by Richard Burke-Ward

Richard Burke-Ward posted this to alt.meditation.qigong in June 2003, during a prolonged group debate between Tom (a scientifically-minded skeptic) and "Two Bears" (an experiential practitioner). Burke-Ward positions himself as neither: he accepts both that science is right about what it can measure, and that qigong is right about what cannot be measured. The tension between those two truths, he argues, will not be dissolved by better data. It runs deeper than that.

It seems to me that there is a very real and challenging issue behind the discussion you have been having. There is a massive gulf of understanding between the science community and those who believe in — or have experienced — qi, prana, you name it.

Tom is right to point out that science has very rigid definitions of proof, and that there is no "evidence" (in their rigid terms) for the existence of qi, or of its effects. There is evidence that qigong improves health, immunity, and so forth — but not that qi flow is the cause. Many forms of exercise can improve health or damage it: a scientist would say that there is no proof that qigong is any different.

Two Bears is right, too, because the point about qigong is that, on the level of personal experience, it works. And we have all experienced, or heard about, the times when there has been a match between western medicine (the endocrine system, for example) and qigong (the throat chakra). Acupuncture is a good example of an area where east and west agree on the effect but not the mechanism — and so are some herbal remedies (asthma, eczema, for example). But from a scientific perspective, the effect is not the issue. The mechanism is the issue. Do you have to invoke qi as an explanation of elevated hormone levels? And in response, scientists chorus: "Hell, no."

The trouble is that personal experience does not constitute scientific evidence. It is evidence of a different kind — evidence of the senses, not of instruments. Scientists define such evidence as "anecdotal." An analogy is UFO experiences: there is a great deal of personal experience, but no repeatable, verifiable evidence in the scientific sense.

What is interesting is whether it is even theoretically possible to prove the existence of qi in a way that a scientist would be able to accept. Qi effects are frequently subjective (therefore not testable), and rarely repeatable with any degree of reliability (which means that, even if something externally verifiable happens, it may fall within the boundaries of what scientists call "noise": it is not statistically significant).

And what is even more interesting is that one reason there is no "proof" of the existence of qi is that scientists are incredibly reluctant to examine the issue at all. Science has its own community, just like any other walk of life — and what your peers think of you matters. There is no scientific "need" for qi: existing explanations of the universe do not call for something like it as a missing ingredient, and the evidence that would be best explained by postulating that qi exists is, at best, ephemeral and anecdotal. I suspect that there is enough evidence to warrant further exploration — which might conclude that qi exists, or something like it — but scientists will not design or carry out the experiments because they will then appear foolish in the eyes of their peers. If the whole of your community denies something exists, and you go off and insist on exploring it, you get ostracised. Ostracised scientists do not get funded — so the research never gets done. There is a massive momentum against exploring qi, as there is against UFOs, telepathy, and life after death. Essentially, you cannot look into these things and remain a scientist — because who will pay you, who will review your work, or even read it? What other scientists will still call you a scientist? Whom will you convince?

Likewise, the qigong and yoga communities maintain their own consensus, their own way of thinking and speaking. And that language is very unfriendly to science. Qigong is about your place within the physical and spiritual world, about what goes on inside you. And it is couched in terms of personal experience, and ancient descriptive systems that were the science of their time and culture, but which are largely incompatible with the descriptive systems used by modern biology. Even if science managed to prove that qi existed, they would hardly be likely to change modern medicine to include the terms "conception vessel," "stagnant qi," and the rest. And frequently, when scientists try to nail down exactly what it is they would supposedly be exploring, the language and descriptions get more and more bogged down in systems of belief that are mutually incompatible.

I think it is fair to say that there is right on both sides, and fault on both sides. There is a refusal of minds to meet. Science is the mainstream community — in the west, at least — and qigong is "fringe." Science creates factories and industries and weapons and health services. It is endorsed by governments, funded, and institutionalised. I doubt that science therefore feels any great pressure to listen to a community it perceives as difficult, intractable, and elusive.

I believe that, if science is ever to get to grips with qigong, the effort will have to come from the qigong community, not from science. There is no point sitting on the sidelines and feeling misunderstood.

Be prepared, though. Because if science does look into qi, it will rapidly stop being qi. The mystical trappings — or truths, depending on who you are — will go: the belief systems and spiritual experiences that parallel the physical. Quite possibly the word "qi" itself will go. Science will never say, "Sorry, we were wrong." Instead, they will relabel everything, and break it up into chunks that fit in with the rest of scientific theory — biomechanics, bioelectrics, biomagnetism, sympathetic/parasympathetic cross-talk. And the spiritual component which brought many people to qigong in the first place will have vanished.

The moral: be careful what you wish for!

Health and happiness to you all.

Colophon

Written by Richard Burke-Ward ([email protected]) and posted to alt.meditation.qigong on 26 June 2003. Burke-Ward was based in the United Kingdom and was a long-time practitioner of qigong and related arts. This post arose from an ongoing group thread on the throat chakra and qi that had drawn both scientific skeptics and experiential practitioners into sustained dialogue.

Preserved from the Internet Archive Giganews Usenet Collection (alt.meditation.qigong.20141205.mbox.gz) for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. Original Message-ID: <removespamrichard.bw-723B70.10051626062003@newstrial.btopenworld.com>.

🌲