Incommensurability of paradigms

[Guest guest]

to live outside the law you have to be honest

bob dylan

 

doug

 

> One never knows, does one?

>

> Fats Waller

>

> PS.

>

> You do have to know the rules very well

> in order to break them.

>

> The Hypocrite

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel,

I agree with the gist of your response to Rory, and also agree that

it's an important question.

 

Without doubt, statistical studies are not CM of the past. One should

also explore the ethos of introducing statistics in these matters.

However, it does seem to me that, as long as we create a paradigm for

CM (which perhaps is something that TCM is), it is theoretically

possible to conduct statistical studies of CM within its own

frameworks, or even in interaction with biomedicine - i.e. use

biomedical disease categories, differentiate with CM categories, etc.

What do you, and others, think about that?

 

Wainwright

 

 

 

 

-

" Emmanuel Segmen " <susegmen

 

Saturday, October 25, 2003 11:32 PM

Re: Incommensurability of paradigms

 

 

> Rory,

>

> Statistics is a subset of the calculus ... and nothing else.

Calculus is not a paradigm tool in CM. Fingers are a paradigm tool

common to counting apples in many languages. Your question is an

important one. Perhaps one of the most important questions of late.

My response to you now ... as in the past ... is that statistical

studies of CM are not CM. They are Western science. When you look at

statistical studies of CM you learn about Western science. In my

opinion, you do not learn about CM.

>

> Emmanuel

> -

> Rory Kerr

>

> Saturday, October 25, 2003 5:48 AM

> Re: Incommensurability of paradigms

>

>

> Wainwright,

>

> Thanks for your interesting post.

>

> Going back to a previous discussion, I believe you and others said

> that the use of research would inevitably lead to the

> bio-medicalization of Chinese medicine. I'm interested in

> understanding how this might come about.

>

> Part of my question is, what can be considered strongly paradigmatic,

> and what may not? ie what may be useful in, or common to, more than

> one paradigm. For example, are methods of measurement paradigmatic?

> It seems to me, that in order to count ten apples, ten Chinese

> fingers are much the same as ten European fingers. A digital

> calculator and an abacus can both render the same arithmetic results.

> If so, can we not extend this analogy to the use of more

> sophisticated methods of counting, such as statistics? Is the use of

> statistical measurement so at odds with the paradigm of Chinese

> medicine, that any measured results are not longer associated with

> that paradigm? In what way would the use of statistics to measure

> clinical outcomes of CM treatment, render those results meaningful in

> terms of bio-medicine?

>

> Rory

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken

 

Just a small token of support.

 

I thoroughly enjoy and love your postings. They always let my day

start with a smile. Whether I agree or not, you have a way of

bringing it I really enjoy.

 

Alwin

 

, " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008> wrote:

> Fernando,

>

> >

> >

> > One could always jazz things up, play by ear and improvise. No?

> >

> > Fernando

>

> One never knows, does one?

>

> Fats Waller

>

> PS.

>

> You do have to know the rules very well

> in order to break them.

>

> The Hypocrite

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel Segman wrote:

> Statistics is a subset of the calculus ... and nothing else.

Calculus is not a paradigm tool in CM. Fingers are a paradigm tool

common to counting apples in many languages. Your question is an

important one. Perhaps one of the most important questions of late.

My response to you now ... as in the past ... is that statistical

studies of CM are not CM. They are Western science. When you look at

statistical studies of CM you learn about Western science. In my

opinion, you do not learn about CM.

--

 

Emmanuel,

 

Thanks for addressing my question so directly. I'm very interested in

better understanding the general ideas that are being discussed here,

such as theories of the philosophers, but I also want to make sure I,

and we as a profession, don't misapply them. In the end we have to

decide what to do based on our best understanding, and whether to

involve ourselves in research is a crucially important question

effecting our professional future.

 

What I want to find out is, do these generalizations apply to the

particular circumstances we are faced with. Do they apply to the

following examples, and how?

 

1. There have been many studies of the use of acupuncture to treat

morning sickness, and that acupuncture performed according to the

theories and practices of oriental medicine has been shown to be

clinically effective, to the degree of sufficient certainty that such

treatment can be scientifically recommended, even though the

biological mechanism is unknown.

 

It seems to me that the theories and practices of Chinese medicine

were not impacted in these studies; they were not questioned by the

studies. What was studied was not Chinese medicine, but was a

clinical outcome. So, in what way is the the theory and practice of

Chinese medicine bio-medicalized in this example?

 

2. Paul Unschuld uses statistical methods to measure historical data

in his work studying Chinese medical history. Does this fact make his

work suspect as a source for information about Chinese medical

history, as it is taught to students of Chinese medicine?

