Paul Unschuld's unanswerable question

[Guest guest]

Jim,

I would, in principle, think that one can only speculate what Chinese

medicine's role will be in Western culture and politics, because this

is such a complex and evolving area. There's not even any reason to

think that it would be 'one' thing, which is certainly already the

case. One can certainly make proposals, as an individual, of what one

thinks it should be, and it's already apparent that there are many

such proposals. In a sense, Unschuld's is one. My own suggestion would

be that we should resist any attempt to define what CM is or should be

in our culture, that does not respect the following characteristics of CM:

 

It is pluralistic and heterogenous

It is incoherent

It is not scientific in any narrow, modern Western cultural sense

It is associated with ways of thinking and approaching reality which

are different from the modern Western worldview

 

 

I suggest that any attempt to define what CM 'is' or 'should be', as a

discrete entity, will involve violating one or more of the above

characteristics of CM.

 

Considering your question 'does Western

culture and politics think that Western medicine is coherent and

scientific?'

 

If we are fuzzy enough in our thinking, we can certainly believe that

Western medicine is scientific and coherent, but beyond this, any

proper consideration of this question must first, I suggest, define

what is meant by 'scientific'. Is science merely a form of cultural

activity with certain rules? If so, does this activity as it's carried

out in practice obey its own rules? I would be interested if anyone

has any suggestions as to how we should approach this. If we accept

Karl Popper's point, science involves making statements that are

falsifiable, and verification is never possible. So, in any rigorous

sense, science can never be about determining truth, a point which is

made by Thomas Kuhn in a different way. Must science must always rest

on assumptions that themselves are not verifiable?

 

Anyone have any suggestions about what science is, before one

considers whether Western medicine conforms to this?

 

Wainwright

[Guest guest]

At 6:32 AM +0000 10/19/03, wainwrightchurchill wrote:

>My own suggestion would

>be that we should resist any attempt to define what CM is or should be

>in our culture, that does not respect the following characteristics of CM:

>

>It is pluralistic and heterogenous

>It is incoherent

>It is not scientific in any narrow, modern Western cultural sense

>It is associated with ways of thinking and approaching reality which

>are different from the modern Western worldview

--

 

So, the next time a patient asks me about Chinese medicine, this is

what I should say to them?!

 

Rory

--