RICH MOONEY RESULTS?

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Fri Oct 20, 2000 7:37 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bill Glasheen:

With regards to the marriage proposal,

1) that was in one of my subsequent lives. But who knows - if I'm not good in this one, I may come back as a toad or something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that's why I just offered to be a slave

... If I were to propose marriage, I'd get myself in legal troubles, but worse I'd get myself in trouble at home!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

2) After having received a massage from one of those newfangled chairs that they rent out for $30/hour, I once got down on my knees and proposed to it. It never responded. Go figure...

Well... being from the South myself, I guess I can understand the trait of being able to propose to just about anythang!

<- captioned for the humor-impaired

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Sat Oct 21, 2000 2:30 am

Ian: TMI?????

Regarding the 'chair' Bill mentioned, I have also met it and had I been armed at the time I would have taken it at gunpoint!

Rich

David Kahn · Post by **David Kahn** » Sat Oct 21, 2000 5:48 am

Rich:

TMI....Too Much Information

Actually, tell us more--Just Kidding

------------------
email: <A HREF="mailto:chgouechi1@aol.com">chgouechi1@aol.com</A>
website: http://members.aol.com/chgouechi1

student · Post by **student** » Sat Oct 21, 2000 5:56 am

I am also interested in the results of this study and don't know where to find it; please, someone post a link.

Thank you,

student

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Sun Oct 22, 2000 3:28 am

Darn... I was hoping that TMI was a new, painless and reliable treatment discovered at UVA to solve this annoying condition. I'm at the point where 'Chi' won't solve the problem and I must submit myself to western medicine. Ouch.

Rich

Evan Pantazi · Post by **Evan Pantazi** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 2:50 pm

As I was away as this was finally posted a personal opinion of this test.

1. First the "testors" were a bias group not qualified in any way to test this with validity.

2. The tests were devised by said group.

3. The man that was being tested had performed solidly at numerous demonstrations prior to the testing (so fatique) is an uncounted variable.

So what did this prove, to me it proved that the individual in question was willing to step up to the test. There was an invalid test taken and no supportive results were found.

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

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 3:46 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

the "testors" were a bias group not qualified in any way to test this with validity.

Say what??? Evan, Evan, Evan... I supposed being a trained scientist with over 30 publications in peer-reviewed journals then makes me "not qualified?" That would be like me telling you that you weren't qualified to talk about 5-element theory or the cycle of destruction. If the statement weren't so comical and I didn't know you better, I'd take it as a personal insult. Think very carefully about what you just wrote.

The scientific method is all about creating an objective framework to test ideas, theories, and hypotheses. If you didn't have some kind of bias walking into an experiment, Evan, then you would probably have no brain. We use these methods to protect the test from the biases of the testors. Some of the greatest pieces of work in the literature come from people finding results that were different than what they expected. MY DISSERTATION, in fact, came out different than what I thought. A well-known scientist from Harvard published something in Science (ever heard of it??). I assumed he was correct and went about trying to test one of his unsupported statements he made in the article so I could carry his work to the next step. I was hoping to take his work and design a device that would be an early warning indicator of diabetic autonomic neuropathy.

Well when I did so, the results were the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he stated. He had not shown evidence of his statement, so I would assume he basically pulled this statement from where the moon doesn’t shine. In fact...the exact opposite case of his statement was much MORE interesting, and it became the topic of my dissertation.

Negative results aren't "sexy", Evan. It would have been MUCH MORE interesting had I shown that Mr. Mooney was able to do what he claimed. What did I have to gain by proving him wrong? Not a whole lot. What did I have to lose? Well...if I go out in public stating that Mr. Mooney was not able to do such-and-such, and he makes money off of seminars and teaching classes doing such-and-such, then he would have grounds to sue me. Do you think I want that??? I did this for nothing, Evan. Free. Gratis. I get nothing, other than allowing THE DATA to show what really is. I gave everyone an opportunity to observe the process under controlled conditions. There was AT LEAST a dozen people in that room at the end, Evan. They saw what happened.

Imagine instead, Evan, that we were able to show an effect. Positive results of a new phenomenon are "sexy." I would then be co-author of a study in a peer-reviewed journal describing an objective study of a phenomenon that nobody can explain. I would be world famous. Do you think I would give that up to trash an idea of a person that I don't even know very well? I don't think so.

This in no way shows that Lin Kong Jing has no value. It only shows that a practitioner of such was not able to perform something he claimed he could do when we observed it under controlled conditions. It shows, perhaps, that something else - something that still may be "interesting" - is going on.

