Talk:Acupuncture point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Lead section and pseudoscience category

Removed this from lead: "To date, scientific investigation has not found evidence supporting the location or usefulness of these points." Not an accurate statement, as perusal of research in acupuncture and acupressure will show. Removed category:pseudoscience. Editors wishing to keep it bear the burden of evidence, and need to show that a majority of scientists (and not merely a majority of local CSICOP chapters) hold this view. Otherwise, we should stick to "who says X, and why" in the article, presenting all views fairly but not endorsing them with a cat per WP:CG. As WP:NPOV says, "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct." Removing the cat tag asserts NO view as correct. Jim Butler(talk) 11:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Added some stuff on scientific evidence. In light of that, the above edit is justified, and I'm repeating it on the new version. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 05:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Just added a section on criticism as pseudoscience. Never let it be said I don't write for the enemy. NPOV is great, but not the POVish category:pseudoscience in this case. Jim Butler(talk) 09:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved that sentance to the criticism section. Rhetth 01:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acupuncture point and martial arts

The section on martial arts mentions the "Death touch" as if it existed. To my knowledge (and I am fully aware that I might very well be wrong) it's existence have never been proven. Furthermore, it's only reference comes seems to come from the articles of a single person. A revision or atleast a rephrasing seems to be in order. 14 november 2006

