UK-Skeptics Qi Chi Ch'i Definition - Six Years and Counting!

here, I reach back into my archives and post a 2005 annotated scan of the UK-Skeptics' qi definition:

001. UK-Skeptics :

001.a. state currently in "Qi, Chi, Ch'i":

"qi is a metaphysical belief [...in] universal life force or energy [...that] permeates all matter [...and is] the source of life [...with] roots in vitalism [...a] belief that life, the soul, or the spirit is separate from the physical form [a form of dualism, actually...] qi has never been measured or shown to exist."

Note: this is the same language as in 2005.  I've often labeled naturopathy's 'qi'-like premise 'purposeful life spirit', as it encompasses teleology, spiritism-dualism, and vitalism.

001.b. wrote in 2005, which I printed, highlighted, and scribbled-up:

Note: such vitalism is a core premise of naturopathy, which is still falsely labeling itself all across North America as "science-based".  When is evidence not necessary to make a scientific claim?  Naturopathy.  So when is nonscience and science the same thing?  Naturopathy.  When is a physician also a metaphysician and a belief system wrongly termed "objective"?  You got it:

 

in naturopaTHICKland.

Where's the Qi? aka Vote to Defund NCCAM, & Absurdity:

here, I encourage readers to vote to defund the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine [NCCAM; see 001., below {thanks PZ}], and I illustrate the absurdity of claiming as a foundation for a "science" a premise that lacks any scientific support [see 002., below]:

001. vote to defund the NCCAM, per:

"any legitimate, promising medical treatment can be funded by one of the existing NIH Institutes. There's no need for a separate center for 'alternative' therapies - but what has happened is that NCCAM has become a last refuge for poorly designed, unscientific studies that couldn't get funded through the normal peer-reviewed process [...] the fact is that after >10 years, NCCAM has not yet found a single piece of positive evidence for any of these methods, which include acupuncture, 'qi', homeopathy, magnet therapy, and other treatments."

Note: qi, essentially, does not exist in any scientific sense.

002. absurdly, meanwhile, naturopathy:

002.a. uses the overall labels of "health science", "branch of medical science", "science-based" and such.

002.b. has as its keystone premise both vitalism and supernaturalism.

002.c. labels homeopathy and acupuncture clinical sciences.

002.d. while vitalism is science-ejected, supernaturalism is science-ejected, homeopathy is an elaborate placebo, and acupuncture is an elaborate placebo.

Note: so, the 'without scientific support' or 'explicitly science-ejected' is equal to the 'explicitly labeled scientific' for naturopathy...

absurd.