(Sorry, I forgot to reference. These quotes are from Wikipedia.)
Through the use of this technique, practitioners believe that they are transferring “universal energy” through the palms of the practitioner, which they believe encourages healing.
It is based on qi (“chi”), which practitioners say is a universal life force, although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists.
Most research on Reiki is poorly designed and prone to bias. There is no reliable empirical evidence that Reiki is helpful for treating any medical condition [...]
What are you quoting? It doesn’t seem to be the article.
It is based on qi (“chi”), which practitioners say is a universal life force, although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists.
It happens to be based on “ki” not “qi”/”chi”. “Qi” (with the alternative spelling “Chi”) is a term of Chinese medicine. Reiki is a framework by a monk of Japanse Buddhism.
Why does anyone still call reiki “therapy”?
The argument against it isn’t that it doesn’t produce effect in studies but that the studies are “poorly designed”. Poorly designed studies that find effects are no reason to update against a framework working.
Chinese medicine makes a bunch of statements such as that chi flows through meridians.
If one is actually intersted in scientific criticism it’s useful to directly address an individual practice like Reiki and not meddle it up with other practices that contain a bunch of different assumptions.
Catholicism makes a bunch of statements such that the bread and the wine used in the Eucharist literally become the body and blood of Jesus. If one is actually intersted in scientific criticism it’s useful to directly address an individual practice like Anglicanism and not meddle it up with other practices that contain a bunch of different assumptions. /s
Based on what I’ve encountered, I’ve interpreted the Japanese version as being more broad and metaphysical (the power of friendship, Killing intent), whereas the Chinese version is more like Alchemy: not quite science, but sorta-kinda tries to be (Fengshui and TCM, but also conservation of energy and such). There is considerable overlap, since ki is literally qi filtered through Japanese culture, but I generally expect people who talk about qi to be more interested in the Alternative Medicine route, whereas Ki indicates one or more of anime fan / Aikido practitioner / practitioner of Japanese spirituality. (These are more probabilities than hard categories; Reiki is a good counterexample.)
whereas Ki indicates one or more of anime fan / Aikido practitioner / practitioner of Japanese spirituality. (These are more probabilities than hard categories; Reiki is a good counterexample.)
Chinese spirituality/meditation practices/internal martial arts like T’ai chi ch’uan and Qigong also use the concept of qi in that sense. In fact, all Japanese martial arts and spirituality/meditation practices derive from Chinese ones.
Qi, ki, prana, etc. are pretty much the same concept, also similar to traditional Western concepts such as pneuma (spirit), psyche/anima (soul), vis vitalis, and so on. People form all cultures noticed early on significant qualitative differences between living things, specifically animals (literally, “things with a soul”) and non-living things, but without a scientific body of knowledge they couldn’t precisely define what life was in a reductionist way, so they resorted to broad and vague notions of “life force”, typically associated with breathing.
Today we have more reductionist definitions of life, typically involving reproduction and homeostasis while in thermodynamic disequilibrium, but we still struggle with a reductionist definition of consciousness.
(Sorry, I forgot to reference. These quotes are from Wikipedia.)
Why does anyone still call reiki “therapy”?
What are you quoting? It doesn’t seem to be the article.
It happens to be based on “ki” not “qi”/”chi”. “Qi” (with the alternative spelling “Chi”) is a term of Chinese medicine. Reiki is a framework by a monk of Japanse Buddhism.
The argument against it isn’t that it doesn’t produce effect in studies but that the studies are “poorly designed”. Poorly designed studies that find effects are no reason to update against a framework working.
Sorry, I forgot to reference. The quotes are from Wikipedia.
Also, qi = ki.
Chinese medicine makes a bunch of statements such as that chi flows through meridians. If one is actually intersted in scientific criticism it’s useful to directly address an individual practice like Reiki and not meddle it up with other practices that contain a bunch of different assumptions.
Catholicism makes a bunch of statements such that the bread and the wine used in the Eucharist literally become the body and blood of Jesus. If one is actually intersted in scientific criticism it’s useful to directly address an individual practice like Anglicanism and not meddle it up with other practices that contain a bunch of different assumptions. /s
Based on what I’ve encountered, I’ve interpreted the Japanese version as being more broad and metaphysical (the power of friendship, Killing intent), whereas the Chinese version is more like Alchemy: not quite science, but sorta-kinda tries to be (Fengshui and TCM, but also conservation of energy and such). There is considerable overlap, since ki is literally qi filtered through Japanese culture, but I generally expect people who talk about qi to be more interested in the Alternative Medicine route, whereas Ki indicates one or more of anime fan / Aikido practitioner / practitioner of Japanese spirituality. (These are more probabilities than hard categories; Reiki is a good counterexample.)
Chinese spirituality/meditation practices/internal martial arts like T’ai chi ch’uan and Qigong also use the concept of qi in that sense. In fact, all Japanese martial arts and spirituality/meditation practices derive from Chinese ones.
Qi, ki, prana, etc. are pretty much the same concept, also similar to traditional Western concepts such as pneuma (spirit), psyche/anima (soul), vis vitalis, and so on. People form all cultures noticed early on significant qualitative differences between living things, specifically animals (literally, “things with a soul”) and non-living things, but without a scientific body of knowledge they couldn’t precisely define what life was in a reductionist way, so they resorted to broad and vague notions of “life force”, typically associated with breathing.
Today we have more reductionist definitions of life, typically involving reproduction and homeostasis while in thermodynamic disequilibrium, but we still struggle with a reductionist definition of consciousness.