logic vs. evidence

[Guest guest]

I want to be clear about something. I definitely believe that in order to

reach the what has always been considered the highest level of

scholar-physician in china, one most definitely has to have high level of

chinese reading skills and knowledge of the classics. I merely contend

that this level of knowledge does not necessarily translate into increased

clinical efficacy. It might seem logical that it would, but there is no

evidence that this is actually the case. In fact, there is ample evidence

that chinese medicine can be practiced effectively even from a purely

allopathic perspective, as evidenced from many chinese and japanese

studies (i.e. with no knowledge of TCM at all). I do not advocate this

style of practice, but that is perhaps based upon my experience that

correct pattern differentiation makes a big difference to me. Until we

have evidence, this is mostly all bluster on every side of the issue.

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

" Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre

minds " -- Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

 

 

Agreed. At some point we need to stop discussing this and present some

sort of evidence one way or the other. Although, realistically, I

doubt this is going to happen.

 

That being said, I also think we should distinguish between

acupuncture and internal medicine. When you say Chinese medicine can

be practiced successfully by people who know little or no Chinese

medicine, I would agree when it comes to acupuncture and am less ready

to agree when it comes to internal medicine. Of course, we also have

to define success. (Haven't we been here before? :-})

 

Bob

 

, <@i...>

wrote:

> I want to be clear about something. I definitely believe that in

order to

> reach the what has always been considered the highest level of

> scholar-physician in china, one most definitely has to have high

level of

> chinese reading skills and knowledge of the classics. I merely

contend

> that this level of knowledge does not necessarily translate into

increased

> clinical efficacy. It might seem logical that it would, but there

is no

> evidence that this is actually the case. In fact, there is ample

evidence

> that chinese medicine can be practiced effectively even from a

purely

> allopathic perspective, as evidenced from many chinese and japanese

> studies (i.e. with no knowledge of TCM at all). I do not advocate

this

> style of practice, but that is perhaps based upon my experience that

> correct pattern differentiation makes a big difference to me. Until

we

> have evidence, this is mostly all bluster on every side of the

issue.

>

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

> voice:

> fax:

>

> " Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre

> minds " -- Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

Bob, and All,

 

I'm not sure why, but I feel compelled to

respond to this post.

 

, " Bob Flaws

<pemachophel2001> " <pemachophel2001> wrote:

>

>

> Agreed. At some point we need to stop discussing this and present

some

> sort of evidence one way or the other. Although, realistically, I

> doubt this is going to happen.

>

> That being said, I also think we should distinguish between

> acupuncture and internal medicine. When you say Chinese medicine

can

> be practiced successfully by people who know little or no Chinese

> medicine, I would agree when it comes to acupuncture and am less

ready

> to agree when it comes to internal medicine. Of course, we also

have

> to define success. (Haven't we been here before? :-})

 

We certainly have been here before,

and as the poet predicted, " we shall

not cease from exploration. And the

end of all our exploring will be

to arrive where we started and

know the place for the first time. "

 

But I'm not so sure that we know

the place yet.

 

Speaking of logic, I have to point

out that there is an inherent illogic

in Todd saying that he has no particular

aptitude for Chinese language and then

proceeding to make it perfectly clear

in terms of its importance in the

study of Chinese medicine.

 

Were I to report that I have no

particular aptitude for mathematics

and then proceed to make the importance

of studying mathematics perfectly clear...

 

Well...

 

I also want to point out that logic

does not stand in opposition to evidence.

Logic is a kind of evidence, and all

evidence is presented within the context

of a given logic or it is evidence of

nothing at all.

 

I also do not agree that we need to

compile some sort of open and shut

case, full of either logic or evidence,

to somehow prove that it is a good idea

for professionals to know the meanings

of the words they use.

 

To my admittedly limited mind, this

proposition seems more or less an

apriori truth. People who do not

know the meanings of the words they

use tend to appear as if they don't

know what they're saying.

 

Perhaps therein lies one factor in

the attrition rates of both schools

and the profession as a whole, though

to date I can find virtually no one

who will even engage in a conversation

about these things, let alone who has

accurate statistics that reflect how

the education system that more or

less steadfastly ignores the meanings

of Chinese medical terms is really

doing.

 

One comparison that would be quite

interesting to make is the endurance

of SIOM grads compared to that of

graduates of other programs that

do not include a grounding in

Chinese medical language.

 

Anyone who's looking for evidence

of the workability of educational

systems that include Chinese medical

language need look no further than

places like Japan, Korea, and China

for that matter.

 

For anyone who's interested, I've

just put up a little test post at

the Paradigm site in the Forum

section that presents a bunch of

Chinese characters within a hastily

written and very brief essay on the

etymology of the character Ã÷ ming2,

which is a common term in Chinese medical

nomenclature and an important concept

in traditional Chinese knowledge.

 

And I want to wish everyone on

the list a healthy and prosperous

New Year of the Goat!

 

¹ýÄêºÃ£¡

 

Ken