Think, think, think!!! Avoid the knee-jerk reaction. When one responds in such fashion, it will only call into questions future statements. We cannot refute the prima facea evidence. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The tests were devised by said group.

Mr. Mooney agreed to the conditions of the test. If he had not, we would have been more than willing to accommodate him in a manner that we would be objectively testing something. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The man that was being tested had performed solidly at numerous demonstrations prior to the testing (so fatique) is an uncounted variable.

The man being tested was performing "karate magic shows" before the test. This doesn't count. He was not performing under controlled conditions.

I have had magicians as students before, Evan. I know how easy it is to deceive people. In fact, it is a beautiful thing. Deceit is indeed an important element in the martial arts. The power of suggestion is an important element in the martial arts. "Psyching" your opponent into doing things he might not ordinarily do is an important element in the martial arts. Some time, read about what Ali did to George Foreman before their bout. It's fascinating. But we must not make these things out to be anything more than what they are. When we do, we do a disservice to ourselves and to the students we teach.

Furthermore, being tired can reduce your abilities. But the test was designed to detect even a SLIGHT ability. If he was successful only a little bit with a few people, we would have been able to detect it with the experimental design.

It is my "bias" that Mr. Mooney believes he can do what he does. It is my "bias" that he is doing something different from what he thinks he is doing. But if I am ever able to show him to be capable of something that cannot otherwise be explained, then I'll be the first to be selfish and make MYSELF famous by publishing it.

- Bill

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 3:50 pm

I'll reiterate that I could care less if it does or does not exist... I have zero vested interest in the existence or non-existence. I know that Margaret Chojin is a miracle worker and I don't care how it happens. I've been to seminars and demonstrations where supposed "chi"-masters decided to use me as an uke and when they didn't get the desired result, proclaimed that I had very powerful "chi". (At the time, I felt like my name should be "Skywalker" or something... "This one is strooooong in the force!"

) I've also had some, ummmm, "artsy-fartsy" yoga naturalist types tell me I had strong energy... idunno...

I figure it doesn't hurt to cover all my bases, so I follow the Japanese example and have no problems doing "chi-kung" exercise, shiatsu, going to the medicine man, and also seeing a regualr western doctor. Same goes for "religion" and self-defense... if it works for me at the time, I'll take it. If not...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Evan Pantazi:

1. First the "testors" were a bias group not qualified in any way to test this with validity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think there can be any disagreement here. Glasheen-sempai has never hidden his opinions on the subject. However...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

2. The tests were devised by said group.

True, but not the whole truth. Both in this thread and in the paper, it is made very clear that the test was devised with the full understanding, cooperation and agreement of the person being tested. Everyone involved agreed that it was a fair test that eliminated outside influences and factors. So, I don't think this particular point should be a problem to anyone involved.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

3. The man that was being tested had performed solidly at numerous demonstrations prior to the testing (so fatique) is an uncounted variable.

Part of the point is that those prior demonstrations did not have the controls for other influences and variables in place. If fatigue is an issue, then I would hazard a guess that the researchers would be more than happy to duplicate the same tests at an agreed upon future date, when the test subject, with ample forewarning, can arrive rested and fresh. It doesn't change the results of this test, but certainly would be an additional data point. (It'd also prove your point if the results are different.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

So what did this prove, to me it proved that the individual in question was willing to step up to the test.

Galsheen-sempai (and others... and I'll jump in and concure) have been quick to point out how great the test subject was in his willingness to participate. That is commendable (sp) and appreciated by anyone interested in the subject.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

There was an invalid test taken and no supportive results were found.

Actually, like the results or not, the test was (by definition) valid. Does it prove that there is no such thing as "chi"? No... But it does prove that at that point in time, there was no extraordinary effects exercised on the test's volunteers by the test subject. So, it basically proved (at the very least) that any "chi" effect was either limited or non-existant at that time.

I could tell you of my (firsthand) knowledge of a person that had a head injury and the short-term "changes" that seemed to occur, but that shouldn't be necessary to prove my neutrality on the subject... I just want to learn what I can. IMNSHO, proving or disproving the existence of "chi" is kind of like proving or disproving the existence of God. There are those who will never believe a God exists and those who will never disbelieve... and all kinds of "tests" can be made to try and find "the truth"(tm)...

MetaBaron · Post by **MetaBaron** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 4:52 pm

I am curious as to why CHI may be a difficult concept to grasp. It may have to do
with Western methodology in the ideal that anything that cannot be proven by
Western means in therefore false.
I, as are you, are living proof that CHI exists. Perhaps too much hype has been
given to the concept. I find it less mystical and more a simple part of life, such as
breathing. Perhaps if you could define what this is, then also you hit the crux of
what all else in the universe also is.

