Rem, I was fully aware that the letters addresses both sides of the issue when I posted the link, that is why I posted it, for those who are interested to see for themselves. This may be hard for you to believe, but I was not interested in supporting one side of the issue. However, I am familiar with Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett, and my concern stemmed from Chuck's citing of his work alone.
I'm not that familiar with TT myself and actually don't think that such healing modalities are practical considerations, given the fact that there is a lot an individual can do in terms of lifestyle adjustments. In fact this is more important, even someone I know who is reputed to have what you might categorize as psi ability (he doesn't) has said so. The simple fact of the matter is a lot of chronic problems are brought about by these lifestyle factors, and regardless of the treatment modality one session isn't going to correct that for you.
The relevancy of my own interests lies in my practice of tai chi and qi gong. For those who do not know the position tai chi holds in the martial arts it is no doubt just a nice vascular exercise for old folks in the park, but for people who have mastered the precision of the forms practicing it full speed can even be cardiovascular, but the value of it, to any knowledgeable practioner lies in the 'internal' aspects. In terms of what you call psi claims, however, I'm sure a good deal of the 1200+ studies/abstracts that has thus far been translated into English found in the Qigong Database would address this. Unfortunately, I don't know where one might access this database, but I suspect I can find a local site or if nothing else spare the money and get it from Berkeley if I really wanted to. But frankly, this is not something I am consumed with either so it's not something I put a lot of effort into.
And .. the truth is not everyone is interested in proving something to you even if they know what they're talking about. Some people are more interested in proving it to themselves, or having done that they're more interested in actually practicing or teaching it. I understand the more scientifically minded of us sees statistical evidence as the gold standard, and I understand the reasons behind it, having been educated to that effect. But in case you didn't make the connection, one significance of the martial arts aspect is that direct, physical results are involved. When the results come from a scrawny little guy you're forced to ponder how it works. We say lets see the evidence, some people will think why should I bother getting into this. Actually, the issue is likely to never come up. The bottom line is you only try to prove something if you feel a need to, and I might add if you are personally identified with it. Even if someone is very skilled in a certain ability, it may be that they don't see it as "theirs."
