Chi is mystical like electricity. We may not understand it but we can see what it does. It is an hypothesis which can generated fruitful theories which (in case the doctor hasn’t been reading) have been confirmed by double-blind clinical controlled trials.

As to the philosophy - an hypothesis about chi may be just as scientific as one about nerves. They can both generate hypotheses that can be tested. Acupuncture has been decidedly empirical for millenia.

As to the doctor’s own theory (it is always easier to attack another’s theory than to address the difficulties in your own) I would like an explanation why pins stuck in the same nerve at different points generate different effects and why some points not on the major nerve pathways have effects.

I absolutely endorse the call for quick and effective training of acupuncturists. It is here where the traditional is especially valuable - it refers directly to expeience (despite the appalling efforts of Wiseman and Ellis to obscure this and generate a falsely medicalised vocabulary). The traditional makes better sense and is more easily learned.

And a final piece of philosophy. Science too has its inconsistencies and vagueries (one’s that leave chi in the shade). I’ll mention but one - the notion of ’cause’. I haven’t stubbed my toe against a cause recently.

This is a really remarkable speech, it should be required reading. It would be an excellent starting point for a discussion of the place of ideas in practice.

Has anyone ever tried smoking a highly concentrated extract?