Our friends Steve and Lisa just announced that they are having a baby. I don’t know if either of them reads this blog - I am strangely secretive about it in real life - but in case they do, I wanted to say congratulations! That’s totally awesome! (And not just because it gives me an excuse to go buy baby things for them… mmm… baby things!)
I am, of course, insanely jealous. I would totally have a baby right now if I weren’t still in school. Like, today. I would have five today. Okay maybe not five. But you know what I mean. Baby madness!
The only problem is I need to figure out how to not give birth to them. Man that gives me the willies.
Speaking of school, I am COMPLETELY incensed at the shocking credulity and, I’ll be blunt, stupidity of my current professor. I have lots of reasons to dislike her (such as, she doesn’t know the field she supposed to be teaching us) but I’ll limit my ranting to the events of this past class. My teacher brought in a guest speaker who presented to us about chi energy and treating addictions.
This is surprising because in theory we are supposed to be learning things that have scientific backing. It would be like walking into math class and finding yourself in the middle of a sermon. It’s just not the right place. Anyway, I didn’t grill the speaker because he seemed like a nice guy and anyway the real problem is the teacher, who booked a fucking chi medicine dude to teach us how to be addictions counsellors. But when his talk was done (after pitching Rescue Remedy and a special herbal tea that will leach mercury from our bodies), my professor started in about chi. Gloves come off.
I asked what chi is. Nicely. Because although I already know she won’t have any sort of explanation that will be satisfactory for our setting (an academic graduate program in the sciences), and she deserves to be called out for that, it always pays to be civil.
She says, “Life force.” Okay… this has not advanced our understanding in any appreciable mannner. So I ask, “What is life force then? How do we know it’s there?” This was a mistake on my part because she could choose which question to answer, and she chose the latter, rather than the former, which was what I was really after. She replies: “We know it’s there because there’s a long tradition of eastern medicine that uses it. It’s been around for centuries, long before western medicine.”
This is absurd on its face. She’s talking to a room full of people who have had extensive training in research methodology and positivist, empirical methods. She can’t seriously expect us to accept an argument based on the authority of some unnamed, long dead guys? So I say, “That’s not an adequate explanation. Just because someone a long time ago said something doesn’t make it so. We still don’t have any understanding of what chi is, or how we know it’s there, or how we know where it supposedly lies in the body, or what it does, or how to manipulate it, or anything!” And this is when the event occurred that caused me to lose whatever scraps of respect I had for the teacher.
“Here,” she says, “I’ll prove to you that chi is real.”
As far as I’m concerned she has just conceded defeat because she’s run out of explanations without proving her point, or even really supporting it. (Further proof of her stupidity. She can’t even marshall an argument, which I’m guessing most chi advocates could - we were done with the verbal portion of the exchange in under a minute.) At this point we’ve switched over to demonstrations of proof, which are sure to be witch doctory and laughable. I am surprised because I can’t imagine what she’s going to do but I know it’s going to be stupid.
Here’s what she did: she removed her necklace, which was a chain with a dangly thing on the bottom that could act as a pendulum. She held the chain in her fingers and let the chain hang down in front of the face of one of the students. “You see,” she says, “the chi energy of so-and-so will cause the chain to swing in a circle.” And obediently the necklace starts to swirl gently, the dangly at the bottom moving in a circle. She’s looking at me now as if to say, see, I told you so!
I say: “That doesn’t prove anything about chi.”
And she says, with apparent sincere surprise, “Of course it does! See, it’s moving! That’s the chi!”
Are you kidding me? Where do I even begin? “I don’t find that convincing at all. Even if the chain is moving on its own, that could be due to any one of several explanations that don’t involve chi. And it may be that you are moving the necklace yourself, perhaps unintentionally?” I’m trying to be nice but am not willing to back down. Not when we’re supposed to be in freakin’ school.
Professor shakes her head, and moves the necklace from the student’s face to the top of their head: “See, now the chi is moving the necklace in the other direction. It’s there, you can see it.”
I’m a bit flabbergasted that she’s continuing along in this totally ridiculous manner, and I could actually see her moving her hand to twirl the necklace. So I said, “I’m sorry, but I can see you moving the necklace. This isn’t at all convincing. What I would find convincing is if we devised some sort of experiment where we suspend the necklace from a tripod, or something fixed, and then see what happens.” I already have lots of ideas for further refining this experiment to make it more solid, but the point gets across. Now I have her trapped and I can tell because her next comment is this: “Well, it doesn’t always work, it might not work on a tripod, but that just means the person involves has closed their chakras.”
Ooo-kay. I actually liked this because not only did I enjoy sticking her into a corner, but on the surface it’s pretty clever. She has set up a nonfalsifiable hypothesis. Chi makes a chain swing, but a still chain doesn’t disprove chi. Win-win for her, as long as the audience shuts off their brain.
The professor started walking around the class, hanging her necklace in front of different faces and showing how, again and again, it twirls. Which supposedly proves chi. She’s totally run out of anything to say and is clinging to her demonstration which anyone should know doesn’t demonstrate a thing.
This woman is in charge of teaching people.
Here is the thing: I don’t care if you believe in chi. I think it’s stupid and credulous, but if it helps you, or you enjoy it, or whatever, hey, that’s cool. The placebo effect is real and it is powerful. But chi clearly falls into the category of things you do on your free time, not things you teach grad students in school who are trying to prepare for a career in the real world. It is not something you teach as though you can prove it. And if you can’t even see that your “evidence” is totally, totally inadequate… well, what hope is there for you?