

> only speaks of the shortcomings of science and the fact that they are

> the ones that don't understand it. Qi is there.

..

..

You keep saying that.  Yet you post nothing; not even some crap totally

lacking in credibility.  Are we supposed to ignore the consensus of

science [as I posted above] and take your unsupported word?

..

..

>

> Besides we all know of many cases where a group of scientists agree on

> something and another group disagrees. Did you know that there are

> tons of scientist studying qi? They are finding amazing information

> and discovering things never seen before. Look it up .

..

..

I did look it up.  Again.  And I posted one small example [two quotes]

above that represents the consensus of science.  Yet you have not posted

one reference to a credible study of Qi; nor named even ONE of the

" tons " of scientists who are studying qi.

..

..

>

> Ying and Yang are not typical western scientific issues, they are like

> love. Can science explain anything about love? No. Yet it is one of

> the most powerful life altering elements of life.

..

..

Love is an emotion; it has AFAIK no physical attributes which can be

detected or measured.  Ying and Yang are presented as real physical

objects in at least some discussions.  If an object is real then

scientists don't care if it is Eastern or Western; they want to detect

it and measure its attributes.  AFAIK neither Eastern nor Western

scientists have detected or measured qi or ying-yang.

..

..

>

> I quote you : " There really isn't any science in a discussion of

> qi or of yin/yang. " this is so ignorant and arrogant of your

> part, not to mention rude to Roni.

..

..

It is an accurate statement and as such should not be considered rude. 

Rudeness is attacking a person; acceptable debate is presenting a

contrasting viewpoint and providing supporting evidence for that

viewpoint.  The two statements I quoted above [... " the proposed

existence of qi has been rejected by the scientific community " ] and [ " A

review^ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-24> of clinical

trials investigating the use of internal  qigong for pain management

found no convincing evidence that it was effective " ] refer only to qi

but I suspect could be equally applied to ying-yang.  They are the

consensus of science, and are consistent with what I have posted.

..

..

>

> This is not the Group and Roni can mention science in a

> discussion of Qi and Ying and Yang or anything she might well please.

..

..

Roni can certainly post any subject she desires; and for you to suggest

I want to limit her right to do that is less than brilliant.

..

..

> Just because you are not up on the latest finding on the studies of

> the finer issues concerning energy, consciousness in our universe does

> not mean what you are saying is of any value to this group. And

> believe me what you are saying has no value to this group because it

> is a lie.

..

..

I'll " believe you " when you make a statement that makes sense or that is

supported by credible evidence.  I've posted ample evidence that much of

what you say is totally unsupported in science AND that what I have

posted IS supported in science.  You have posted nothing except a poorly

thought-out opinion and completely false " facts " to contradict what I

have posted.  That won't fly.

..

..

>

> Learn some about theses things you know nothing about and take a

> humility pill before you write about this again. Your demagoguery is

> getting thin.

..

..

Read about " science " ; " scientific method " ; " qi " ; and " ying-yang " on

Wikipedia and if you understand any of it you probably won't post such

preposterous falsehoods here.  There's no need to attack you; your

unfounded opinions make a sufficient target.

..

..

>

> Sincerely,

>

>

>

> Now feel free to attack me. Have a ball.

>

>

> >

> > Hi, Roni. Scientists understand the energy of our bodies pretty darned

> > well and qi isn't anywhere to be seen. As for yin and yang, science is

> > not only concerned with the fact that something " works " but attempts to

> > understand the principles that cause it to work. Yin/yang are

> > scientifically much less than Newton's laws of motion and IMHO

> > philosophically much more. There really isn't any science in a

> > discussion of qi or of yin/yang. There are no proposals for any method

> > to detect or measure them. OTOH the theory of electromagnetism is

> > pretty much fleshed out. That IS science.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

, I just wanted to point out something that I'm sure you're aware of

anyway. There was a time before the theory of electromagnetism, so it was not

" science " but it was still there. There was a time that diabetes was called a

syndrome until a repeatable test was developed for it, so it was not considered

an illness, but it was, even though " science " didn't recognize it as such.

