Talk:Qi

Removed reference

I removed those references because there is no need for the first reference in the lead; the second reference is not to a Reliable Source; there is no page number; the titles do not make sense – what is “Ration of Qi”? “Generalized Quanta Wave”?

This is not Mathematical Medicine and Biology, but 数理医药学杂志 = Journal of mathematical medicine published by the very respectable Wuhan University, but available electronically and held by no universities in WorldCat: WorldCat: Journal of Mathematical Medicine

The references were introduced into this article and several others, October 2011: diff and diff by an editor whose only contributions were insertions of that reference on that day HERE

The articles are: Yu, Deng; Shuanli, Zhu; Peng, Xu; Hai, Deng (1 January 2003). "Ration of Qi with Modern Essential on Traditional Chinese Medicine Qi: Qi Set, Qi Element". Journal of Mathematical Medicine. 16 (4). and Yu, Deng; Shuanli, Zhu; Hai, Deng (1 January 2002). "Generalized Quanta Wave with Qi on Traditional Chinese Medecine". Journal of Mathematical Medicine. 15 (4).

ch (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Vital force and "pseudoscience"

According to this article the idea that there exists a vital force inside us that makes us different from inanimate objects is discredited pseudo-science. Even robots need electricity to run. 178.220.212.12 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Everything in organic chemistry gives the lie to vitalism. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It is unclear why qi is even an appropriate target of the charge of pseudoscience. Qi is a notion from Chinese philosophy (particularly Confucianism). You might as well say that the notion of the Tao is "pseudoscientific"! Note that qi is not itself a medical practice, even though the idea is central to a variety of practices. Some of those medical practices have been tested (often in limited ways, but nevermind that) and failed to have a measurable effect, and in that sense are at least debatably pseudoscience. But to say that qi itself is pseudoscience would require a very different sort of source, and it isn't clear to me what that would mean. On the specific issue of vital force, this page compares qi to prana, even though inanimate things also have prana! This illustrates how the boundary between eastern notions of energy and the biological idea of vital force is not totally clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4041:52d0:5a00:c51:38a7:2c7e:dadd (talk • contribs) 15:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Qi is a concept used in pseudoscience. And we reliable sources saying so. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, you can talk as much as you want, you will not change the article one bit. Only source-based reasoning is accepted. See WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Qi is definitely used in pseudoscience. On pages about the pseudoscience it is used in, call the pseudoscience pseudoscience. But re: qi itself, being mythical/religious idea is not the same thing as being pseudoscientific. (Otherwise why not say the story of the resurrection is pseudoscience? Why not say the idea of atman/brahmin is pseudoscience? etc.) I also want to point out that you restored references to a podcast episode and a source that where verifcation had already failed, and removed a legitimate source on Chinese medicine. It may not be legitimate to cite that journal in an article about the nervous system, but it is definitely fine to cite it as a source on the concept of qi itself. Is the point of wikipedia to debunk hoaxes or provide neutral information? It is false that qi is the same as vital force as it was understood in biology, they might be related but not in a straightforward way! Your reply isn't really responsive to the point I am making. 2600:4041:52D0:5A00:C51:38A7:2C7E:DADD (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted bad sources (fail WP:MEDRS) and unsourced comments.

E.g. In trust education one key element aside from sincerety and honesty for social national unity, is the inclusion of mysticism. Qi like national religions or sport is the foundation of this philosophy in Occidental and Oriental culture all over the globe. is unsourced. And even if it could be sourced, I highly doubt that it is true (mysticism played no role in my formal education; yup, I had studied Western esotericism, but the university made no compulsion to actually believe it, it was an analytical-empirical study, not a mystical one). E.g. Bart Ehrman is a Bible professor and studies the Bible very deeply, but he does not believe in the Bible; his study of the Bible is not mysticism. The Communist ideology which ruled Romania when I grew up was hogwash, but it wasn't mystical hogwash. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Paul U. Unschuld

From the introduction:

The historian of medicine in China [[Paul U. Unschuld]] adds that there "is no evidence of a concept of 'energy' – either in the strictly physical sense or even in the more colloquial sense – anywhere in Chinese medical theory."<ref name="Unschuld">{{cite book |last1=Unschuld |first1=Paul U. |title=Traditional Chinese medicine: heritage and adaptation |date=2018 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231175005 |page=125}}</ref>{{Clarify|reason=There are other articles such as Jing that say vital energy is a part of traditional Chinese medicine, so the usage of this source needs to be either justified more or removed|date=January 2023}}

Well, if Unschuld's position is reported correctly, and if he's right, and the other articles say the opposite, they're simply wrong. Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a problem for translators: how do you translate untranslatable words? Really, it is a problem of traductology.

So, and if he's right, and the other articles say the opposite, they're simply wrong is therefore a false dilemma. Probably both parties are right, in a way: Unschuld that there is no English word for the Chinese concept, and those sources are merely approximating that concept through using the word "energy".

E.g. the Romanian word "dor" is considered untranslatable. Its best English translation would be "longing". But according to traductologists, this best translation is a bad translation. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Mentions in the Tao Te Ching

I was surprised to learn today that the Tao Te Ching mentions Qi three times, in chapters 10, 42, and 55. This is probably worth including in the "Philosophical roots" section. My understanding is that the usages here tend to refer more literally to "breath" but the more mystical meanings were beginning to emerge at the time too. Michael LaFargue in his translation writes: "Although ch'i was beginning to be used by some as a technical theoretical term, I believe that in the Mencius and the Tao Te Ching it is still an unsystematized term of folk psychology, similar in use to words like feelings in colloquial English" (pg 222). LaFargue is not an expert, but on this claim he does cite A.C. Graham, Disputers of the Tao, pages 351-354. I can't verify this citation myself.

All that's to say, if anyone has some quality sources shedding light on this, it would be a great addition to the "Philosophical roots" section.

StereoFolic (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)