Guest guest Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 In your another post you said you don't follow my logic. Here it is: You said that studying Chinese language is not necessary to be effective in the clinic. Then you said you were learning Chinese in order to find out whether or not it has an impact on clinical efficacy. My logic holds that these two statements are illogical. If you currently do not know whether or not learning Chinese will impact on clinical efficacy, which I presume you do not for if you did you would not need to find out, then all you can really say is that you do not know. You refer to the opinions and experiences of others who, like yourself work in the clinic day in and day out, and you seem to rely on these opinions as the basis of your conclusion that learning Chinese is not necessary. But that doesn't change the fact that you do not know. How could you possibly be now trying to find out if you already know? Or do you already know and you are now just gathering more information to substantiate your belief? Now why am I belaboring the point? My arguments are summarised in my books, and I have restated and amplified them here from time to time. I'm not entirely sure what you find in them to be so extreme, especially since you seem to have embraced the gist of the whole matter and accepted that, for whatever reasons, Chinese language is an integral part of Chinese medicine. You advise your students to study it. You study it yourself. I have no problem whatsoever with your attitude that you are doing so to find out what sort of impact it will have on your practice. What I object to is your forwarding of a conclusion you have made about the impact of studying language on clinical efficacy when, in fact, you have clearly stated that you do not know what the impact is. This is what I mean when I use the term cognitive dissonance. The field is full of this sort of thing. And it is greatly facilitated by the vacuum left in the gaping hole that exists in the current design of curricula and materials for instruction and qualification in the field. This is the hole represented by the nothingness that exists in most curricula where language, literature, and cultural studies belong. I can testify only to the fact that my own study of the language and of the thinking that underlies both the language and the medical theories and practices has greatly facilitated my capacity to understand and think with these various tools and ideas. It particularly has enhanced my ability to communicate with others. Knowing the integral meanings of the Chinese terms truly does unlock layers of insights that I have found indispensable. And I have gone to great lengths to describe the particulars on many occasions. All this is for just one reason: to share these wonderful experiences with friends and fellow students. I have no other agenda. So I want to ask you, " why? " Why is that you embrace the study of the subject, recommend it to your students, describe yourself as being more with me than against me on the whole matter, and continue to forward this line about it being unecessary? I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. I want to understand. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 > > Why is that you embrace the study of the > subject, recommend it to your students, > describe yourself as being more with me > than against me on the whole matter, > and continue to forward this line about > it being unecessary? > > I appreciate your willingness to discuss > this. I want to understand. > > Ken > Maybe he doesn't believe it is necessary or essential, but believes it will be useful or helpful. Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 Julie, > > Maybe he doesn't believe it is necessary or essential, but believes it will > be useful or helpful. > > Julie Maybe. Probably. What he said is that he is studying it in order to find out what the impact might be. That makes sense. Clearly he finds it useful and helpful or he would not recommend it to students. That makes sense. Saying that he does not know what the outcome of studying it might be and then saying that it is not necessary is a non-sensical disconnect of logic. He has reached a conclusion evidently about something that he is now studying in order to come to a conclusion about. That just doesn't make sense to me, and that is why I want to continue to raise the question, " Why? " Are we catering here to the notion that the field somehow just lacks the resolve to fix something that's been broken for a long time? Is the argument really that people in the field just can't hack the truth? I find that truly, well, repulsive. Contrary to Will's assertion the other day that I do not hold my colleagues in high esteem, I find the bulk of people I meet in this field to be highly intelligent, highly motivated, and, unfortunately highly misled by many of those in positions of authority and expertise who continue to promote the idea that it is somehow ok to condone the absence of several very important aspects of the subject. It just doesn't make sense. It never has. It never will. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 Ken, > > What he said is that he is studying it > in order to find out what the impact > might be. That makes sense. > > Clearly he finds it useful and helpful > or he would not recommend it to students. > That makes sense. > > Saying that he does not know what the > outcome of studying it might be and > then saying that it is not necessary > is a non-sensical disconnect of logic. I disagree with you. He could know he believes it is not necessary or essential (he would know this by having observed many people doing good clinical work without having studied Chinese), but he could also want to find out just how helpful and useful it might be. And he could for that reason recommend it to his students. Of course, he knows it will add SOME usefulness, and he is aiming to find out how much. > Is the argument really that people > in the field just can't hack the truth? > I think we can hack the truth. > I find that truly, well, repulsive. > > Contrary to Will's assertion the > other day that I do not hold my > colleagues in high esteem, I find > the bulk of people I meet in this > field to be highly intelligent, highly > motivated, and, unfortunately highly > misled by many of those in positions > of authority and expertise who continue > to promote the idea that it is somehow > ok to condone the absence of several > very important aspects of the subject. By the way, at Yo San, we require one course of 42 hours in medical Chinese (and that is never enough, but it gives students a push and a beginning, and if they want to continue, they can hire one of our Chinese doctors to give them private instruction -- several have done this). Someone earlier today from another school said they have a course of 16 hours required to graduate. > It just doesn't make sense. > > It never has. It never will. > If you were in charge of planning the curriculum for a 4,000 hour TCM school, you would soon understand that devoting even 42 hours to the study of Chinese is a challenge, with everything else that has to be covered. Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2003 Report Share Posted July 20, 2003 Julie, > > > I disagree with you. He could know he believes it is not necessary or > essential (he would know this by having observed many people doing good > clinical work without having studied Chinese), but he could also want to > find out just how helpful and useful it might be. And he could for that > reason recommend it to his students. Of course, he knows it will add SOME > usefulness, and he is aiming to find out how much. Well, OK. At this point, I think we should just defer to Todd himself to explain or not as he sees fit. I was really taking issue with the statement, which serves a particular function in the public discussion of this subject, which is namely to reinforce the unfortunately widespread impression that Chinese medical language is an optional and dispensable aspect of the study of Chinese medicine. It is not. It is essential. > > > Is the argument really that people > > in the field just can't hack the truth? > > > > I think we can hack the truth. I think so, too, or else I would not bother. > > > I find that truly, well, repulsive. > > > > By the way, at Yo San, we require one course of 42 hours in medical Chinese > (and that is never enough, but it gives students a push and a beginning, and > if they want to continue, they can hire one of our Chinese doctors to give > them private instruction -- several have done this). Someone earlier today > from another school said they have a course of 16 hours required to > graduate. I think all that a school program can do is give people a proper start and a push. That is precisely why I strongly support initiatives, such as the one you describe at Yo San, to include language study in the curriculum. It puts the emphasis on the subject and encourages students to persist. > > > > It just doesn't make sense. > > > > It never has. It never will. > > > If you were in charge of planning the curriculum for a 4,000 hour TCM > school, you would soon understand that devoting even 42 hours to the study > of Chinese is a challenge, with everything else that has to be covered. > If I were in charge of planning such a curriculum I would integrate the language and literary dimensions of the study into each and every step so that students would receive some basic orientation and skills in the early going and then gradually be pushed to build a strong foundation of understanding the concepts, words, terms, and related texts at each step of the educational process. It's not the time as much as what is done in the classes. Again, I think all that students really need is to be told that they need to know the meanings of the words and how the language works in order to fully grasp and appreciate the nature of the theoretical structures and the clinical methods. Then with some help and encouragement, I trust that the bulk would find their way and continue to develop their own interests and strengths based upon their perceived needs and desires. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2003 Report Share Posted July 20, 2003 Contrary to Will's assertion the > other day that I do not hold my > colleagues in high esteem, Ken - you misquote me. My statement was closer to the following: your statements about the about lack of cultivation practices among your colleagues does not esteem them well. This remains true. In a subsequent email you detailed a set of criteria for cultivation that was not provided earlier. Now I can see that it is possible that many colleagues on the list may not be involved in cultivation that is, based on your definition. best regards, Will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2003 Report Share Posted July 20, 2003 This, of course, is a complex issue, Julie. It is difficult to require even 42 hours of medical Chinese because 1) few thought of it as a priority until now 2) for licensure, the boards and colleges have accepted hefty requirements in other areas, such as biomedical topics. The schools have now evolved in a specific direction for the last fifteen years, and it is hard to make big changes. It has been difficult enough to get the Wiseman terminology literature accepted at any official level. It will take a profession-wide effort to change things so that we can significantly more time to the study of medical Chinese. None the less, this change needs to be done, and if starting small is all you can do, so be it. But requiring the course would be much better. On Saturday, July 19, 2003, at 06:58 PM, Julie Chambers wrote: > If you were in charge of planning the curriculum for a 4,000 hour TCM > school, you would soon understand that devoting even 42 hours to the > study > of Chinese is a challenge, with everything else that has to be covered. 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.