Wiseman and Maciocia

[Guest guest]

Dear Ken,

 

Fantastic idea! I have a suggestion for your representative from

Nanjing: My professor and mentor, Zhang Ji, from Nanjing, often, tongue

firmly planted in cheek, says that he was Giovanni's teacher. Why?

Because he studied in Nanjing 10 years before Giovanni came there. He

has been in LA now since 1992. Call or write me privately and I'll give

you his phone #.

 

Yehuda

 

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:07:33 -0000 " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008 writes:

> All,

>

> You've now had a chance to read Nigel's

> responses to Giovani's piece that Waitwright

> posted here a few days back. I said that

> I had my own comments, and I do. But

> I think rather than bore you all with

> them, I will just propose a more concrete

> step that might be taken to help people

> understand what is going on in the supposed

> " debate " about terminology.

>

> What I propose is an actual debate

> between Giovani and Nigel.

>

> Let's keep things simple.

>

> The debate question could be simply

> phrased as:

>

> Who's approach to the terminology of

> traditional Chinese medicine is correct,

> Nigel Wiseman's or Giovani's Maciocia's?

>

> Clearly they can't both be correct,

> because Giovani refers to his two page

> glossary as " complete " in his first book,

> and in all subsequent books he has published,

> the glossary never grows to more than a couple

> hundred terms at most.

>

> Nigel's Practical Dictionary, which is just

> a selection of terms from the term set that

> in Chinese dictionaries of the subject runs

> to as many as 20,000 to 30,000 terms, contains

> some 6,000 terms.

>

> Here is a case where simply the quantitative

> comparison reveals a qualitative difference.

>

> So who's right?

>

> We all deserve to, in fact reallly need to

> know.

>

> Shall we believe Nigel?

>

> Or shall we dispense with Nigel's obsessive

> approach to terminology in favor of Giovani's

> far friendlier and more laid-back approach?

>

> I think a debate between the two of them

> will be the way to sort this out, and then

> we really could stop talking about it all

> the time.

>

> And, just to let us all know that we are

> dealing with qualified individuals who

> really know what they are talking about,

> let's make one of the ground rules in

> this debate that the debators debate in

> Chinese and that the judges who judge

> their arguments be fluent in Chinese.

>

> Even those of you who think of me as

> a lunatic of incomparable dimensions

> must accept the simple logic that anyone

> professing expert opinions about Chinese

> medical terminology ought to be able to

> do so in Chinese.

>

> So, in keeping with Todd's refutation of

> certain unnamed individuals on the basis

> of " clinical experience " and Alon's clinical

> challenge of a few days back, let's have

> a debate.

>

> Giovani and Nigel. Face to face, debating

> Chinese medical terminology in Chinese.

>

> Having fought this fight for more than

> three years now, I, for one, would love

> to see it resolved.

>

> And as I've thought about this for the past

> few days it seems to me that this oughta do

> it.

>

> I will transmit this suggestion to the good

> doctors, Maciocia and Wiseman. I will even

> suggest to both of them that the judges

> be chosen from Chinese medical institutions

> that include both Nanjing, where Giovani

> spent his time studying in China and Taipei

> where Nigel has spent the last 20+ years

> teaching.

>

> I'll see if we can round up a few impartial

> judges from places like the China Academy of

> TCM. And we'll ask folks like Dan Bensky,

> Ted Kaptchuk, and other experts on the subject

> to come and listen so that they can represent

> to their various constituencies who says what.

>

> I will undertake to get the whole event

> planned, scheduled, organized, funded

> and will see to it that it actually takes

> place and that the proceedings are translated

> into English and other Western languages

> and properly disseminated.

>

> Don't you think this should do it?

>

> Ken

>

>

>

>