 

My point is that there are things that are not yet recognized as " science " but

they are there anyway, and until such time as the scientific community

recognizes them, they are not given

any validity.

 

I see no need for this discussion to become hostile, and I don't think some

people understand that a difference of opinion is not rude unless the person

attacks personally. It's really great to have different opinions on subjects,

and I love to hear everyone's ideas and experiences. Let's keep it up and keep

it interesting.

 

Roni

From: <res075oh@...>

hypothyroidism ; JAMES <res075oh@...>

Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 3:48 PM

Subject: Re: new numbers / More ways to heal than you know.

Hello, Marie.  Your post is a bit far out but I'll try to respond

intelligently to a few points where possible.  Please see below...

..

..

>

>      Posted by: " maria p " khusha8@...

>     

<mailto:khusha8@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20new%20numbers%20%2F%20More%20ways%2\

0to%20heal%20than%20you%20know%2E>

>      khusha8 <khusha8>

>

>

>        Fri May 13, 2011 11:17 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> Hi, .

>

> NO, what you just wrote IS NOT SCIENCE. Science is not defined by you.

..

..

If you really want to know what actually is encompassed by science then

take a look here:

..

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>

..

If you see anything inconsistent with what I've been saying please QUOTE

ME CORRECTLY and then point out what it is.

Incidentally, there are two statements on that page that confirm my

posit that we cannot PROVE that the Earth is spherical.  Here is one:

..

> Note that this method can never absolutely *verify* (prove the truth

> of) /*2*/. It can only *falsify

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability>* /*2*/.^[16]

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-15> (This is

> what Einstein meant when he said, " No amount of experimentation can

> ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. "

..

Perhaps you will find Einstein's statement as humorous as you find mine;

more likely you will fail to understand it.  Here's another:

..

> A scientific theory hinges on empirical

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical> findings, and remains subject

> to falsification <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability> if new

> evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty>.

..

..

There you have a specific statement that scientifically no theory [The

Earth is spherical, not flat] is ever considered certain.  If you

understand these statements then you are not quite so LOL now.

..

..

>

> Once again you are on the pseudoscience train to bully another member

> of this group.. full speed!

..

..

No such thing.  I present " facts " that so far you have failed to show

conflict with science in any way.  That does not meet any definition of

" bullying " that I have seen.

..

>

> What you are saying simply is not true.

..

..

If you assert that anything I have written PLEASE QUOTE ME CORRECTLY and

point out specifically what statement is wrong.  You can't; you're just

going to keep blathering about " bullying " and " pseudoscience " and blah

blah blah...

..

>

> there is plenty of scientific data on Qi and you are simply not

> aware of it.

..

..

Ah, but I am aware of it.  See this page from Wikipedia [Yes, I'm aware

that Wikipedia is not the most credible source.  However, it in

innumerable cases reflects credible sources and is convenient]:

..

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#Scientific_investigation

..

Here is a relevant quote you will find there:

..

>

>> There have been a number of studies of qi, especially in the sense

>> used by traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture. These studies

>> have often been problematic, and are hard to compare to each other,

>> as they lack a common nomenclature.^

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-White-21> Some studies

>> claim to have been able to measure qi, or the effects of manipulating

>> qi, such as through acupuncture^ , but the proposed existence of qi

>> has been rejected by the scientific community.

>>

>> A  United States National Institures of Health consensus statement on

>> acupuncture in 1997 noted that concepts such as qi " are difficult to

>> reconcile with contemporary biomedical information. " ^

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-NIH-22> In 2007 the MD

>> Cancer Center at the University of Texas published an

>> article ^ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-23> covering the

>> concepts by which qi is believed to work and research into possible

>> benefits for cancer patients. A review^

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-24> of clinical trials

>> investigating the use of internal  qigong for pain management found

>> no convincing evidence that it was effective.

>>

..

That seems to correspond rather well to what I've been saying and to

contradict what you're saying.  However, if it's wrong and there is

credible support for the existence and effacy of Qi then you should not

have a problem listing a few.  Unfortunately I rather suspect you would

not recognize a credible source it you saw one.

