If you separate things out, I guess you have anger at the reuse of the word energy and anger at the belief that the concept of qi (or whatever you're using the word energy to describe) is a useful way to describe anything with real-world relevance.
I probably agree that scientists don't have much of a right to insist that their careful definitions of words like "force", "energy", "mass" etc should override previous meanings, not to mention the general free-for-all nature of the English language.
I think it's more reasonable to object to claims that qi has physical meaningfulness, so long as those objections are to the lack of scientific evidence for the theory.
Anger at the fact that hundreds of years after the Enlightenment people are still basing their worldviews on unquestioning acceptance of what they've been told by authority figures and on highly subjective interpretations of personal experience - that's probably also justified, but not really possible to blame on individual people on Twitter...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I probably agree that scientists don't have much of a right to insist that their careful definitions of words like "force", "energy", "mass" etc should override previous meanings, not to mention the general free-for-all nature of the English language.
I think it's more reasonable to object to claims that qi has physical meaningfulness, so long as those objections are to the lack of scientific evidence for the theory.
Anger at the fact that hundreds of years after the Enlightenment people are still basing their worldviews on unquestioning acceptance of what they've been told by authority figures and on highly subjective interpretations of personal experience - that's probably also justified, but not really possible to blame on individual people on Twitter...