Talk:Qi

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DylanHansen29.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 10 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raichu15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscience or fake news?

As Wikipedia itself says, pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Qi never claimed to be a science(even though the concept of energy is scientific), science doesn't have a single definition of energy, and as has already been said, Qi doesn't mean "vital energy," so clearly whoever wrote this doesn't understand anything about either Qi or science.

So if this is classified as pseudoscience or "paranormal," Christianity and philosophical concepts attributed to ancient Greeks must also be. ProudIndoEuropeanGraecoRomanJudeoChristianWestern (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

ProudIndoEuropeanGraecoRomanJudeoChristianWestern, the assertions you removed were sourced; the material you added was not. I've reverted you for now, but would be happy to discuss this. Can you provide sources for your material? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Besides having no source, being a Christian isn't pseudoscience, but faith healing is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What is 'being a Christian'? Christians' own scripture says that its followers will have the power to heal the sick by the laying of hands. (and ingest poison without being harmed, and handle venomous snakes, etc). And what about believing that consumption of bread and wine that's been blessed by a priest literally becomes their founder's actual flesh and blood inside their bodies? How can you call Eastern spiritual beliefs pseudoscience, but not that, while maintaining a straight face? Firejuggler86 (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, bread turning into flesh is fantasy. Laying on hands is quackery. Snakehandling is dangerous quackery. And if we have sources which say any of it is pseudoscience, of course the article will say it is pseudoscience. You would profit from reading Whataboutism and Straw man. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to note that the sources are articles debunking reiki and other recently invented alternative medicines which claim to be scientific. Those things can reasonably be called pseudoscientific. Qi is not reiki, it is a spiritual/religious concept that predates the scientific method by centuries - calling such a thing pseudoscientific is imprecise at best, and certainly doesn't meet the criterion of "claims to be scientific". If someone insists that its status as science be mentioned in the intro, I propose "unscientific" - the Scientific View section correctly uses this sort of approach. Ozimuth (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Subject: detecting Qi

I have a Stanley stud finder which can find iron nails or steel staples. With one hand in grouped fingers, and the finger tips are about 0.5 inch from the stud finder, the detector lite will glow red. Is the stud finder detecting Qi from my fingers or something else? thank you Dewi7 (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

No. It's probably just picking up small electric currents in your body. That's not qi, it's regular physics. Regardless, this talk page is for discussing the article, it's not a chatroom for discussing the subject. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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)