..

..

>

> Quit using the word " science " to intimidate people here and try to

> discredit their discussions with your self appointed know-it-all-ism.

..

..

I have gone to great lengths to state repeatedly that I am not a

scientist and I am not a doctor and that I do not have any formal

credentials in any field.  Thus to suggest that I think I know it all is

rather pathetic.  Not even the most brilliant and best educated

scientist knows it all; and I don't even approach that level.  I suspect

the archives will support the idea that I have a pretty firm grasp of

some of the more basic elements of science.  Further, I was a member of

the Fidonet echos on science and physics BBS's before the internet

conquered the world.  I do not have a problem discussing science with

real scientists.

Why would you be intimidated by the word " science " ?  Those who truly do

not value science would have no reason to be upset if they find science

[something in which they place no credibility] disagrees with them.

>

>

> you don't have ALL the scientific knowledge in the world, so

> stop acting like the arbiter of Science which you are not.

..

..

If you have a problem with any statement of mine pertaining to science

please QUOTE ME CORRECTLY and point it out.

..

..

>

> Roni is bringing an interesting point to this group, information that

> some might not know and might be very interested in learning about. So

> don't be rude and arrogant and impose your ideas once again.

..

..

It is not rude to post my ideas that contrast with the ideas of someone

else.  It is not rude to post WHY my ideas are as they are.  Anyone can

continue to believe however they desire.  However, it is less likely

that you will continue to believe there is scientific support for the

foolish ideas that I point out are in conflict with science if you

understand my posts.

..

..

>

> So what if you think science knows nothing about qi. Tell that to a

> pile of bricks that is being demolished by a hand. Qi is real and its

> mysteries are powerful.

..

..

I leave you to talk to a pile of bricks.  I have enough problem trying

to have an intelligent conversation with you.  I think the two

statements quoted above [... " the proposed existence of qi has been

rejected by the scientific community " ] and [ " A review^

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-24> of clinical trials

investigating the use of internal  qigong for pain management found no

convincing evidence that it was effective " ] is consistent with the views

I have posted and with the views of the scientific world.  You have

stated that is not correct and have ridiculed me for posting it, but you

have never posted a single source that disagrees.

..

..

>

> There are tons of experiments on the effects of external Qi of Qigong

> on Biomolecules.

..

..

You keep saying that, but you keep posting nothing.  I have posted what

is the consensus of science, which refutes what you say.

..

..

> Qigong masters have been studied for years now and the fact that there

> are some things that " scientits " can not fully explain does not negate

> the existence of Qi as there is simply just too much evidence. This

> only speaks of the shortcomings of science and the fact that they are

> the ones that don't understand it. Qi is there.

..

..

You keep saying that.  Yet you post nothing; not even some crap totally

lacking in credibility.  Are we supposed to ignore the consensus of

science [as I posted above] and take your unsupported word?

..

..

>

> Besides we all know of many cases where a group of scientists agree on

> something and another group disagrees. Did you know that there are

> tons of scientist studying qi? They are finding amazing information

> and discovering things never seen before. Look it up .

..

..

I did look it up.  Again.  And I posted one small example [two quotes]

above that represents the consensus of science.  Yet you have not posted

one reference to a credible study of Qi; nor named even ONE of the

" tons " of scientists who are studying qi.

..

..

>

> Ying and Yang are not typical western scientific issues, they are like

> love. Can science explain anything about love? No. Yet it is one of

> the most powerful life altering elements of life.

..

..

Love is an emotion; it has AFAIK no physical attributes which can be

detected or measured.  Ying and Yang are presented as real physical

objects in at least some discussions.  If an object is real then

scientists don't care if it is Eastern or Western; they want to detect

it and measure its attributes.  AFAIK neither Eastern nor Western

scientists have detected or measured qi or ying-yang.

..

..

>

> I quote you : " There really isn't any science in a discussion of

> qi or of yin/yang. " this is so ignorant and arrogant of your

> part, not to mention rude to Roni.

..

..

