Guest guest Posted September 20, 2000 Report Share Posted September 20, 2000 > personally do not see enough research being conducted in our school > system. What are we scared of? Are we afraid that our medicine will > not be as good as we believe? Why do so many people denied that > research as possible for a TCM modality? Fascinating question. I think it is because we have allowed the field to develop an culture of authorities. When we demand scrutiny of the information on which a clinical claim is based it is received as an attack on whomever has made the claim. We accept that a thing is true because someone admired says it is true, as if the first Western generation of clinicians was composed of immortals whose experience is beyond error. Anything that suggests that public scrutiny is necessary, either through research or academic practice, is perceived as an attack on the field because it implicitly asserts that humans are highly reliable producers of error. This, of course, can't be proven but consider the lovely bit of hate mail I received when I refused one person's demand that I censor one writer's criticism of a famous author. After an extensive list of my failings as a human being, the writer claimed that I was harming the field by bringing down ``one of its giants.'' If they can be brought down by critique, are they a giant? If they couldn't be brought down by this critique, haven't they been made greater, so isn't the assumption here that the giant goofed? Or, consider that when Steve Birch and I asserted that successful research studies of acupuncture protocols for problems that could be biomedically indentified would be a reasonable way to accomplish credibility and acquire the funding to do pattern-based trials. We were accused of ``a naive faith in the medical establishment.'' The personal attack is interesting not only because these are implicit admission that someone is at a loss for an effective answer, but also because the supposition behind it is telling. How could trial evidence serve those nasty S.O.B.'s of `the medical establishment,' unless acupuncture were to fail? Think too of all the things so often attacked: translation standards, terminological standards, quantification generally, and research specifically. In every case the authority for these matters is freely available but from disciplines that are ``outside'' the field. We treat these matters as if they were `turf wars' not because they are inherently damaging to Chinese medicine but because they are outside our authority culture. bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445 617-738-4664 You are old when your youth has been reduced to the themes of car commercials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2000 Report Share Posted September 20, 2000 This, of course, can't be proven but consider the lovely bit of hate mail I received when I refused one person's demand that I censor one writer's criticism of a famous author. After an extensive list of my failings as a human being, the writer claimed that I was harming the field by bringing down ``one of its giants.'' If they can be brought down by critique, are they a giant? If they couldn't be brought down by this critique, haven't they been made greater, so isn't the assumption here that the giant goofed? Or, consider that when Steve Birch and I asserted that successful research studies of acupuncture protocols for problems that could be biomedically indentified would be a reasonable way to accomplish credibility and acquire the funding to do pattern-based trials. We were accused of ``a naive faith in the medical establishment.'' The personal attack is interesting not only because these are implicit admission that someone is at a loss for an effective answer, but also because the supposition behind it is telling. How could trial evidence serve those nasty S.O.B.'s of `the medical establishment,' unless acupuncture were to fail?>>>>Very interesting. All TCM modern or Classic texts are writer by people and thus fallible. alon - Robert L. Felt Wednesday, September 20, 2000 11:35 AM Why no research? > personally do not see enough research being conducted in our school> system. What are we scared of? Are we afraid that our medicine will> not be as good as we believe? Why do so many people denied that> research as possible for a TCM modality? Fascinating question. I think it is because we have allowed the field to develop an culture of authorities. When we demand scrutiny of the information on which a clinical claim is based it is received as an attack on whomever has made the claim. We accept that a thing is true because someone admired says it is true, as if the first Western generation of clinicians was composed of immortals whose experience is beyond error. Anything that suggests that public scrutiny is necessary, either through research or academic practice, is perceived as an attack on the field because it implicitly asserts that humans are highly reliable producers of error. This, of course, can't be proven but consider the lovely bit of hate mail I received when I refused one person's demand that I censor one writer's criticism of a famous author. After an extensive list of my failings as a human being, the writer claimed that I was harming the field by bringing down ``one of its giants.'' If they can be brought down by critique, are they a giant? If they couldn't be brought down by this critique, haven't they been made greater, so isn't the assumption here that the giant goofed? Or, consider that when Steve Birch and I asserted that successful research studies of acupuncture protocols for problems that could be biomedically indentified would be a reasonable way to accomplish credibility and acquire the funding to do pattern-based trials. We were accused of ``a naive faith in the medical establishment.'' The personal attack is interesting not only because these are implicit admission that someone is at a loss for an effective answer, but also because the supposition behind it is telling. How could trial evidence serve those nasty S.O.B.'s of `the medical establishment,' unless acupuncture were to fail?Think too of all the things so often attacked: translation standards, terminological standards, quantification generally, and research specifically. In every case the authority for these matters is freely available but from disciplines that are ``outside'' the field. We treat these matters as if they were `turf wars' not because they are inherently damaging to Chinese medicine but because they are outside our authority culture.bob Paradigm Publicationswww.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden StreetRobert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445617-738-4664You are old when your youth has been reduced to the themes of car commercials.Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.