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

it is theoretically

possible to conduct statistical studies of CM within its own

frameworks, or even in interaction with biomedicine - i.e. use

biomedical disease categories, differentiate with CM categories, etc.

What do you, and others, think about that?

>>>>TCM is already inseparable from WM as WM had a strong influence on the

creation of TCM. If we are to go back to CM of the past we need to then do the

impossible, that is extract (purge) information from our minds

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Many of these issues are explored, including writings by Wainwright, at

 

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/320/7228/188/a#6351

 

 

 

doug

 

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> it is theoretically

> possible to conduct statistical studies of CM within its own

> frameworks, or even in interaction with biomedicine - i.e. use

> biomedical disease categories, differentiate with CM categories, etc.

> What do you, and others, think about that?

> >>>>TCM is already inseparable from WM as WM had a strong influence on the

creation of TCM. If we are to go back to CM of the past we need to then do the

impossible, that is extract (purge) information from our minds

> Alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " wainwrightchurchill " <

w.churchill_1-@t...> wrote:

 

>

> Now, returning to Rory's question, can you do research within a

> different paradigm to the scientific? In the first instance, you have

> to have a paradigm to work with. Unschuld has provocatively asserted

> that there is no unique paradigm for CM, a point on which I think we

> all agree. So you have to construct one. But now, you're not

> conducting research according to the framework of CM, you're

> conducting it according to the paradigm you've constructed.

 

Wianright

 

You have touched upon an interesting point.

 

1. there is no paradigm unique to CM. I have been saying for years that I do

not expect the prevailing " paradigm " of normal science to ever be replaced

with some sort of CM paradigm for exactly that reason. However the questions

that will be raised by studying CM according to the tenets of the prevailing

paradigm will eventually cause a paradigm shift because the prevailing

paradigm will ultimately fail to describe observed phenomena as well as

whatever will replace it. However, if one read's Michael Murphy's Future of

the Body, one can see many sources of data that also challenge the prevailing

paradigm besides acupuncture or CM. However none of this data allows us to

predict in advance what the prevailing paradigm will be. Certainly Newton

and Descartes (who are erroneouly blamed for bodymind dualism by new

agers) did not plan the structure of the paradigm they contributed to with

their assorted tomes.

 

We can be sure only a new paradigm can explain many observed phenomena.

the question is how do we get there. and the answer is via the path of " normal

science " . Some on this path will be purposely trying to stretch the margins of

science, but most will accumulate unexplainable data by chance. Ultimately

someone will propose a theory that attempts to explain this data and which

can actually be tested in some fashion. Many have attempted this, but I have

yet to see a new paradigm hypothesis that can be tested in some way, so the

issue remains moot until such a time. In the meantime, we keep pushing until

something happens.

 

[Guest guest]

I think the question is not how we move backwards, but the direction we

move forwards. How much CM will be left in CM?

 

 

On Oct 26, 2003, at 9:46 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

>>>>> TCM is already inseparable from WM as WM had a strong influence on

>>>>> the creation of TCM. If we are to go back to CM of the past we

>>>>> need to then do the impossible, that is extract (purge)

>>>>> information from our minds

> Alon

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> I think the question is not how we move backwards, but the

direction we move forwards. How much CM will be left in CM? >>>

 

 

Z'ev:

 

I think you've asked an excellent question. Whether or not a

standardize terminology takes hold or a more figurative translation

style remains dominant, considering the way higher accreditations

are being framed, it looks like CM will be assimilated in the US for

its techniques, tools, and what it can offer to support WM's

weakeness; rather than what its theories may offer.

 

It becomes an interesting question as to who will/can successfully

and popularly reframe WM in CM terms so that it will not be totally

unrecognizible in 10 years.

 

Even if not a successful attempt, one way to look at BHAE is that it

did, in some respects, make an attempt trying to explain complicated

emotional states in terms of CM.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

On Oct 26, 2003, at 2:48 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

>

> It becomes an interesting question as to who will/can successfully

> and popularly reframe WM in CM terms so that it will not be totally

> unrecognizible in 10 years.

 

I think we need to quickly translate Zhang Xi-chun's book " Yi xue zhong

zhong can xi lu " which is how to integrate WM into CM without

compromising core theory and practice. I am going to try a few essays

from the book over the next few months. You can find some of his ideas

in the Volker Scheid book, " in Contemporary China " .

>

> Even if not a successful attempt, one way to look at BHAE is that it

> did, in some respects, make an attempt trying to explain complicated

> emotional states in terms of CM.

 

I actually was quite inspired by the book when it first came out. .

