Ben Morrish

'Life Energy' isn't real



Posted: Sunday, April 13, 2008

by
http://alltruism.blogspot.com

Any practice that claims to manipulate, channel or balance "life energy" (or 'life force' or any other mysterious vitalist 'power) should be forced to demonstrate the existence of that energy.

If it can't, it should be closed down or at the very least should withdraw any references to 'life energy'.

We actually know a fair bit about energy, so if people are going to use the term they should use it properly.

I want to know what process converts, for example, chemical energy into this "life energy", what the efficiency of the conversion is etc.

If you practice a system of medicine that works but for which we don't have working explanation of how it works, don't just make up an explanation by bending terms around until they have no meaning.

As far as I'm concerned, suggesting there's a whole type of energy that exists only in relation to living beings is either arrogance or delusion.

Living things are, from our highly biased point of view, amazing and wonderful things, but to the universe, we're just utterly insignificant specks of highly localised ordered complexity. We are a result of the standard rules of physics.

To suggest that when life came into existence, it bought with it a new type of energy into the universe is surely madness....Spaaaarta!

Benjamin K Morrish is a UK-based amateur writer, interested in a wide range of topics from science to silliness.
 
He enjoys debating science, pseudoscience and religion, and spends a lot of time over at Richard Dawkins.net.
 
When he isn't there, he can usually be found writing his blog, All True.
 
Despite having passed the big 3-0 and having the cynicism of a man twice his age, he regularly gets asked for identification when trying to purchase alcohol.
 
 
This Article has been viewed 152 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)
» left by Susan Thom
 3 years 297 days ago.
175 fans.
hi ben, i understand your desire to share your opinion, but others have theirs' too, and those opinions are just as important to them as yours are to you. none of us knows anything, really. we simply have our opinions. thanks for a well written story, best regards, sue thom
» left by 3 years 297 days ago.
When there is verifiable observational evidence, opinions that contradict it are of no value, they are demonstrably false. Opinion is fine in the absence of evidence one way or the other, but where evidence does exist, where facts are known, opinion ceases to have value. As an example, 2 + 2 = 4. If someone is of the opinion that 2+2 is actually 5, their opinion shouldn't be given credence or respect unless they can provide evidence to support it. Opinion is great for non-factual matters (like "do blue jeans look cooler than black ones?", but it is not great when it comes to making truth statements about the facts of reality or logic.
» left by sue thom from nj 3 years 297 days ago.
hi ben thanks for clearing that up, i understand now. but i still think your style could be a little softer. best regards, sue thom
» left by 3 years 297 days ago.
Well, I can certainly accept that Sue, I do tend to adopt a fairly harsh style writing on science-based issues. I'm nicer in my casual observation pieces, I promise ;-)
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.