
From Amazon.com:
Scientific Qigong Exploration is the first book written in laymans’s terms by Professor Lu Zuyin to introduce modern scientific research on the external qi of qigong to the general public. An accomplished nuclear physicist, Prof. Lu spent ten years conducting scientific qigong experiments since the early 1980’s until he passed away in 1992. This book recounts Prof. Lu’s fascinating personal experience of collaborating with the renowned qigong master Dr. Yan Xin and the ground breaking results never obtained before. There results verify the physical existence of external qi and demonstrate that the human body can affect substances such as water, DNA, and atomic nuclei without physical contact.
This book recounts Professor Lu’s Qigong experiments over a 10 year period in China. While interesting, the experiments themselves all suffer from the same problems. I’ll return to that point in a minute. However, let’s use one experiment as a discussion point.
In this experiment Lu tests whether external qi could affect the refraction of a liquid crystal. The methodology is sound and if true, the results are interesting:
Three qigong practitioners were asked to emit qi at the liquid crystal… The first one emitted qi for ten minutes and there were no changes to the light spots… Five minutes after Guo, the third one, began to emit qi… the light spot at the lower part of the screen was gradually gaining intensity and became much brighter. The six people present saw the amazing change. p.30-31
This is one of many purported examples that are alleged to verify the existence of qi. However, there is a problem with the science.
We all know that, in scientific research, reproducibility is a necessary condition to confirm a new phenomenon or to verify a new law. Therefore repeated experimental observations are required. p. 79
The author attempts to account for this problem by suggesting the following:
- Qigong masters cannot repeat an experiment numerous times due to limited mental energy
- There are few Qigong masters so the sample size is small
- Qi emission is related to a given master’s physical, psychological, and emotional state so the results may not be identical each time
Ironically, the book states at the very beginning that the scientific method and spiritual method are two contradictory ways of understanding the world. Therefore, the scientific method is flawed due to the fact that it separates the observed from the observer, while the spiritual method seeks to join them. This is interesting and contradictory when one considers that the author spends the next 300 pages attempting to use the scientific method to verify that qi exists.
…These results verify the physical existence of external qi and demonstrate that the human body can affect substances such as water, DNA, and atomic nuclei without physical contact.
Let’s go back to the above-mentioned liquid crystal experiment. It is a good experiment and from a scientific perspective it is certainly one that could, in theory, be replicated.
1. Cannot be replicated due to limited mental energy of a given master
Apparently the good doctor does not understand replication. You do not have to repeat the same experiment hundreds of times in one setting. If the mental energy is limited simply conduct a longitudinal study over several years. Take the same Qigong master under the same conditions and conduct the same experiment repeatedly, over several years.
2. Small sample size so the reliability of the results are in question
Levels of significance in research range from less than 1% in medical research to 5% in the social sciences. What this means is that if the same experiment were repeated 100 times we’d expect 5% of the results to be due to random chance. A small sample size increases this rate beyond 5% while a large sample decreases it. For example, you would not want to test a new drug on only one person so researchers typically will test it on numerous people.
Zuyin and Lu are half correct when they state the sample size of true Qigong masters is small. Still, the liquid crystal test is certainly plausible and testable from a scientific perspective. Moreover one could easily get a large sample of non-Qigong experts to try and use their qi to influence the liquid crystal. If a significant percent of these non-experts could, then qi might be in question. If they could not but the master could then that would also suggest something.
3. Qi emission is somehow related to a given Qigong master’s physical, psychological, and emotional state
Were this a true problem in science then there are quite literally hundreds (if not thousands!) of psychological tests that could not be conducted with anything approaching scientific reliability, predictability, and replicability. If the editor or late author do not understand that very simple fact then it certainly casts doubt on their fundamental understanding of the scientific method.
In the appendix the editor lists eight scientific studies that were published in Chinese science journals. Despite the fact that these were published there are concerns. Most notably the bulk of them were published in The Nature Journal. This is not to be confused with Nature. The latter is of high regard in the international scientific community while the former appears to be unknown. In fact, I cannot find it. This does not necessarily mean it does not exist, nor does it mean that it’s not reputable. What it does mean is that it could be little-known in the United States, may have ceased publication as many journals often do, or, it could also be low quality journal.
As someone who teaches, helps with, and on occasion conducts research, I’ve learned this much: just because a study is published does not make it true. An awful lot of junk gets published and it often is latter refuted by repeated tests. This is the scientific method and it works pretty darn good. Don’t believe me? Then the next time you are sick or injured do not go to your doctor. All of the techniques and medicines that your doctor uses were developed through this same flawed scientific method. Instead, see if qi can heal something that an antibiotic would normally treat.
I don’t know about you but the next time I’m ill I plan to stick with medical science. Until more research is done on qi my money is on the mostly positive record of medical science.
In another example, a few bacteria cause about 90% of pneumonias in previously healthy people. If you are diagnosed with pneumonia, the doctor will choose an antibiotic that will kill these bacteria.
Lastly, I’ll leave you with this thought: If any number of the amazing experiments in this book were ever verified by replication, someone could easily win the Nobel Prize. Moreover, like the above liquid crystal experiment, many could be conducted by a high school science class. That in and of itself should also say something.
~BCP



10 responses so far ↓
Dojo Rat // July 2, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Good review; this is why this subject is so complex. I believe there are cross-overs between science and the occult. In some cases, what was occult practice can be explained (or compared)by modern physics. My example in Capra’s “The Tao of Physics” about Sufi dancing replicating atomic structure for example (my post this week).
