A suggestion on the empty force test.

[Rick Wilson]

Bill:

The discussion of this is, somewhat, still going on on Evan's forum, although I think everyone is tired of people expressing opinions.

So I have a suggestion:

1) Post a couple of video clips that had been presented as evidence of empty force, so that people know what ability was claimed.

2) For the next few weeks post video clips of two or three test participants.

3) The next week, when new clips are posted, also post what effect had been drawn for the previous week's test participants.

This way people can decide themselves if the desired effect was actually achieved.

This will not end the debate on empty force, this is only one test, Rich had conducted seminars all day etc..., BUT it should end debate over whether or not THIS test demonstrated the effect.

I don't know if this is possible (or if I have a viewer that will run the videos) but it might help the readers decide for themselves. Then again, it might just create more opinions .

Rick

[Ian]

My read is no new opinions are ever going to be generated. The group that insists on some kind of evidence can continue looking for it, and for them lack of evidence is going to confirm their doubts that someone can be KO'd by sound or no-touch chi, which can cause lethal heart attack, but they'll be forced to admit "absence of proof is not proof of absence," and they'll all just remain skeptical, closed-minded fools.

Meanwhile since chi is so flexible a concept, it will wriggle out of any experimental design intact. Any allowance can be made for absence of proof, and chi/meridian/no touch KO discussion will go on unabated with all underlying theory just assumed correct, because of the awesome experimental results thusfar in noncontrolled settings, and they'll all just remain gullible and deluded.

At this point it'd make good sense to define goals before proceeding. I just suspect that although a more complete posting of results never hurt anyone, its as likely to move people as chi through walls. The two camps just derive their beliefs from vastly different sources: external, objective data, and internal, experiential faith. Neither is right or wrong, but the conversations have been conducted in different languages.

[This message has been edited by Ian (edited November 04, 2000).]

[kusanku]

Well, y'know,about all this:

What if they did another test or series of tests to prove this claim, not to disprove it?Double blind, everybdy fresh, and try it again with maybe several practitioners of this empty force, and see if they can get, over a period of maybe a week or two, any measurable result at all?

If the claim is to be able to do this, and it gets done, that ought to prove it, nce for all.

If what was done in demos is using another unknown mechanism dependent on people's ability to see the intent, that is another thing.

Ithink, science is science, and if science is what is being done, it should show something one way or another.

I know the no touch stuff seems towork, but so far it apparently doesn't work in double blind experiments through walls and doors.

Or hasn't been shown to. I got no axe to grind on either side of the debate, but a completely satisfactory tesing method to both sides, and completely impartial testers,using scientific methods, over a period of several days using several practitioners of the stuff, should show something.

Otherwise it begins to sound like, 'If you are an unbeliever, your unbelief messes up the test results.

Well, doggone! What if the guy coming at you on the street with the Bowie knife is an unbeliever and when you wave your had at him, he doesn't go down, and here you could have been sidestepping, parrying and controlling the weapon.

I think its a subject needing further verification or non-verification.

I think whatever really is going on, needs to be positively identified.If it can be.And I think the limits of these abilities real or not, should be tested.

As far as close minded or open minded, pressure points and so on, can and often do, work.Places on the body hurt more than others.

As for the existence of ch'i, I have fro myself definded ch'i in a way Ithink is very true and workable.

'Ch'i: Mysterious essence the ancients believed to be contained in air, which gave every living thing live and vitality, and could be increased and controlled by means of consciousl breathing excercises or ch'i gong, discipline of ch'i.'

'Oxygen: That element present in the air we breathe withut which, we would all die. The more of it we get from the air into the bllod and the heart, the better it is in limits, and the oxygenation of bllod can be increased by means of consciously directed excercises we call, breathing excercises.'

Can ch'i, if ch'i equals oxygen be projected beyond the body? Yes, when we exhale.

By this definition, ch'i is not what is being used in no touch or empty force.

What is for sure, I do not know, and maybe no one else does either.

Why is everyone so afraid to find out?