Well, the technical term is the "Touch of Death", not the "Death Touch." Such a thing exists, but it's so fantastically difficult to pull off that very few people have actually done it. Additionally, evidence for it is scarce because you can't ethically train a "Touch of Death" (as in, you can't kill people.) It has been known to have been used however. You can google "Touch of Death" and get a Straight Dope article that, while skeptical, discusses how the Touch of Death can actually occur. While it doesn't cite very many primary sources, it does give a cursory explanation. The criticisms should hardly be taken as truth, but it at least backs it up a bit. You can find more about it through a bit of Googling, I'd imagine. .V. 16:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Even so, those articles tell of ways to cause high amounts of damage with a suprisingly low application of force. Not the manipulation of Qi, Chi or Ki to kill. The phrasing of the article and the way it's formulated makes it seem as though the death touch exists, while providing no proof of such. It also starts with "Some believe" a phrase that if I recall correctly is considered a Weasel word? And last but not least, lack of evidence is not evidence. 15 november 2006
Soz for the late reply! Anyway, the method by which that damage occurs is through Qi, Chi and Ki. Ki energy isn't just "look at someone and die." It's the focus which allows such moves to be possible. Just because that article contains a weasel word, meh, still doesn't make it not true. .V. 15:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Qi, Chi and Ki is a unproven energy. Doesn't matter if it claims lets you shoot beams of fire from your eyes or just hold your breath a milisecond longer. There is no scientific proof of it's existence. Thus, until it's existence is fact it has to be clearly stated that it's not proven. Weasel words do the opposite. They say it's unproven but make it sound like it is. In short, it's not my job to disprove the death touch, it's your to prove it. Your trying to prove something using more unproved things as proof, which is just ilogical. 20 november 2006
Qi, Chi and Ki don't need to be proven. That's like AFD'ing an article about God because nobody has verfiably proved its existence. If your logic was applied to every article on Wikipedia, there would be nothing religious in nature. My point is, there doesn't need to be a proof that Qi, Chi and Ki exists; because it is a very widespread belief, it merits inclusion into Wikipedia. Because the touch of death exists (through the focus that martial arts practicioners that is -attributed- to Ki, etc), it merits inclusion as well. Whether it is verifiably -because- of Ki or because of a belief in Ki, well, that's a matter that may never be proven. .V. 23:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The articles about God don't claim he exists... And I'm not saying you should eliminate the section, but make it more clear that Qi and the death touch have not been proven by scientific means or give a reference that gives PROOF of it's existence. I agree with you about Ki not needing to be proved, but in the context of being a BELIEF. Once you stray into it's use for killing or healing, it needs to prove itself. By your reasoning, we would include every form of faith healing, unproven claim of magic powers, esp and mysterious ninjutsu powers if enough people believe in it. I constantly see you claim the death touch exists, yet I still have seen NO proof that it does. 22 november 2006
Granted, the articles about God don't claim he exists. If you want to say that the existence of Qi is unproven, well, I think that's something for the article (which I believe is Ki.) The problem with the touch of death is that after it's used, bam. That's it. There's no survivors. Additionally, testing is considered unethical, because the subject would die. (Gives a new meaning to subject mortality, eh? You try to run a study called "Examining the Touch of Death" and see how many people sign up. They'd be signing their own death warrant.) So information on it is scant, but available. Unfortunately, there is not much on the internet but rather in book form. ANYWAY, you can find enough proof of the Touch of Death on the internet to justify its inclusion in the article. It works on acupunture points. You can state that is uncertain if Qi causes this, but keep in mind that the current version of the article talks about using the points to kill (which is indeed possible.) I mean, not only are there piles of information on the internet, the ToD is common knowledge. The touch of death probably, by my estimation, is used at least once a week somewhere in the Orient, so perhaps we should have an Oriental editor chime in? ANYWAY, here's the point: Qi/Ki is unproven and so that can be stated. Touch of Death = proven to work by accupunture points. So yes, you're right in part, but I think that the death touch (well, technically touch of death as it called by the grand masters) should definitely have a place in this article. (BTW, you can sign your posts by giving four tildes at the end.) .V. 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the article states this would be from "impacting the flow" of Ki. So, even if you are correct it needs to be revised for your other claim. And I said it once and I say it again: A inability to prove something does not make it evidence. For example: I can kill people by looking at them. I just blink and they EXPLODE!!!!! Like bang! But I can't prove I can do it, cause that be murder. Don't you think there should be a wikipedia article for the "exploding eye technique"? And I hear (read) you mention proof, both in books and on the net, but where is it? Why isn't it cited as reference, why can't you give me a link? It's not my work to disprove it, but yours to prove it. You don't go to court to prove you didn't do it, you go there to the so the prosecutor can prove you did. The same applies here. And if the ToD is common knowledge as you claim, how come I never seen someone on trial for murder using it? Afterall, if it's used once per week to kill someone I think there be a rush to find a way to prove it. Otherwise there be a unsolvable murder every week. Furthermore, your estimate is irrelevant. It directly violates the "No original research" rule. In short, I just see you claim there is evidence without actually presenting any. (And I'm not a member, so alas signing my comments wouldn't really work. Can do this though:) Mort 26 november 2006
You do know that you can say "is alleged to impact the flow of Ki", right? Just because it's not proven doesn't merit inclusion -- Wikipedia also includes beliefs. Anyway, you also know that there are unsolved murders all the time, yes? So, to make you happy, I did a quick Google search. Here are some refs:

