Re: Calling all wlaking Chiropracters, Osteopaths, Physiotherapists and Doctors

On Oct 30, 12:32 pm, Simon Challands <simon_use...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In message <1193760605.205627.234...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
me <oconn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And what tends to hack me off is that the words DO have meaning,
but these meanings are ignored in this type of gobbledygook.

I've sat through these discussions amongst practitioners. I ask
what form of energy is this? How many joules? Why should I
think of energy as a "force"? Force and energy aren't the same thing.
What kind of "balance" is this? An energy balance? What magnitude
of balance is necessary? What level of precision is necessary?
Can Qi be transplanted? Do I lose it when I bleed? Does Qi have
mass?

To be fair, whilst I agree with you general take on this subject,
there's nothing particularly wrong with using words like "force" and
"energy", as long as you define their meanings in a meaningful way
(which acupuncturists don't appear to).

I agree. If you define your terms, fine. However, as you suggest
they don't. They use them because the words project a general
impression and give a scientific "sounding" description". The
reality is that your average sci-fi TV series does a better job
of abusing these words than these very real people.

Just because physics has
appropriated them for very specific uses doesn't make physicists the
only ones who can define them, so whilst it's incorrect in the context
of physics to use force and energy as synonyms, in the wider world it
isn't necessarily wrong.

Yes and no. I'll agree that scientists and physicists don't
have any "trademark" on these words. You can wander through
various disciplines and find folks use the same, or similar
words to describe slightly different concepts. The "balance"
one is a classic because something can be "balanced" in
so many ways. We often have to modify the word with an
adjective (adverb?) to be accurate.

But we wander into some sort of Orwellian universe when we
start to use these words to mean something other than what
they will be understood to mean. Or worse, to argue against
the very meanings themselves. Where I live I must suffer the
constant declaration that "it's just a theory" as if the word
"just" and "theory" could ever go together. I understand that
there is the common usage of "theory" to mean hypothesis
or conjecture. Then there is the technical which means something
more akin to "law" or "fact". But an expression like "just a theory"
is to twist one definition against the other and imply that the
two are the same.

As the expression goes, "it just ain't right". Which of course
doesn't mean they don't have a "right" to say it.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
    ... I'll side with the physicists on this one. ... There is no physical laws of "conservation of ...". ... There are, however, artificially designed parameters such as "energy", ... But it's convenient to balance the books by calculating the total ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
    ... I'll side with the physicists on this one. ... There is no physical laws of "conservation of ...". ... There are, however, artificially designed parameters such as "energy", ... But it's convenient to balance the books by calculating the total ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
    ... I'll side with the physicists on this one. ... There is no physical laws of "conservation of ...". ... But it's convenient to balance the books by calculating the total ... energy in a system and assuming it's constant. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
    ... I'll side with the physicists on this one. ... There is no physical laws of "conservation of ...". ... But it's convenient to balance the books by calculating the total ... energy in a system and assuming it's constant. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Win Hill: Inverse Marx Generator ??
    ... I'll side with the physicists on this one. ... There is no physical laws of "conservation of ...". ... But it's convenient to balance the books by calculating the total ... energy in a system and assuming it's constant. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)