Fw: [CHA] Research and Criteria

[Guest guest]

Hi Jim, Rey and Attilio,

 

I just got deleted from CHA for pointing out Bob Flaws hubris and for attempting to find a way to moderate debate in the absence of 's moderation. For the foreseeable future. I'll be posting my comments on Chinese Medicine/ for as long as Attilio will have me.

 

Respectfully and in gratitude,

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

- Emmanuel Segmen

Saturday, November 22, 2003 9:12 PM

Re: Re: Research and Criteria

 

Jim,

 

I would recommend that Rey not get distracted from his goal. If quantum physics people needed to convince everyone early on that their work was important, they might not have gotten it done. Also Rey's work may engender genuine interest. I'm a Western scientist, and I'm interested.

 

You recall that Todd mentioned to me that statistical research is important because, well, we have jet planes and computers to communicate with. His point was well taken, and I heartily agree with his point. A common American expression is, "If we can put a man on the moon, then we ought to be able to ....." Fill in the blank. The fact is that our science is rather powerful, awesomely powerful with regard to manipulating the inanimate world. But .... we don't have the sophistication and finesse to treat a living organism with the common cold. We are living in a time of guns and steel. These are not the tools we need nor the theoretical science we need to address living things. Chinese medicine and its theory to me as a scientist has a certain finesse. My colds and flus get resolved within a day, often within hours if I treat myself quickly and directly with acupuncture and herbal formulas. I genuinely want as a Western scientist to be "informed" by CM in its own language. Not in my language. Does that make any sense to you? Do you sense the intrigue I feel? Do you also sense the frustration I feel with regard to Western science's lack of finesse in these area? I feel I've done some good science in the area of molecular biological mechanisms in human chromosomal DNA. I've also had enormous pleasure in teaching both fundamental as well as somewhat sophisticated ideas in anatomy and physiology. Western science has stood by me in some areas, but fallen down in a great many other areas. So CM holds some promise for expanding my own sense of my scientific paradigm. No, I have little interest in watering down CM theory to some artificial common denominator of common language. I don't want to go to some idea which is an illegitimate child of CM. Rather I want to be informed by the source itself. So do you see that Western science studies that look at inanimate objects applied to living organism bores me? Done that. Thank you. Now what Rey is suggesting is really interesting.

 

Anyway, you perhaps get my drift here.

 

Respectfully,

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

 

James Ramholz

Saturday, November 22, 2003 8:09 PM

Re: Research and Criteria

, "Rey wrote:> In my Master's thesis, I have argued that instead of the present state of using laboratory replications to evaluate TCM practice, I propose that evaluation assumes life within the locale of the TCM microworld. The evaluation of TCM practice and it's therapuetics must make visible entities like clinical pattern (zheng hou), formulae, materia medica (yao), Qi, flavours, Channel associations gui jing) etc. >>>Rey:Can you go into more detail about how these concepts can be evaluated so that they can be understood and accepted by people outside our profession?At the outset it seems difficult since Westerns already think that there is no such thing as qi or channels outside of Chinese metaphysics.Jim Ramholz