It is an accurate statement and as such should not be considered rude. 

Rudeness is attacking a person; acceptable debate is presenting a

contrasting viewpoint and providing supporting evidence for that

viewpoint.  The two statements I quoted above [... " the proposed

existence of qi has been rejected by the scientific community " ] and [ " A

review^ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi#cite_note-24> of clinical

trials investigating the use of internal  qigong for pain management

found no convincing evidence that it was effective " ] refer only to qi

but I suspect could be equally applied to ying-yang.  They are the

consensus of science, and are consistent with what I have posted.

..

..

>

> This is not the Group and Roni can mention science in a

> discussion of Qi and Ying and Yang or anything she might well please.

..

..

Roni can certainly post any subject she desires; and for you to suggest

I want to limit her right to do that is less than brilliant.

..

..

> Just because you are not up on the latest finding on the studies of

> the finer issues concerning energy, consciousness in our universe does

> not mean what you are saying is of any value to this group. And

> believe me what you are saying has no value to this group because it

> is a lie.

..

..

I'll " believe you " when you make a statement that makes sense or that is

supported by credible evidence.  I've posted ample evidence that much of

what you say is totally unsupported in science AND that what I have

posted IS supported in science.  You have posted nothing except a poorly

thought-out opinion and completely false " facts " to contradict what I

have posted.  That won't fly.

..

..

>

> Learn some about theses things you know nothing about and take a

> humility pill before you write about this again. Your demagoguery is

> getting thin.

..

..

Read about " science " ; " scientific method " ; " qi " ; and " ying-yang " on

Wikipedia and if you understand any of it you probably won't post such

preposterous falsehoods here.  There's no need to attack you; your

unfounded opinions make a sufficient target.

..

..

>

> Sincerely,

>

>

>

> Now feel free to attack me. Have a ball.

>

>

> >

> > Hi, Roni. Scientists understand the energy of our bodies pretty darned

> > well and qi isn't anywhere to be seen. As for yin and yang, science is

> > not only concerned with the fact that something " works " but attempts to

> > understand the principles that cause it to work. Yin/yang are

> > scientifically much less than Newton's laws of motion and IMHO

> > philosophically much more. There really isn't any science in a

> > discussion of qi or of yin/yang. There are no proposals for any method

> > to detect or measure them. OTOH the theory of electromagnetism is

> > pretty much fleshed out. That IS science.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hi, Roni. It's quite true: Nature and natural laws came first; not

science. Science is simply an attempt to understand natural laws; and

there are things we don't understand yet. And probably some we never

will IMHO. And anecdotal evidence may be more valid/correct than the

perceived science in some cases but the chances become increasingly

rare. The important thing to be aware of about anecdotal evidence is

that it is not of sufficient confirmed validity to be relied upon in

scientific research. That does not mean it is wrong or lacking in value.

Science deals only with things that can be detected and measured [at

least to some extent]. We have no standards with which to measure love

AFAIK; nor can we address many spiritual beliefs. God [if such exists]

appears to be totally beyond the reach of scientific inquiry.

Sorry if I became a bit testy after being called a liar by someone who

is lying about what I posted here.

Regards,

..

..

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20new%20numbers%20%2F%20More%20wa\

ys%20to%20heal%20than%20you%20know%2E>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Sat May 14, 2011 6:40 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> , I just wanted to point out something that I'm sure you're aware

> of anyway. There was a time before the theory of electromagnetism, so

> it was not " science " but it was still there. There was a time that

> diabetes was called a syndrome until a repeatable test was developed

> for it, so it was not considered an illness, but it was, even though

> " science " didn't recognize it as such.

>

> My point is that there are things that are not yet recognized as

> " science " but they are there anyway, and until such time as the

> scientific community recognizes them, they are not given

> any validity.

>

> I see no need for this discussion to become hostile, and I don't think

> some people understand that a difference of opinion is not rude unless

> the person attacks personally. It's really great to have different

> opinions on subjects, and I love to hear everyone's ideas and

> experiences. Let's keep it up and keep it interesting.

>

> Roni

[Guest guest]

Hi, Roni. Please see below...

