Asking the wrong questions
![Image](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbBeCUZVorDrr-YjSdu6X1r-kMNASDz9DrzTnlPg7xvANaKdylTDVpXtciEYGONhCBoRn4f504Af9X1xf4BjgdC3h7vU50dOmePuJdFfAzS-vx2x3vD2NMYVwOBF25Rj9e8km_dCRGNv0/s1600/Rob's%2Bthrow.png)
Following my last article " The woo way of taijiquan " I have received a lot of feedback in various places (Facebook, forums, etc.) . Most of it has been overwhelmingly supportive and positive. This is heartening. Some of it has been very negative. I suppose that is to be expected when your write polemics as I do. In relation to the latter, I've had a number of consistent questions and I thought I'd address them here: "How can you say you're being 'scientific' when you haven't done any kind of proper study?" This argument suggests that I haven't really done enough to claim that "science backs me up". Well it's true that I haven't done a scientific study. What I have done is point out that basic physics doesn't support the woo merchants - ie. that their claims are extraordinary . And, despite any initial sophist protestations, I think they would have to agree: If basic physics did support thei