The North/South Debate

THE PROBLEM OF PROOF

The consultants who use the 'Southern' School claim that it works. They say the proof is their experience. Unfortunately, those who practice the traditional method make exactly the same claim³². Clearly both methods cannot be right. So how do we distinguish between competing claims? Whom do we believe?

First, which system works? There are actually a few variations. And all of the practitioners claim their system is right, but which one is?

The intention argument.

This states that the intention of the practitioner is the determining factor and it is used primarily by advocates of the Black Hat Sect. It says that if you believe in a system then it will work. But this is a red herring. Why create a new system if intention is the main factor? Surely, if you also intend the traditional system to work, then it will. There would then be no reason to change a thing. This belief also means we can create whatsoever we choose and all that is needed is intention to make it work.

The fact is this argument is absolutely meaningless because it applies equally to all systems and therefore proves nothing.

The proof of experience

The problem with this argument is that practitioners who have radically different systems all claim through experience that their system works. Each is equally adamant and frequently incredulous when questioned. I have not heard of one practitioner who has performed a controlled experiment or who has proved conclusively that one or other system does or does not work. No one to my knowledge has isolated a cure and tried both the traditional and 'Southern' systems in any rigorous manner. Until this is done all claims remain merely anecdotal.

Typically a consultation suggests a number of remedies from both Form and Compass Schools. The first step is to make sure the result claimed by a Compass School remedy is not due to a Form School remedy.

The second step is to use a single cure in both a traditional and 'Southern' mode. For example, put a cure in the southeast for a month and then in the northeast for the next and see what happens to the person's wealth. Or, draw up two Flying Star charts and place one cure from each chart alternately.

Unfortunately, the issue is much more complicated than that. Cures work according to a complex of reasons, some of which include purity of action, the effects of destiny and clarity of intention. Feng Shui is not a purely mechanical science. It may not be possible to find proof from within Feng Shui itself. The problem therefore, will be to work out an acceptable methodology.

Independent proof

Some practitioners have been working with Kinesiology to confirm the efficacy of their Feng Shui. Kinesiology uses Traditional Chinese Medicine as one of its foundation stones. It uses a series of muscle tests to indicate whether or not a remedy is working. If it is not working the muscle will be weak, if it is working it will be strong. The work that has been done recently seems to confirm that the traditional method of Feng Shui is the true system. However, to eliminate error and bias a comprehensive series of tests need to be done. This would need to include a trained and neutral Kineseologist attending consultations of a number of practitioners. Would the advocates of change submit to this test?

The burden of proof

It is an accepted practice that the burden of proof lies on those who propose something new. This paper is an attempt to ask that those practitioners, who advocate a change, justify it. It is not enough to say it works, it must be proven. But first, the advocates of change must decide amongst themselves, which of their systems is right.

This will be difficult. I have questioned some of them and have basically been fobbed off. I got the impression that they wanted me to study with them to find the answers. One teacher implied that I needed to study for a couple of years to begin to understand why his system was the correct one. This is impractical and costly. Who has the time and money to validate each teacher's theories by doing their courses? It is simply avoidance of the central question.

In other disciplines one must prove the integrity of a new system to your peers before you teach it. Unfortunately, Feng Shui has no credible professional association and no system of professional accreditation. Anyone can teach anything, call it Feng Shui and not be called to account.

Public confusion

It is essential that this be done for the sake of Feng Shui itself. There is enough confusion amongst variations of the traditional system without adding to it. (None, of which I might add, propose as fundamental and radical a difference as the 'Southern' School, with the exception perhaps of the Black Hat Sect). Each month sees a new book released, many of which contradict traditional Feng Shui. The public should become justifiably cynical about Feng Shui if they are presented with conflicting and seemingly irreconcilable differences. It is common sense that one must be right and the others wrong.