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20new%20numbers%20%2F%20More%20wa\

ys%20to%20heal%20than%20you%20know%2E>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Sat May 14, 2011 6:22 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> First, let me say that and I have debated different things

> for a long time. We don't attack one another, just the subject, which

> is the basis of debate.

..

..

And that's the way it should be. We disagree, but along the way I've

developed a great deal of appreciation for you. You have no trouble

being offended if I post a view different from yours and also post why

my view is different. Some of your posits have no support in science.

That doesn't prove they're wrong.

..

..

>

> I believe in open mindedness, and don't believe totally in anything I

> am told by any establishment whether eastern or western or anywhere in

> betweeen. The reason is that although I am interested in everything,

> people are the ones professing this or that, no matter where it's

> from. It's actually the so called authorities on these things that I

> don't trust. Statistics don't lie but people make statistics and

> people lie, and therefore, to me, are subject to question.

..

..

And that is why science has developed credible research and the peer

review system. Full disclosure IMHO requires that sufficient

information be given that a properly equipped scientist in the field can

replicate the findings.

..

..

>

> There are things my doctors have given me that are supposed to work,

> and clearly with me they either didn't work or I reacted to them at

> even severely reduced dosages. It has taken me a long time to convince

> my doctors that my body reacts weirdly to different things,

> medications and even so called natural things like supplements. Now

> they work with me because they have seen for themselves what happens

> to me. We each have to find our own particular path to health and it

> really doesn't matter which path we use, so long as it helps us and

> doesn't hurt us.

..

..

I've had the same experience but on a much lessor level. I've had my

doctor tell me, " That CAN'T be! " But it was, and I think I MOL

convinced him.

..

..

>

> One cannot state with certainty that this or that is the final answer.

..

..

That is a profound statement. And that is why I post that we do not

have " scientific proof " [for the theory] that the Earth is spherical

rather than flat. Science realizes its limits; and that it cannot

absolutely prove any theory. That doesn't mean we don't know within any

reasonable limit of certainty that the Earth is spherical; the evidence

is overwhelming. But the recognized limit of science [and logic/math]

is such that we cannot provide absolute proof.

Actually I don't see why that fact would not be comforting to those who

do not have the greatest respect for science. It points out that

science is not absolute; it has recognized limits. That it recognizes

its limits adds to its value and validity IMHO.

..

..

> The world and the universe and understanding is constantly changing,

> and being open to that change is the (in my opinion) best way for our

> species to survive. We have been compared to weeds by some scientist

> whose name I can't remember. His point was that humans are adaptable,

> and as such insure their survival.

..

..

I'm not at all absolutely confident in our ability to survive. It may

be that our ability to destroy ourselves evolves faster than our

intelligence and knowledge needed to figure out how to not destroy

ourselves. When we approach the time when extremists of any persuasion

may obtain the means of mass destruction and when they had rather

destroy the entire Earth rather than have their dogma be less than top

dog it doesn't look so good. Besides, if intelligent beings were widely

able to survive an industrial and scientific age such as we have now the

Universe should be swarming with civilizations possibly billions of

years older than ours. Yet we fail to find any evidence that this is so...

..

..

>

> So, whether someone is on one side of this issue or the other, I would

> suggest that being open to the other side is in your best interests. I

> know it is to mine.

..

..

That's easy to say, but when you're having a discussion with someone who

makes scientific posits but who has little if any grasp of science and

who makes statements of " facts " easily refutable then it becomes

difficult. I personally am interested it strange and different ideas

until I find that they contradict well established principles of science

and physics. When that point is reached [as it often soon is with so

many quack products and processes] my interest wanes unless for some

reason I'm willing to reexamine the principles of physics.

Regards,

..

..

>

> Roni

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>; JAMES <res075oh@...

> <mailto:res075oh%40gte.net>>

> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 3:48 PM

> Subject: Re: new numbers / More ways to heal than you

> know.

>

> Hello, Marie. Your post is a bit far out but I'll try to respond

> intelligently to a few points where possible. Please see below...

> .

> .