http://www.paladin-press.com/detail.aspx?ID=22 http://www.bigbearacademy.com/dim-mak.html http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/investigating-the-dim-mak-death-touch/#more-20 http://www.dimmakworld.com/booksnmanuals.asp http://www.newstarget.com/007545.html http://www.taiji-bagua.co.uk/dim-mak.htm http://athleticscholarships.net/martial-arts-dim-mak.htm http://jillett.com/JillettPublications/booksellers/SDMV.shtml http://www.amazon.co.uk/Main-Meridians-Encyclopedia-Dim-Mak/dp/0873649230 http://www.booktrail.com/Video_SelfDefense/Secrets%20of%20Dim-Mak.asp .V. 05:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said the part about the touch of death should be removed. I said it should be revised or rephrased (or perhaps simply link to wikipedias Dim mak article?) to better show that it is largely that, a belief. A unproven concept. But by using your estimates, that's 51 unsolved murders per year in the orient, with the exact same cause of death. A figure that big doesn't go unnoticed. Unsolved murders and 51 unsolved murders with the exact same cause of death are a world apart. And how exactly did you come to these numbers? Afterall, you must have somehow gathered data on unsolved murders in the orient, searched them for identical causes of death and then come to the conclusion that this was the death touch. What exactly is listed as the cause of death when someone is struck by the death touch? And since you obviously have sources, why not use them as a reference (although I noticed some contradict eachother)? Mort 27 november 2006
Yes, sources may contradict each other from time to time. Differing viewpoints, you know. Anyway, did you know that there are many, many unsolved murders in the United States? In 2004, there were over 6,300. So I'd have no doubt that there are many more in the Orient. (http://ask.yahoo.com/20060531.html) We have much bigger figures than 51 in the United States, so why would that be surprising in light of over 6k unsolved murders? So yes, as long as the proper parts are stated as being unproven (use of Ki, etc) that's okay. .V. 15:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but we can find out how to these people died. Blunt trauma, gunshoot wounds etc. We can define how they killed. Surely, to reach the number of one per week you must have done some form of research. So, I ask again: what is the listed cause of death when someone is killed by the death touch? My problem is not beliving 51 people can die in Asia, my problem is that 51 people can die in Asia every year for what, 200-300 years (How long have Dim Mak existed?) without anybody even being able to determine how they died. For if we could determine how they died, then the Death touch would be proven, or atleast possible to be proven. Mort 4 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.254.128.180 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
That would be a series of really difficult research that I'd rather not do. For one, I'd have to speak either Chinese or Japanese (probably both) in order to look this up. Secondly, it would be quite difficult to find the information in the first place. So I think that question will have to go unanswered for now, unless you're up to it. .V. 14:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] identifying accupuncture points

How were the points first found? I understand that currently the points are located by referencing anatomical landmarks, but how were their positions first realized? Was tehre some ancient who could allegedly see them, or perhaps feel their locations? I've always wondered about this and feel it would be a significant contribution to the article if someone could add that information. -Shaggorama 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How they came up with acupuncture points is not known. They have been in use for at least 4,000 years. The records from 2,000 BCE are very spotty. Two predominant theories exist.
One is that a great seer perceived them and handed down through oral tradition.
The other is that through trial and error it was figured out. Example: A man suffering from digestive issues gets shot in the knee with an arrow. Now his leg hurts but his digestion has never been better. You can see this would be a difficult article to research, but some medical anthropologists could be quoted on the theories.--Remark knights (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A comprehensive listing of points?

It would seem to me that this article would be a good place for a listing of known and accepted accupressure, accupuncture, or other effective points on the body. I'm going to start it with the 3-mile leg point, cited from an excerpt from the book 'Acupressure's Potent Points' by Michael Reed Gach, Ph. D. Rhetth 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should be done; each point should have its own page and each should have its link in this page, in a table, for instance (I wonder if pictures, e.g. from WHO, could be legally used). My addition (evidence from neuroimaging studies; added following a suggestion by Jim Butler) offers a wider view on the phenomenon. The following section would be greatly enhanced if it included all the other points in a concise way. Cheers, Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I created pages for the two points found in "specific distal points".
I believe it's good to keep an inclusive but concise list which doesn't necessarily contain experimental justifications (studies)(the one you began in "1.2 listing of points";
for all these points, a table would be appropriate: "Name(s) of the point (with link to its page, if any), translation of the name, location, effects, supporting research (if any))
and another, shorter list, listing points which have been researched according to generally accepted standards (RCTs, neuroimaging studies, anecdotal evidence, etc.). Would you (or others) say it's a good idea, for now? Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 03:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's too much here, they could be listed along pages for each meridian. That's how they are done on the Chinese pages (although not very clearly for most of them). Or perhaps add a List of acupuncture points. I've also added a category Category:Acupuncture points for any new ones that are added. Rigadoun (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and made that list of points. They're all red-linked now (except for those three you've made) so, please, add pages of points if you please. A shorter list of more commonly used points can be put here. Rigadoun (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that since we have a list of acupuncture points now that we go ahead and delete the reference to Three Leg Mile in favor of just pointing to the List of acupuncture points. Similar to the way large music discographies are handled. --Remark knights (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)