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: and

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)

Should be "we have reliable sources saying so". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2025 (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)

"why not say the story of the resurrection is pseudoscience" Because myths, legends, and other elements of folklore are not pseudoscience. They are not making scientific claims, and they are not pretending that they conform with scientific standards. Dimadick (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there’s a subtle point to be made here that a description of what qi means doesn’t necessarily need to include a debunking or a charge of pseudoscience, because the belief is pre-scientific. It’s like saying that the platonic notion of pneuma is pseudoscience or the Christian idea of the soul. I think if you’re going to include that description it should be in the context of specific pseudoscientific claims (ie: acupuncture or the like) 216.225.105.192 (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

We are required to present such a description, as it is necessarily proportional to how our sources describe it. Remsense ‥ 论 00:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Which source says qi is a pseudoscientific concept? I only see them referring to reiki and the like as pseudoscience. 2603:6011:5A01:3313:E45D:479B:D752:EDB3 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tq I agree. There's the original concept, and there's the version presented in the West, which may adopt sciency sounding words. As Chinese food for thought, it might not resemble the western take on the original. _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Qi was a pre-scientific concept, from Antiquity till two centuries ago. In present-day TCM Qi is a pseudoscientific concept. So: originally it wasn't pseudoscientific, but it is as it is used now. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, but would a simple solution not be to narrow the charge of pseudoscience to the specific practices described in the sources? For instance, "Medical practices based on qi like reiki and qigong are pseudoscientific, as qi has no counterpart in the physical world, and does not correspond…"? Justin Kunimune (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I also feel it is excessive to reduce the entire knowledge associated with Qi to the word 'pseudoscience'. I can accept that some practitioners, mainly in the West, have appropriated Qi in a pseudoscientific way. To me this looks like intersecting categories in a Venn diagram. The case is not made that Qi is purely a subset of pseudoscience. Having said this, there must be no original research on Wikipedia. The first reference (#4) is from the Center for Sceptical Inquiry from the 1990s. The onus is on anyone with a different viewpoint (includes me) to find scholarship to back up our view. Here is a thoughtful paper from 2020. Bao GC. The idealist and pragmatist view of qi in tai chi and qigong: A narrative commentary and review. Journal of Integrative Medicine. 2020 Sep 1;18(5):363-8. It does not quite make the point I am looking for about overlapping rather than encompassing categories. I can keep looking. Wikid (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

That's an altmed journal so not really useful for anything. Sources should be WP:FRIND. Bon courage (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

From 2010 MA thesis of Evan Western "Consistent empirical success in a discipline which operates

in a domain of practical science ought to be sufficient for a scientific title whether or not there

are characteristically pseudoscientific features also at play within the discipline." Westre, Evan. Reexamining the Problem of Demarcating Science and Pseudoscience. Diss. Vancouver Island University. 2014. https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/1828/5355/3/Westre_Evan_MA_2014.pdf Wikid (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

An MA thesis? Not usable at all unless it can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Bon courage (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I still need to keep looking. Mind you the JIM is an Elsevier Journal with an Impact Factor. Can you point me to Wikipedia's list of blacklisted journals from reputable publishers? I would also describe a publication of the CSI as grey literature. The criteria at play here don't seem entirely transparent. Wikid (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Journals are not generally blacklisted, but WP:CITEWATCH lists some questionable ones. Some relevant guidance for the topic areas's sourcing can be found in WP:FRIND and WP:PARITY. Bon courage (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I love a list. I can't see that the JIM is tagged as being on this one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Integrative_Medicine. But I can see it is likely to be viewed in some quarters as a biased source. Although the same could be said for 1990s CSI. Anyhow I think a better source is one that takes a more encompassing view.