..and have gone from that to other sources, such as the Seven

Emotions/Larre text and other Chinese source material from such books

as the Lei Jing/Classic of Categories. I hear that Phillipe Sionneau

is writing a book on Chinese medicine and the emotions.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel,

 

Thanks for addressing my question so directly. I'm very interested in better

understanding the general ideas that are being discussed here, such as theories

of the philosophers, but I also want to make sure I, and we as a profession,

don't misapply them. In the end we have to

decide what to do based on our best understanding, and whether to involve

ourselves in research is a crucially important question effecting our

professional future.

 

What I want to find out is, do these generalizations apply to the particular

circumstances we are faced with. Do they apply to the following examples, and

how?

 

1. There have been many studies of the use of acupuncture to treat morning

sickness, and that acupuncture performed according to the theories and practices

of oriental medicine has been shown to be clinically effective, to the degree of

sufficient certainty that such treatment can be scientifically recommended, even

though the

biological mechanism is unknown.

 

It seems to me that the theories and practices of Chinese medicine were not

impacted in these studies; they were not questioned by the studies. What was

studied was not Chinese medicine, but was a clinical outcome. So, in what way is

the the theory and practice of Chinese medicine bio-medicalized in this example?

 

2. Paul Unschuld uses statistical methods to measure historical data in his work

studying Chinese medical history. Does this fact make his work suspect as a

source for information about Chinese medical history, as it is taught to

students of Chinese medicine?

 

Rory

--

Rory,

 

Yes, I agree with you in point #1. CM was not studied. CM was neither created

nor destroyed. Only Western science happened. But people who look at it might

be distracted if they hoped to find out about CM.

 

In point #2, Paul Unschuld is a Western historian/scientist. He uses Western

methods to investigate. So his work will probably not be listed in the great

works of Chinese medicine. They will be archived as history of CM by a Western

historian.

 

If you do CM, you must as Ken, Z'ev, Jason or Marnae or any one else suggests,

figure out what CM is. State it's paradigms ... methods and tools ... and then

proceed. You can't sculpture marble with your violin. Or I suppose you could

try, but you won't end up with sculpture or music.

 

Western science is cool ... it's new ... it's now ... it's happening. So what?

 

My recommendation is to carefully assess and establish what methods and tools

could properly be included in CM and carry out what ever experiments you wish to

carry out using specifically those tools and specifically those methods. If it

happens in year 2003, it will by definition be considered " modern " research.

And it will be about CM.

 

All the Best,

Emmanuel Segmen

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz " <jramholz>

wrote:

 

>

> Even if not a successful attempt, one way to look at BHAE is that it

> did, in some respects, make an attempt trying to explain complicated

> emotional states in terms of CM.

 

 

but precisely the issue, which the authors reportedly admit, is these insights

were done without having properly explored the foundational concepts

themselves in the chinese source material. that is really the point about this

and other similar works. that this book inspired some to look more deeply

into work on the actual chinese literature on the psyche is a nice tribute to

the

authors. but this is not because they accurately conveyed these ideas in their

book, but merely because they emphasized the issue of psyche in their book.

 

In fact, their take on this subject is clearly influenced by the human potential

movement of the 60's with bits of jungianism and transpersonal psychology,

etc. The book attempts to give credence to purely western psychological ideas

as if there are clear antecedents or parallels in the CM literature, when there

are not. I think this book more than any other popular book on TCM has made

my job much harder on a daily basis. Having to continually distance myself

from the beautifully written stuff they made up. And this book does inspire

quite a few students to explore the profession because of the fluffy coating

presented in H & E. Thus making the job of stressing true rigor and scholarship

even harder once such students are in the program.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> I think we need to quickly translate Zhang Xi-chun's book " Yi xue

zhong zhong can xi lu " which is how to integrate WM into CM without

compromising core theory and practice. I am going to try a few

essays from the book over the next few months. You can find some of

his ideas in the Volker Scheid book, " in

Contemporary China " . >>>

 

 

Because my teacher was proficient in WM, we always studied CM with

it in mind. WM fits into a Korean pulse diagnosis framework at a

systems level because we're examining the effects of WM systems in

the pulses. I've recorded some of those ideas in my articles and

teach them in my seminars. Unfortunatley, few use practitioners use

pulse diagnosis (Korean or otherwise) and we will would need a wider

theoretical framework if they did. I will look into Zhang Xi-chun's

ideas again.

 

 

> I actually was quite inspired by the book when it first came

out . . . and have gone from that to other sources, such as the

Seven Emotions/Larre text and other Chinese source material from

such books as the Lei Jing/Classic of Categories. I hear that

Phillipe Sionneau is writing a book on Chinese medicine and the

emotions. >>>

 

The biggest problem, IMO, with the BHAE material is that they

associate an often very complex emotional state with a simple CM

rubric. While some emotions are generated in a single phase, pulse

examination shows that complex emotional states often involve a

pattern of several or a triad of phases. Since emotions often cause

or underlie many somatic problems, I try to spend a lot of time in

my seminars showing how they are involved. Some of these patterns go

back to early childhood.