Bottom line, belief in Chi may simply be self-hypnosis, which can be very valuable in correcting bad behaviour or creating good health practice.
Jay Gischer // July 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM
What I’ve seen and experienced from tai chi masters is something quite real, but I would not expect it to change nuclear decay rates or liquid crystal refraction.
No, what they do is something I like to think of as neuro-hacking. I think it caputures what they do better. Masters will exploit the nature of the human nervous system, and the habits that a subject has to create an effect that can be astonishing.
For example, I had a master push with me and he made me feel like I couldn’t reach him simply by not allowing me to put as much pressure on his arm as I was used to. This made me lean and reach and unbalance myself. Knowing what he was doing didn’t really help all that much (although practice would).
Also, I would really like to know whether anyone has systematically studied what kind of changes chigong masters can manage on their own bodies. I’d expect there would be some pretty powerful changes, in things such as circulation, blood pressure, and electrical fields. Possibly longer term effects, too.
Bob Patterson // July 2, 2009 at 11:42 AM
DJR and Jay –
I agree that more testing needs to be done. Western medical science has not put a lot of effort into it. Still, books like this are questionable and only hurt the cause IMO.
I know they’ve tested monks who are able to affect their own bodies. There are all sorts of legit tests one could do on a purported qigong master.
Maybe it’s not about chi and more about what the general practice of qigong can do for the body? I know qigong is being accepted in cancer treatment here in the USA.
Chris | Martial Development // July 2, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Don’t be silly. Lu’s point is that such experiments cannot set a control sample in the manner that would normally be expected, because a qi-emitting human being is not a scalar value. The results of such experiments will always be “incomplete” or “ambiguous” if the premises underlying their design are flawed; these objections are an exercise in intellectual masturbation (to be honest) or circular logic (if we are feeling charitable).
Appeal to consequences fallacy, with ad hominem bonus points? In fact, many within the hard sciences consider “social science” to be a misnomer.
If you want to find references to Ziran Zazhi, you need to search in Chinese, not English. Not that it matters. Consensus is the poor man’s truth.
Bob Patterson // July 3, 2009 at 4:11 AM
Chris –
Thanks for the info. on the journal. As I noted, it could mean a lot of things. One question that will be hard to answer is have any of these studies been replicated? If so, where were they published? Repeatedly published in one journal does not a theory or law, make.
I do have a penchant for being silly. I can’t help it. And as always, I could very well be wrong.
Speaking of fallacies, the editor and/or late author are guilty of more than few:
*Proof by verbosity
*Misplaced Concretion
*Hasty generalizations
Especially hasty generalizations!
These results do not verify anything. They suggest, some are interesting, and they certainly need to be replicated!
As for your comment on the social sciences, well, you’re getting awful close to making an appeal to authority there (or perhaps an appeal to bias). Moreover, philosophy of science does not always support the possibility of drawing a distinctions between the so-called “hard” and “soft” sciences. It’s not that simple and often comes down to opinion or biases in the hard sciences.
All this having been noted I am trying to be charitable. There are more than a few experiments in the book that are sound and need to be replicated. Suggesting, as the editor does, that they cannot be replicated because we have a small number of Qigong masters is ludicrous. There are plenty of experiments one can do with only one Qigong master.
Chris | Martial Development // July 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Some of those experiments were in fact replicated, under even tighter controls, and this was discussed right in the book!
They were not however replicated because they need to be replicated. This knowledge does not need to be shared. The few people who can exhibit these skills owe the rest of us nothing.
Do you really think you are being “charitable” to the scientists who performed these tests on their own dime, and at great risk to their own credibility, after their parent institutions declined involvement (for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with science, BTW)?
I’ll have to write more on that subject later.
Consider that, if you were to replace “qi” with “evolution” in your common-sense arguments above, most creationist scholars would happily sign their name at the bottom. That fact alone should bother you, a lot!!!
Proof by antibiotics and peanut butter? Yeah, it’s just common sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
Bob Patterson // July 4, 2009 at 7:29 AM
Hi Chris -
One has to wonder why their parent institutions want to not be involved. Global conspiracy against “chi” or perhaps something else?
There’s a difference between chi and evolution: the later is widely accepted in the international scientific community. The former needs more study.
As for replication: Different scientists, multiple experiments, multiple journals, etc. A good part of that book is annecdotal.
Anyhow, I doubt we’ll ever agree so I’ll disengage and let you have the last word, if you so choose.
Chris | Martial Development // July 5, 2009 at 2:56 PM
One does not have to wonder about the reasons that they would not want to be involved…as those reasons were explained (again) right in the book…and in any decent history of the Cultural Revolution…and in dozens of other places.
Glenn Allen // July 9, 2009 at 11:42 PM
I understand your cynicism as the concept of qi/chi sounds weird to us Westerners. I saw 12 doctors and they could not cure me or identify what was wrong with me (and I thought dr’s were God), but traditional Chinese medical dr’s (OMDs) ID’d the problem instantly. There is “something” to this stuff…. For qigong, if you do the exercises incorrectly, you won’t be able to sleep for several hours, no matter when you do them; the same goes for the Falan Dafa/Falun Gong exercises. For “FG,” the exercises are “advanced” qigong exercises that build energy differently. If you don’t do them right, it’ll feel like you’re injecting electricity — said to be how qi feels –right into your stomach. These exercises are odd to us Americans as we expect results quickly with a pill, but the old Chinese/Indian medicines take longer…w/no side effects.
Bob Patterson // July 10, 2009 at 6:48 AM
One person’s cynicism is another person’s reasoned caution. I do agree that more study needs to be done concerning Chinese medical practices.
BCP