Why is everyone so touchy about this?

Is anyone's living dependent on it? Ch'i Gong =deep breathing exercises =good for you and yoyur health, maybe good for training resistance to strikes, and definitely good for increasing power(i.e. sanchin).

But we alldo karate, or kunfg fu, and maybe kyusho jutsu, ok, that works, there are places tha hurt more than others.

And if we do empty force and it works on many, fine, but let's not fixate on ewwhy before we actually know.

Did someone as Van suggests react to that test that wasn't included in the results? can there be another, better test next time, that everyone reallly really agrees on?

I'd like to know, others I am sure would too.

Kusanku

[RA Miller]

From Kusanku:

"What if they did another test or series of tests to prove this claim, not to disprove it?"

I feel taller. I must be standing on a soapbox.

The scientific method, by its very nature, is set up to disprove things, not to prove them. We all have good imaginations and can come up with wonderful explanations for anything. Blue sky? That's a great big blue blanket, but the night time black blanket has little holes in it...

The Scientific Method is a series of five steps for testing each explanation. It is nothing but a BS detector- but it is so efficient that it hasn't been improved on for 3000 years. Sorry, John, but the nature of the beast doesn't allow you to prove one theory- it only allows you to disprove all the wrong ones.

Hmmm. Still tall. Must still be on the soap box.

Experimental design is a study of its own. Everything measurable is a product of many variables. The goal of a good design is to screen out all of the variables except the one you are testing.

The goal here was to screen out everything but "empty force".

Maybe people fall due to suggestion- so the testee had no communication, verbal or non-verbal, with the subjects.

Maybe they fall because everyone expects them to- so the subjects were not told what was expected.

Maybe the judges will be biased (one way or the other)- so the judges were not told what response in any of the subjects would help or hinder the claims.

The test masterfully screened for the most common sources of bias

Rory

[gmattson]

Ian:
Regardless of how you feel about the subject of "empty force", I recommend that you refrain from terms such as "skeptical, closed-minded fools" and "gullible and deluded".

I know that if you attempted to make a valid point in responding to something I said, and used those words in your argument, I would focus more on your insensitivity than on your argument.

I too am interested in exploring the subjects raised in Evan's forum, but will do so by calmly and unemotionally discussing the issues rather than trying to discredit the people who believe in these concepts with snide and insensitive comments.

As I read your letters, I find myself agreeing with the arguments and wanting to get involved with the topic, only to be pulled away from the focus of your posts by the biting and below the belt personal attacks.

Further, as you have witnessed, your personal attacks give Evan, Rich and others who are working on Kyusho, the opportunity to legitimately cut you (and the rest of us who genuinely wish to understand what works and what doesn't.) off from further discussion.

Evan has been more than fair in his willingness to open his forum to both non-believers and people like me, who believe in pressure points but are skeptical (but open-minded) regarding multiple or no-touch knockouts.

The double blind study performed at camp was the first such test ever performed. If I communicated with Rich in the way you post on these forums, Rich would have justifiably told me to "take a hike"!

If we hope to isolate what works and doesn't work in Kyusho, we must work together to devise acceptable tests that will separate reality from wishful thinking. Skeptics and advocates must work together.

One final point... The Kyusho community, for the most part, are quite happy with their methods of testing and discovering of existing and new techniques. We are the "outsiders" who are attempting to understand, explain and clarify what can't be comprehended using Western scientific methods. I'd like to keep the minds and doors open, since the alternative is pushing the Kyusho community into closing communication to any unbelievers. This, I believe, would be a grave mistake.

Bottom line Ian. . . Please be more sensitive with your posts and please edit out the objectionable statements in your last post.

Thanks,
George

[Tim Ahearn]

Ian wasn't actually calling anyone a "skeptical, closed-minded fool" or "gullible and deluded." He was making a point about the nature of these discussions and how each side tends to characterize the other; he was making a point about how these discussions often tend to deginerate into petty name calling--by using some of the very same petty names people call each other. The post is not offensive; it does not attack Evan or Rich or any one else on the no touch KO side. Nor does it attack any of the western science, "skeptical" people on these forums.