 

You needn't wait for the book if you listen to his PCOM conference

audio tapes. He has a set of 8 tapes on acupuncture points and their

emotional components.

 

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

I actually took the workshop and have the notes. Pretty good stuff.

 

 

On Oct 26, 2003, at 5:41 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> You needn't wait for the book if you listen to his PCOM conference

> audio tapes. He has a set of 8 tapes on acupuncture points and their

> emotional components.

[Guest guest]

I think the question is not how we move backwards, but the direction we

move forwards. How much CM will be left in CM?

 

>>>>I agree but at the same time it does not really matter as long as efficacy

in increased. What we do have to do however is study the past so that we know

what is was

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't think studying the history of Chinese medicine is moving

backwards. I think the more we know about the physicians who preceded

us, and their treatment strategies, the more we move forward.

 

 

On Oct 26, 2003, at 7:00 PM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> I think the question is not how we move backwards, but the direction we

> move forwards. How much CM will be left in CM?

>

>>>>> I agree but at the same time it does not really matter as long as

>>>>> efficacy in increased. What we do have to do however is study the

>>>>> past so that we know what is was

> Alon

>

[Guest guest]

Rory Kerr wrote:

>1. There have been many studies of the use of acupuncture to treat

>morning sickness, and that acupuncture performed according to the

>theories and practices of oriental medicine has been shown to be

>clinically effective, to the degree of sufficient certainty that

>such treatment can be scientifically recommended, even though the

>biological mechanism is unknown.

>

>It seems to me that the theories and practices of Chinese medicine

>were not impacted in these studies; they were not questioned by the

>studies. What was studied was not Chinese medicine, but was a

>clinical outcome. So, in what way is the the theory and practice of

>Chinese medicine bio-medicalized in this example?

>--

 

At 3:50 PM -0800 10/26/03, Emmanuel Segmen wrote:

>Yes, I agree with you in point #1. CM was not studied. CM was

>neither created nor destroyed. Only Western science happened. But

>people who look at it might be distracted if they hoped to find out

>about CM.

--

 

Emmanuel,

 

Surely they would find out that acupuncture used to treat morning

sickness, when performed according to precepts of Chinese medicine,

is effective. This is valuable information, which might allow

patients to seek acupuncture for morning sickness whereas they would

have no reason to think of it otherwise. It might allow a WM

physician to more confidently make a referral for patients suffering

this condition, for whom she has no effective treatment.

 

Can we not then say that this type of research, which confirms (or

denies) the clinical effectiveness of CM treatments, is useful in a

general quest for better health care, and perhaps in persuading the

public that the theories of CM have value in their own terms?

 

If so, could we not also say that the profession of Oriental medicine

practitioners has a good reason to be educated about research

methods, at least to a sufficient degree so that we can be more

involved in these kinds of studies?

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yes. Be ye educated.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

-

Rory Kerr

Monday, October 27, 2003 9:52 AM

Re: Incommensurability of paradigms

 

 

Rory Kerr wrote:

>1. There have been many studies of the use of acupuncture to treat

>morning sickness, and that acupuncture performed according to the

>theories and practices of oriental medicine has been shown to be

>clinically effective, to the degree of sufficient certainty that

>such treatment can be scientifically recommended, even though the

>biological mechanism is unknown.

>

>It seems to me that the theories and practices of Chinese medicine

>were not impacted in these studies; they were not questioned by the

>studies. What was studied was not Chinese medicine, but was a

>clinical outcome. So, in what way is the the theory and practice of

>Chinese medicine bio-medicalized in this example?

>--

 

At 3:50 PM -0800 10/26/03, Emmanuel Segmen wrote:

>Yes, I agree with you in point #1. CM was not studied. CM was

>neither created nor destroyed. Only Western science happened. But

>people who look at it might be distracted if they hoped to find out

>about CM.

--

 

Emmanuel,

 

Surely they would find out that acupuncture used to treat morning

sickness, when performed according to precepts of Chinese medicine,

is effective. This is valuable information, which might allow

patients to seek acupuncture for morning sickness whereas they would

have no reason to think of it otherwise. It might allow a WM

physician to more confidently make a referral for patients suffering

this condition, for whom she has no effective treatment.

 

Can we not then say that this type of research, which confirms (or

denies) the clinical effectiveness of CM treatments, is useful in a

general quest for better health care, and perhaps in persuading the

public that the theories of CM have value in their own terms?

 

If so, could we not also say that the profession of Oriental medicine

practitioners has a good reason to be educated about research

methods, at least to a sufficient degree so that we can be more

involved in these kinds of studies?

 

Rory