-Meta

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

If you overlook the Way right before your
eyes, how will you know the path beneath
your feet? Advancing has nothing to do with
near and far, yet delusion creates obstacles
high and wide. Students of the mystery, I
humbly urge you, don't waste a moment, night
or day!

- Shih-t'ou (700-790)

Evan Pantazi · Post by **Evan Pantazi** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 6:00 pm

Glasheen Sensei,

Say what??? Evan, Evan, Evan... I supposed being a trained scientist with over 30 publications in peer-reviewed journals then makes me "not qualified?"

You read me correctly finding no personal insult as that is not what I do with a friend. It is not your expertise I refute, (...is your discipline akin to this type of research?). It is not that I refute your findings, I am concerned that a public record has been made according to this test, without attachment to a non-biased test group.

To start:

The amazing Randi has a reputation and business to discredit extrodinary claims. He and the specified individual also do not have a passive aquaintance...quite the opposite. He also has a lot to loose, as a personal stake of $1,000,000.00 US if findings were in the individuals favor.

Dr. Morenski has publically stated ad nauseum about how fraudulant, ludicrois and nonexistant this test subject is. Also personal differences have reached a mutual disdain for he and the tested individual.

As for you and Mattson Sensei, Although very skepitcal do have a more distal and open outlook on the subect. Although your statement: "The man being tested was performing "karate magic shows" before the test. This doesn't count. He was not performing under controlled conditions." Does indeed show a little of this said bias.

It does not matter that the individual agreed to it. Someone willingly submitting to a test does not mean the test was valid. I know you all worked hard to arrange this test and devised a method that would accurately measure this reported ability...I feel it was not reached due to test members prior biases, simply put, no insult nor disrespect intended, just a personal opinion.

There was no knee jerk reaction on my part as I didn't think a Summer Camp was a great test facility even prior to the test. I didn't get paid for posting this either and have no personal ties to this individual any more than you. I realize this wasn't done for money, but in quest of truth...this test in my opinion did not attain the goal. And to publically post it must also have to withstand some rebuttal.

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

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 6:06 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am curious as to why CHI may be a difficult concept to grasp. It may have to do
with Western methodology in the ideal that anything that cannot be proven by
Western means in therefore false.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's quite a mouthful there. Perhaps we should break this up into bite-size pieces.

Defenders of the Ptolemaic view of the world might say <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I am curious as to why the earth being the center of the universe may be a difficult concept to grasp.

The concept is simple. The reality may or may not exist. The first thing you need to do is define your concept. As long as people say {Insert your idea} means this or {Insert your idea} can do that, then we can test those ideas. If every attempt to measure what you say meets with "you didn't do a valid test" or "you don't understand with your {choose your bias} mind," then we won't get anywhere.

I don't buy the "Western" and "Eastern" mind bit. This is a cop out. This is - in fact - a subtle form of racism. Are "Easterners" genetically superior in some way that they can violate the laws of physics or mathematics that "Westerners" discovered? I don't think so.

I learned some of my best math and science from Chinese. My graduate math professor was Jen Shih Lee. The author of my most complex book on biomechanics is Yuan-Cheng Fung. They understood universal concepts of math and science. It was very difficult working with such people, because they botch the English language so badly. Do they have "Western" minds? Hmmmm... I am only applying concepts that these men would use to study phenomena in nature or a claim made by an individual - no matter where they come from.

Perhaps instead, something was lost in the translation. Perhaps it is you who do not understand what the Chinese mean when they use the word "chi." Perhaps "Westerners" make it out to be something it isn't. Perhaps it is nothing more than a word to describe a number of phenomena. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I, as are you, are living proof that CHI exists.

Define what you mean by that, and then we can discuss the statement. Until then, I won't bother to argue with you. You may indeed be right. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I find it less mystical and more a simple part of life, such as
breathing. Perhaps if you could define what this is, then also you hit the crux of
what all else in the universe also is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. But I don't use the term, because I think it is a poor concept to describe many phenomena that are better described with a more-detailed understanding of the world around us. I occasionally use the word, but I do it with a twinkle in my eye. I occasionally see where something I can do could be thought of as this yet-unexplained energy that comes from within. But the more I do and the more I learn, the more I realize that it all can be explained by modern concepts of physics and math and biomechanics. Only problem is...the world is more complex (when you get down to the nitty gritty detail) than most have the educational capacity to understand. Not everyone is well versed in nonlinear differential equations. So..."we" use simple words and concepts to describe things.