[This message has been edited by Tim Ahearn (edited November 05, 2000).]

[Ian]

Sensei Mattson, I apologize. My intent and the meaning carried are quite different, as often occurs on a medium where intonation and intent are lost in text. I was just attempting to show that the two camps look at each other across a very wide ravine and have deeply set views on the subject that no one is going to be able to change because the kind of evidence that speaks to one side is irrelevant to the other. The skeptics don't care if people have experienced chi because it can be written off as "suggestion" and the believers don't care if experiments show anything because they've experienced chi, and that's where I think the discussion will end.

I did not mean that *I* think that believers are deluded or that skeptics are closed minded fools, I was just trying to show how opposite the views are. In my poor choice of phrasing, I was probably also reacting to having my posts called "babble" and "nonsense," and deleted, and indicating that this is what I felt the discussion had come to--opinions locked in place and nothing more than naming or labeling to be done.

If I meant this literally, I'd of course be a closed minded fool myself, and I certainly hope that is not the case, or that if it is, it is only partially true.

On a completely unrelated physiology note, for healthy people, any kind of exercise is going to increase their oxygen saturations. Both breathing exercises and work of any kidn can be expected to do this by increasing ventilation of the whole lung inctead of shallow breathing leaving some areas partially oxygenated.

[gmattson]

Ian:

It is tough to take the "high ground" when harsh words are spoken. Having read the thread in question, I would have to say both sides could have handled things in a different manner. . . In a way that a cordial discussion might have continued.

If you wanted to get even, you accomplished your purpose. If you want to reach people on the Kyusho fence, you only succeeded in giving them an excuse to shut you out.

Your assertion that reasonable dialog falls on deaf ears is absolutely wrong. Since the Camp test, many people who had no reason to disbelieve what they were seeing, took a more rational and realistic view of "empty" force. . . A small but important step in understanding our ancient martial arts.

You and the other scientist on these forums are capable of performing a valuable service to the martial art's community by acting (In Dr "X"'s words) as resident skeptics. However, if you wish to communicate with us, you will have to practice a bit more VSD and less "Hey dummy, any stupid jerk knows you can't do that" dialog.

Looking forward to lots more calm and rational discussions on the many martial art's hot topics being presented here.

George

[Ian]

Once again my words failed to capture the meaning I intended to convey with them, so to clarify:

I was *not* "reacting" in the sense that I was attempting to get even with anyone. Rather it was that the ending of the string (where an experiment suggestion was viewed as hostile) *subconsciously* affected my choice of words in a negative way.

As far as the argument reaching a dead end, I didn't mean to speak to the larger world (I'm without access to these conversations), just to the threads between the kyusho devotees and the skeptics. These threads do show that some opinions are fairly well set. No one's wrong for this, but there it is, is all I meant to say.

[kusanku]

Oh, well. Thanks Rory for the correction, also thanks to George and Ian for the attempts to create more understanding.

Now if I may borrow that soapbox Rory, hey, this does make me feel taller, a LOT taller _

Well, I don't know on the empty force deal, what really is going on, but apparently it appears not to have gone on, that one time, with that one feller, that one test.

I would like it to have happened.That would have been something.

Far as kyusho, I'm a believer, not blindly, but I happen to have been shown the Elepahnt there, by two of my teachers and one Tai Chi guy(wouldn't call himself a master), and well, they put it on the line, and they delivered.

They could walk the walk, all right.

But none of them did it without touch, as far as I know, though the TaiChiguy almost LOOKED like he did.That though, he said, was all timing.He led the other attacker by his own motion, then got out of the way, and the attacker, a Marine Third Dan TaeKwondo guy, hit the wall twice and knocked himself silly.He wasn't faking, he was MAD!

The second time for sure, he wasn't supposed to attack, but the taiwanese Colonel, just moved out of the way(looked like Ch'en style) and BAM! all over again!

