« first day (1944 days earlier)      last day (2841 days later) » 

Oddthinking
Oddthinking
4:29 AM
I want to let out an exasperated sigh for all the "press room" sections of web-sites belonging to organisations, that contain nothing relevant to the current stories in the news.
If the press say "This organisation released a report yesterday", and your press room web-site doesn't say "Here is a report we yesterday", then what exactly is the point?
 
 
14 hours later…
user183836
6:17 PM
would it be possible for any question asking whether a person used chi energy to do something to be on topic?
 
user183836
 
user183836
what if we had a question/answer that established that there is no evidence for the existence of an independent force or energy called chi that we could use to close these others as duplicates
 
user183836
here, we say that chi as described by acupuncturists doesn't exist: web.archive.org/web/20150330114911/http://…
 
user183836
 
user183836
Oddthinking said "In the uses you have quoted from Tai Chi, it makes no testable predictions and is unscientific. It isn't meaningful to ask whether it is true or false from a scientific perspective, because the natural world would be exactly the same either way."
 
user183836
6:27 PM
I agree with that, which is why I doubt that any question asking whether a person used chi to do something could possibly be on topic
 
user183836
6:54 PM
i guess the same goes for any question that asks whether an unscientific concept was the cause of a thing..
 
user183836
did a ghost move that cup
 
user183836
did chi protect this monk from a drill
 
user183836
did god save this baby
 
user183836
but what close reason to use...
 
user183836
7:17 PM
they're notable claims, cause people believe them.
 
user183836
maybe "blatently off-topic"
 
user183836
maybe primarily opinion based, because it can't be based on evidence
 
Sklivvz
Sklivvz
10:22 PM
I think they are simply very unclear -- "Chi" is a possible interpretation, but the question should be about the effect. "Did that man jump on the ceiling?" is way clearer than "Is chi the correct explanation as to how that man jumped on the ceiling?"
If acupuncture worked, it wouldn't imply that chi is the cause, which is why it's way better to get it off the question.
 
user183836
10:54 PM
But we don't get to say what the claim is.
 
user183836
If the widely believed claim is "Chi caused this", then that's the claim, right?
 
user183836
If I understand you correctly, you agree that these questions would be off-topic here, but for the reason of "there's a better question that should have been asked"
 
user183836
... I am trying to find one of the existing close reasons that would work
 
user183836
Unclear could work, but based on "chi" not being well-defined
 
user183836
or ghosts, or god
 
user183836
10:57 PM
but if the underlying reason is "there's a better question that should/could have been asked", I don't think "unclear" is the reason to use
 

« first day (1944 days earlier)      last day (2841 days later) »