Personally, I like the word "thingy" a lot.

That's what I say when I don't want to glaze-over the eyes of my students.

One last thing... Nobody proved or disproved "chi" in this experiment. Mr. Mooney claimed to be able to do something under certain conditions. We tested his claim. We were not able to support it. That's all we did, and that's all the experiment says.

This is how you proceed with contentious subjects - one simple, well-defined step at a time.

- Bill

Tim Ahearn · Post by **Tim Ahearn** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 6:39 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Evan Pantazi:

<snip>

I know you all worked hard to arrange this test and devised a method that would accurately measure this reported ability...I feel it was not reached due to test members prior biases, simply put, no insult nor disrespect intended, just a personal opinion.

There was no knee jerk reaction on my part as I didn't think a Summer Camp was a great test facility even prior to the test. <snip> I realize this wasn't done for money, but in quest of truth...this test in my opinion did not attain the goal. And to publically post it must also have to withstand some rebuttal.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But where's the rebuttal? It is not enough to simply say that Bill and J.D. have their biases--as I'm sure they would freely admit (and have admitted). You have to show how that bias creeped into the test design, how that bias affected or skewed the results.

For example, why was the Summer Camp not a good "test facility" and how do you think this environment affected the octome of the test?

MetaBaron · Post by **MetaBaron** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 6:45 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I, as are you, are living proof that CHI exists.

What I was attempting to convey was in that, as I understand and live it, the mere
fact that we live and breathe is what Chi is all about, which culminates to the
systems that can in fact be broken down and studied in the form of different types
or energy. For example, the nervous system is a electro chemical avenue that
transmits energy to various systems of the body for differing purposes, and
subsequently, is subject to the laws of common physics and can be measured. It is
from the basis on viewing the body systems as such that I base my observations.
There is in fact, so many intrinsic issues that we do NOT understand concerning
nature, energy processes, and most importantly of the the mind body
phenomenon. My point would be just not to accept such reported occurrences
just by faith alone or by failures of demonstration (in my view, a self proclaimed
chi master probably would be detached from such exercises outside of a like
minded group.) but rather by using basic elements to prove or disprove certain
elements of claims. This is a difficult thing, because there are so many variables
that could tarnish the experiments, with the foremost being perhaps the excuse
that the exhibitionist is either "not advanced enough" or is a fraud to begin with. I
could cite my personal experiences, but that is moot as they do not translate well.
I do feel however, that the secret to the phenomenon is less mystical and more
mechanical. (Which of course, is another tangent waiting to happen) I feel that all
in all, where the concept of Chi is concerned, we just have not uncovered it in
mainstream science yet

-Meta

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

If you overlook the Way right before your
eyes, how will you know the path beneath
your feet? Advancing has nothing to do with
near and far, yet delusion creates obstacles
high and wide. Students of the mystery, I
humbly urge you, don't waste a moment, night
or day!

- Shih-t'ou (700-790)

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 7:12 pm

Evan

The design of an experiment was bandied about among George, J.D., and myself. Yes....Randi and R.M. had some "words" between each other. In the end, after some consideration of input from J.D. and George, I was the one who came up with the final design. J.D. intentionally pulled away in the end - and was nowhere near the testing site - because he knew what baggage he brought to the table.

If my claim of being the final maker of the test design is false, would either J.D. or George correct me?

I also made sure that nobody but R.M. and I were in the room together. I did not want any of "my people" or "his people" in the room. I even politely refused to allow his wife to come into the room, and stopped the test when I realized there might be a way that some in the opposite room (not the test subject) could see what R.M. and I were doing. Thus in the end, it is the word of R.M. and I that we indeed did what we said we did. I trust Mr. Mooney, and I think he trusts me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I know you all worked hard to arrange this test and devised a method that would accurately measure this reported ability...I feel it was not reached due to test members prior biases

We performed a randomized, double-blinded trial. That design is there to remove the bias of the tester, the subjects, and the person applying the treatment. Thus there was no way that either Mr. Mooney, myself, or the people being tested could alter the results other than by outright fraud. I trust the test subjects and I trust Mr. Mooney. I believe everyone was there to do the right thing.

But...the natural course of science is for others to repeat the experiment under identical conditions. If there was any inadvertent error in our implementation of this design, then others would come up with different results. Have a group of reputable, trained scientists repeat the test elsewhere, and see if they come up with different results. Maybe Mr. Mooney will have a better day... The evidence speaks for itself on THAT particular day. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The amazing Randi has a reputation and business to discredit extraordinary claims. He and the specified individual also do not have a passive aquaintance...quite the opposite. He also has a lot to loose, as a personal stake of $1,000,000.00 US if findings were in the individuals favor.