Now the third dan, he was not that great, I could take him two times out of three and was a Brown Belt in Kenpo. But he wasn't so clumsy as to run himself into the wall , either, and If I had been told it was ch'i I would have believed it;Colonel said, 'It was timing.'

So on the no touch and empty force, I don't know the mech, I disqualify myself on it.

On the kyusho, there's the Chinese theory and the Western and I know the Chinese best, but I have checked the Western one out with martial artists who are surgeons,and one who is an eye researcher and a kyusho expert, and they have explanations for most of them. Maybe they are both right, I don't care, what works is what works.

What I do of course know about kyusho is it don't work on everyone, and not on everyone the same way. And no one claims it does.

Its a part of karate.

It would be great if someone could prove or totally disprove empty force.In China the teachers say, the masters of this only do it on their own students. But that's China.

Tai Chi guy was impressive, though. I didn't get up there with him that day, having had him previously twice fling me out of a rooted horse stance fifteen feet across a room, with one hand, doing me no harm.

I let it go at that.:-)Play it safe, says me.

[This message has been edited by kusanku (edited November 06, 2000).]

[Evan Pantazi]

Mattson Sensei,

I appreciate what you stated and I only post as my name was mentioned.

There is a lot in this world we don't yet know. I have been told several times that science already has all the answers, but I adamantly disagree. We don't have any idea as to why these things are in legends surviving many centuries. We are now seeing a major resurgence of these venues since the keys to these teachings were given to us.

We are seeing many different avenues again opening and some interesting possibilities presented. I know this is just a beginning and I see and feel that major strides will be forthcomming. Will it ever be able to be explained scientifically, I believe it will, but as we have all seen, there is no set explaination yet, be it Eastern or Western in description.

You are also correct that the information will be submerging once again and how unfortunate. The open and free expression and or accounting of these possibilities has been greatly appreciated by many around the world...I thank you for this opportunity. I also know that I personally have shut down some discussions and will continue as it only brings ridicule instead of real exploration. It is also unfortunate that having now stepped even further into our learning and have begun our explorations into several other unexplainable achievements, we must keep them to ourselves.

In the beginning of my writings on this forum it was considered that Kyusho Did Not work...now it is more or less understood that it does (thanks to the untiring efforts of my seniors and friends), even though the mechanics are not readily explainable in everyone's one terms. Eventually if we continue our journey publically, some of the now unbelievable will become more accepted, but until then we will take the brunt as in the past, (this actually inspires us and we did appreciate it, but we now have momentum in our learning process and nothing will be able to derail this). It is a shame that after 50 or 60 years since US Military personnel brought back these Arts we are still content with simply refining what they learned during those brief tenures with no further investigation. (this statement was edited to hopefully infuse my true intent).

Rational disscussion is what you have brought to the Martial Arts world and I applaud your efforts to see it continue.

Respectfuly submitted,

------------------
Evan Pantazi
www.kyusho.com

[This message has been edited by Evan Pantazi (edited November 06, 2000).]

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian

Be good. George makes good points.

To the general public

In Ian's defense, here is a fellow that is probably going to graduate at the top of his medical school class, and - unlike most med students - he still has time to be teacher of a karate class and be on forums like this. While his elders work overtime on his "EQ", might I suggest to all that what he says deserves a little respect? There's a lot of frustration here, albeit expressed inappropriately.

Evan <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

straw man n. ... An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.

And then I see <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I have been told several times that science already has all the answers, but I adamantly disagree.

I can't argue with you.

Once upon a time when Einstein was applying for a grant, a politician challenged him with a statement something to the effect of "You don't really know what you are looking for, do you?" He replied (roughly) "If we already knew what we wanted to look for, then it wouldn't be research."

Rory

Nicely stated.

George

The scientific method is not "western." Labels like that muddy the waters.

To all

Carry on...

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Rick

I thought about your suggestions.

