Header Graphic
There are limitations with how science is currently practiced regarding determining the existence of chi

Certainly most people would agree that science is a wonderful tool for understanding certain things about the natural world. If you need to make a car or a cell-phone or some other work of technology, science and it's cousin, engineering, are the right tools for the job. That said, there are certain limitations of mainstream science as it is currently practiced, when it comes to the study of life-force energies (commonly referred to by a variety of names, including "chi," "prana," "subtle energy," "orgone," and others.) This page is the second of two excerpts from our patent application, and explores some of these limitations. You might also be interested in the first excerpt, "Arguments for the Existence of Chi."

Fallacy that everything important is already known by science

Skeptics frequently argue that there is currently no way of measuring chi, i.e. the only evidence for its existence is the experiential report of (millions of) people. The fallacy in the skeptics argument is an assumption that science already "knows" everything that is true or useful. People who really understand science know that it is a tool for advancing our understanding of the natural world, that it is an ever-expanding paradigm, and that part of this paradigm is that every discovery just leads to more questions asked - more research to be done. Nowhere in the scientific method is there any assertion of the completeness of that which has been discovered.

Science does not presently understand the nature of love, or of any sort of experience

One could also argue that science is relatively useless in terms of one of the most important aspects of human experience - that of love. Yes, science has isolated some mechanisms in the brain involving endorphins and such that are involved with our experience of love. And science can talk about how love is important because it causes parents, for example, to take care of their children, furthering the survival of the species. But science has little of use to say about why love is important to us as an experience. (Note that in many energy paradigms, love is considered to be one of the highest vibrational energies there is.)

Indeed, science has little to say about the nature of experience in general. Yes - science can talk about experience in terms of neurological mechanisms that correlate with pain, pleasure, and such. But science has very little to say about who is in there having that experience of pleasure or pain. Theoretically, you could model the neurological mechanisms involved with various experiences on a computer. But science, so far, has no ability to distinguish between these mechanisms running in a person's neurological systems (in which case, someone is having an experience), and in a computer (in which case, no-one is having an experience). Science has yet to truly understand the nature of experience.

A further point about this is that science is a predominantly left-brained activity - rational, linear, analytical. Perception of chi, in the many disciplines described herein so far, is a predominantly right-brained (intuitive) activity. In our science-based Western culture, people with the greatest analytical capabilities, and who are trained and practicing as scientists, are seen as the most reliable source of truth. And they produce many facts that are of great utility if one needs to accomplish an engineering task such as making a car or a cell phone. And yet they have little or nothing to say about the meaning of life or why we are here or what our purpose is, which are arguably among the most important areas in which to determine truth.

Evolutionary processes are another source of truth, beyond science

There is another source of truth that is highly overlooked in our culture, and that is the wisdom inherent in the process of evolution. Evolution is fundamentally, a vast experiment in terms of what works and what does not. If a trait or structure in an organism helps it to survive, the organism is more likely to reproduce, and the trait or structure is passed on to their progeny. Traits/structures that do not assist an organism in survival result in an organism that is less likely to reproduce, in which case the traits/structures do not get passed on to progeny, and find their way out of the gene pool. The result is something like what we see today in the natural world all around us - a myriad of organisms, each highly adapted and specialized to the world in which it lives, with traits/structures that have been tested and tested and tested, by the process of evolution. The process of evolution has determined with near-absolute certainty, the usefulness of the traits/structures involved with that organism's survival. Therefore, the process of evolution should be considered a highly effective means of determining truth - particularly in the area validating the usefulness of traits/structures of organisms.

This being the case, one could argue that any complex structure or trait that appears in a highly-evolved organism such as a human being must have applicability in terms of survival. It is clear that complex structures such as our intuitive right-brains would not exist if they did not have some ability to enhance our survival, i.e. some ability to discern truth. And yet, the types of truth that are discerned by the right brain are vastly different from those discerned by the left-brain. As such, one could argue that a widely institutionalized method for determining truth, (scientific method) that only involves left-brained processes of linear analysis, will produce incomplete truths, at best. It is the opinion of this inventor, that this argument accurately describes the current relationship between mainstream science and studies of life-force energies (by whatever name), that are easily perceived by the intuition, but which the analytical mind is essentially blind to.

Our perception of truth is limited because intuitive people are generally not well-respected in our culture

One further argument relating to this is that people tend to fall on a spectrum in terms of being more comfortable with the right-brained, intuitive, body-aware types of perceptions, vs. being more comfortable with rational, analytical processes of the left brain. Through many years in the business, the inventor has had an opportunity to talk to many people at all levels of ability at sensing and working with subtle energy. There are people who are extremely gifted intuitively as energy healers, but who have "12:00" flashing on their VCR because they could not figure out how to set the clock. At the other end of the spectrum is the stereotype of the "absent-minded professor," that can do calculus in his head, but can't manage to put on socks that match in the morning. Given that our whole Western, scientific approach to determining "truth" revolves around the latter type of person, and that the former type of person is not generally well-respected, it is easy to see that we could end up with incomplete truths, at best.


To summarize my arguments:

  • Many individuals and cultures have postulated the existence of "chi" or "life-force energy" - developed independently, and over thousands of years. (See "Arguments for the Existence of Chi.")
  • There is a great deal of similarity between what these individuals/cultures say about life-force energy.
  • It is highly unlikely that such similar information could be developed independently unless there actually was some sort of real phenomenon that was being observed.
  • Science does not yet know everything - there is a great deal of the natural world about which the science is not yet understood.
  • Science, being primarily a left-brained analytical process, does not take significant advantage of the intuitive gifts of the right brain.
  • The intuitive gifts of the right brain have been validated independently of science, through the process of evolution, as useful for determining at least certain types of truth related to survival.
  • Given that science and the scientific method make only limited use of our right-brained intuitive capabilities (which have been validated by evolution in terms of their usefulness), science/scientific method can produce only incomplete truths, at best.
  • It is easy to see now, that there is a huge blind-spot in our scientific paradigm, when it comes to things that are best perceived and worked with intuitively. This blind spot is big enough that a phenomenon such as chi/life-force/subtle energy, which is easily perceived by people who have highly developed intuition, could exist and be taught by many disciplines developed independently in many different cultures, and science (as currently practiced) would not be able to even be certain of its existence.

Given the above, a new criterion needs to be established regarding subtle-energy studies. Given that science, as it is currently practiced in the mainstream, does not have the tools with which to develop a useful theoretical model for subtle-energy/life-force, the role of science and the scientific method should be relegated to the answering of one simple question: "is it useful?"

For more information, call toll-free:

Buy Now

Check pricing
and availability

Contact us
by email

Order your free
information kit
Solution Graphics

Copyright 2006 - 2015 David A. Thomas. All rights reserved.
"Perkl-Light", "Do You Perkl?", "Light that You can Feel!" and the oriental character with chakras are all pending trademarks of Star Energetics LLC.
Star Energetics LLC | 2900 S. University Blvd. | Denver | CO | 80210
1-877-737-5548 | Skype: star.energetics
Contact us by Email