This test was ultimately designed by me. I implemented it. Others observed the test. The only part that wasn't observed by others is the part in the room where I was showing Mr. Mooney which of the three actions he was to perform, and I was recording what he performed. I trust Mr. Mooney, and I trust he will agree with me when I show what each measure was. In fact...at the end we all reviewed what each test subject was all about. Mr. Mooney was there to disagree if I had stated something other than what we both knew.

Thus...I frankly don't know if anything was at stake with Mr. Randi, because HE did not see the final design, nor did HE implement the test. But if we had found something, I would be the first to get in line and ask Randi to conduct an identical test. I would support Mr. Mooney. Personally I could give a damn about any of that. The caustic dialogue served no purpose.

And what was the involvement of Randi? Nothing. What was the involvement of George and J.D? I turned the results over to them. J.D. did the initial writeup, and George and I reviewed it. And trust me...I believe George's bias is the opposite of mine and J.D.'s. I think he would have been thrilled to see us discover something new.

I do not sell videos about chi or kyusho. I am a nonprofit karate instructor. I have a research academic position at a major university. I served to gain nothing if Mr. Mooney's claims were refuted, other than to be on the side of truth. I served to gain plenty if we had discovered a new phenomenon. To a nonprofit academic and martial artists like me, my legacy of contributions to the art is everything about what I live for. So...tell me about my biases again. Tell me if there is anyone else at the table here who can claim the same.

We must focus on what we did, and what we did not do. We must focus on the signal, and ignore the noise about us. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I didn't think a Summer Camp was a great test facility even prior to the test.

I have built two different research labs in my life. Academic researchers work on shoestring budgets. You'd be surprised at the chewing gum and scotch tape that is used to build some of the most elegant experiments reported in the modern literature. Trust me...there is nothing sacred about a research lab on university grounds. I've been there and I've built these labs. Our facilities at the camp were quite adequate. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

this test in my opinion did not attain the goal. And to publicly post it must also have to withstand some rebuttal.

Be specific in how you believe the test did not attain the goal. If there is something we missed, we'd be happy to do it again.

On the flip side, it is better that you air your feelings here in public than go in private and grumble that we "just don't get it." Thus...I give you your due respect, sir, and apologize that I implied you weren't entitled to make your points.

Again...we asked simple questions. We tested one thing. We have not proven or disproven the existence of chi, kyusho, or the theory of relativity for that matter. Someone made a claim and we tested the claim. No more, no less.

- Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited October 23, 2000).]

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Oct 23, 2000 8:24 pm

Meta

We are closer in our thinking than you realize. I agree with almost everything you write. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is a difficult thing, because there are so many variables
that could tarnish the experiments, with the foremost being perhaps the excuse
that the exhibitionist is either "not advanced enough" or is a fraud to begin with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's an interesting statement. I wouldn't presume to question Mr. Mooney's abilities either from the technical aspect or from the character side of things. That's a separate issue.

I met Mr. Mooney. I have no reason to believe he's a fraud. However when he talked to me about his notebook of "patients" he had worked with, it was obvious to me that he didn't understand some basic concepts of science like the power of suggestion (mind over matter, the placebo effect) and regression to the mean. But I saw no evidence that he was dishonest in any way. I think he believes in what he does. I don't believe he understands what he is doing, and the role he plays in what he observes.

Another thing that jumps out at you when you meet Mr. Mooney is that he is a frightfully well-built man. He's got Popeye arms and a generally sound physical constitution. That observation alone is worth a lot. The test subjects could not see what posture Mr. Mooney was performing in the experiment. If I were Joe Sixpack on the street and he made a threatening posture towards me, I believe it would make ME stop in my tracks.

As for the uncontrolled variables, well I don't believe that is a problem. The only thing you are concerned about is that the variables that aren't controlled don't cause a systematic bias to any of the three conditions. The nature of doing statistical tests is that you measure the variation within treatments (caused by uncontrolled variables) and the variation between treatments (caused by general uncontrolled variation AND by the effect of the treatment). The statistics are there to remove the effect of these uncontrolled variables and measure what is left. You just need to make sure that you perform enough observations to detect the difference.

And if the effect of uncontrolled variables has so much influence on this experiment that we couldn't see a treatment effect in an experiment designed like this, then what does that tell you about what we are trying to measure? Think about it.

Again...we are not that far apart, sir. A side of me wants to believe too. A side of me agrees that there is much that is left to be discovered. And I want to be the first to plant a flag when a new phenomenon is identified.

- Bill