Right now, the experimental measurement is limited to Bill Jackson (a video professional) taping what is happening on one side of the wall, and the word of Rich and I on what happened on the other side. Thankfully Rich had been an honorable gentleman, and we both are in agreement as to what happened in that room at that time under those conditions. So we have the tape recording something on one side, and Rich and I describing what happened on the other side.

If I had to do it all over again (and I will if folks are up to it), what I would really like to see is a video split screen. One side would show what the subject is doing, and the other side would show what Rich is doing. I can tell you...the postures that Rich used left nothing to the imagination. The effect would have been dramatic (with either positive or negative results)if we had the split screen to post. Sadly, we don't. Thus your helpful suggestion can't be implemented in a manner that would shed any more light.

- Bill

[MetaBaron]

I agree with one overlapping point that seems to be outstanding here, which is the
proof or existence of Chi and the physicality thereof. Since I have had experience
in this area, specifically as related to chinese martial arts thereof, I offer my
humble opinion.
I doubt if you would ever find a true Chi-master who will allow him or herself
subject to tests related in this area, as for what I have found, is that the existence
and proof lies within something that is beyond mere scientific study for the curious.
Now I am sure you are thinking, this is just more smoke screen B.S.
But I offer this: In the Chinese martial Arts, the systems designed to cultivate Chi
and internal power are least most designed for street combat and its primary
function is a yogic vehicle. Least said, to a true Chi master, his/her mindset is at a
location wherein the concept at that point of proving or disproving to others of its
existence is severely trivial and moot. Indeed chi development does change one's
perception, and ultimately who knows what. I do not know, I am not there yet.
But in the long and short, if you wish to really know whether of not Chi is real,
look not to scientific methods, but rather to a local sifu. He or she may not be a
master, as again true masters rarely surface, but if you start down that path,
undoubtedly if your intentions are pure, and your mind unrelenting, then the truth
will be made known to you.
-Meta

[Bill Glasheen]

I understand your intentions, Meta. But your proposition really sheds no light on the issue. You qualify the presence of chi in such a way that it remains completely out of proper scrutiny. And in doing so, it also effectively has no practical value.

First of all, it never was the intention of anyone in the measurement group to prove the existence of chi. Proper research is conducted one step at a time. It's unfair to saddle the burden of proving the existence of chi on Rich or anyone else. Even if it were a single, definable entitiy, one wouldn't create The Ideal Experiment to prove it.

Show us something observable and measureable and we can assess it. If it isn't either observable or measureable, then it has absolutely no martial consequence. Think about it.

Mr. Mooney was able to make people change their behavior without touching them. The demonstrations were quite remarkable and the martial application was obvious. We posed a simple question: does the phenomenon still exist absent the visual and/or auditory cues? We created a way to test that - a method that Mr. Mooney agreed should work given his understanding and expertise. We were able to refute that claim for Mr. Mooney on that day.

So...where does that leave us? Well, we know it works against many people when they can see the visual cues. We haven't yet proven that the visual cues are needed, but the evidence is strong. We could run it many times with several experts and pretty much nail it down. That kind of effort would be worthy of publication in a quality, peer-reviewed journal if there were a posistive effect. Since the findings were negative, the interest level would be low. It still however has value.

Would Mr. Mooney's abilities have martial relevance if visual cues are needed? If some folks weren't so hell bent on there being some kind of mystery to this, they could probably settle down and see this for what it is. A sense of humor will stop an attacker. Good negotiation skills will stop an attacker. A statement to the effect that Mongo is in the car with an AK-47 will stop an attacker. All those methods are - by definition - empty force. All have value. Think about it.

My 97 pound sister can make one of her 200 pound Great Danes pee on the spot with the right look in her eyes. Think about it. Is this valuable to her? Damned right!

What if Mr. Mooney's effort resulted in a positive finding? Well since we had eliminated visual cues, auditory cues, and contact - and still had an effect - then we would have something unaccounted for. Then we could attempt to assess what it is we can observe and measure (the effect of). We could quantify the energy generated and search for the mechanism.

Help me, Meta. Without help like this, there's no need to create a new name and a mysterious paradigm that describes it.

- Bill