Can Wikipedia trust the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy? See Pigliucci, Massimo (2023). Pseudoscience and the Demarcation Problem. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/pseudoscience-demarcation/ This mentions Hansson's 2013 three criteria for identification of pseudoscientific statements:

"[1] It pertains to an issue within the domains of science in the broad sense (the criterion of scientific domain).[2] It suffers from such a severe lack of reliability that it cannot at all be trusted (the criterion of unreliability).[3] It is part of a doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression that it represents the most reliable knowledge on its subject matter (the criterion of deviant doctrine)."

Next task I suppose is to find a scholar writing in a non-fringe journal who applies Hansson's criteria specifically to Qi. Wikid (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

doi:10.1080/02698595.2020.1767891 may be relevant. Bon courage (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This paper is a lot closer to what I was looking for. The author concludes that TCM is "not scientifically respectable", but does not make the claim of outright pseudoscience. de Felipe, Íñigo Ongay. "The universality of science and traditional Chinese medicine: A philosophical survey." Science & Education 30.6 (2021): 1353-1370.

They also refer to "Bunge and Pigluicci’s concurring frameworks [that] have the versatility of separating science from non-science as well as establishing a set of

diverse categories within non-science itself: from non-scientific reliable knowledge (like

our day-to-day empirical claims) to pseudoscience or science-denialism."

As you may suspect, I didn't personally agree with the author's final statement. But even as someone who thinks "TCM and the biological ontologies it is associated with should find accordingly no place in our educational system", they do not go so far as to call TCM a pseudoscience. Philosophy has evolved since the 1990s. Wikid (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Categorizes qi as a pseudoscience though. Traditional Chinese medicine is a different article. Bon courage (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Respect for referring to the source. My reading comprehension is uncertain at the best of times, but I can't find in the paper where the author explicitly categorises qi as pseudoscience. They talk only of non-scientificity. The closest I can see them getting to the idea of qi-as-pseudoscience is where they say "In that respect, while [Modern International Medicine] is not a science given the practical ends it intends to fulfill, that does not mean that we have to deem it pseudoscientific. If the term 'scientific' is taken as an adjective, MIM (but not TCM) is scientific because it operates in continuity with the results of scientific research in a diversity of domains." The author quotes Hansson's list of pseudosciences (creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism) but I can't see where they add qi to this list. Thank you again for engaging. Wikid (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tq2 Bon courage (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I see you are referring to Fasce, "Are Pseudosciences Like Seagulls?" Fasce is clear on the topic of qi, although not exploring it further in that paper apart from the single passing remark. I found Boudry more sympathetic on this, see Boudry, M. Diagnosing Pseudoscience – by Getting Rid of the Demarcation Problem. J Gen Philos Sci 53, 83–101 (2022). But Boudry does not engage with qi by name.

Some reflections on Boudry: (1) "Pseudoscience, as the etymology of the term makes quite clear, is an inherently normative and defamatory concept." It's not forbidden to be defamatory, but one should exercise care in doing so.

(2) I can't see that qi meets Boudry's first criterion for pseudoscience, that of cultural mimicry: "First, pseudoscience is a relational concept (Hecht 2018). It can only emerge in a cultural environment in which science already exists and is regarded as an epistemic authority worth emulating (Blancke et al. 2017; Gordin 2012; Numbers & Thurs 2013)." I find this criterion convincing, and do not see it as being met by qi, since qi emerged some centuries in advance of contemporary understandings of science.

Anyhow I accept the need to find a published philosopher to clearly say these things (no independent research!). I'm not a professional philosopher. My experience of philosophers is you can usually find someone who will argue any given corner.

In the meantime I would suggest that NPOV in an English Wikipedia article would better identify qi as non-scientific, for avoidance of defamatory statement about a treasured artifact from a much older and different cultural and linguistic tradition.

I've avoided engaging with Wikipedia editing for many years, because it is hard. Wikipedia to me is also a treasured artifact, especially in today's post-truth world. Bon courage! Wikid (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Revert

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

E.g. Template:Tqred 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:

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, Template:Tqq 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)