Any practice that claims to manipulate, channel or balance "life energy" (or 'life force' or any other mysterious vitalist 'power) should be forced to demonstrate the existence of that energy.
If it can't, it should be closed down or at the very least should withdraw any references to 'life energy'.
We actually know a fair bit about energy, so if people are going to use the term they should use it properly.
I want to know what process converts, for example, chemical energy into this "life energy", what the efficiency of the conversion is etc.
If you practice a system of medicine that works but for which we don't have working explanation of how it works, don't just make up an explanation by bending terms around until they have no meaning.
As far as I'm concerned, suggesting there's a whole type of energy that exists only in relation to living beings is either arrogance or delusion.
Living things are, from our highly biased point of view, amazing and wonderful things, but to the universe, we're just utterly insignificant specks of highly localised ordered complexity. We are a result of the standard rules of physics.
To suggest that when life came into existence, it bought with it a new type of energy into the universe is surely madness....Spaaaarta!
» left by Susan Thom(8,162) Susan Thom (179 days 20 hours ago.)
hi ben,
i understand your desire to share your opinion, but others have theirs' too, and those opinions are just as important to them as yours are to you. none of us knows anything, really. we simply have our opinions.
thanks for a well written story,
best regards,
sue thom Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish(991) Ben Morrish (179 days 20 hours ago.)
When there is verifiable observational evidence, opinions that contradict it are of no value, they are demonstrably false.
Opinion is fine in the absence of evidence one way or the other, but where evidence does exist, where facts are known, opinion ceases to have value.
As an example, 2 + 2 = 4. If someone is of the opinion that 2+2 is actually 5, their opinion shouldn't be given credence or respect unless they can provide evidence to support it.
Opinion is great for non-factual matters (like "do blue jeans look cooler than black ones?", but it is not great when it comes to making truth statements about the facts of reality or logic.
» left by sue thom from nj (179 days 19 hours ago.)
hi ben
thanks for clearing that up, i understand now.
but i still think your style could be a little softer.
best regards,
sue thom Respond to this comment
» left by Ben Morrish(991) Ben Morrish (179 days 18 hours ago.)
Well, I can certainly accept that Sue, I do tend to adopt a fairly harsh style writing on science-based issues. I'm nicer in my casual observation pieces, I promise ;-) Respond to this comment
Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or
Question:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
