changing paradigms

[Guest guest]

At 9:01 AM -0800 11/30/03, wrote:

>I

>believe without challenging the paradigm of normal science from within, it

>will never change.

--

At 2:40 PM -0500 11/30/03, Rory Kerr wrote:

>Listening to a couple of Unschuld tapes from the PCOM conference, I

>take it that he would disagree with your statement and say that

>historically in Chinese medicine, innovation occurs mainly as a

>result of professional response to outside political pressure rather

>than professional initiative. I'm not sure that I have heard all he

has to say on the subject, but it is an interesting observation.

--

At 8:34 PM +0000 11/30/03, wrote:

>Perhaps the Structure of Scientific revolutions does not apply to chinese

>culture. I would accept this. That kuhn did not define a universal paradigm

>shift scheme, but one that was only applicable to the data he had,

>all of which

>was eurocentric. Chinese cultural evolution did not follow the same

>trajectory

>as in the west , so this would not really be that surprising. The question is

>whether the paradigm that will shift is is one that conforms to western or

>eastern norms of culture and psyche. I thinking I am talking about the

>shifting of our western paradigm by challenge from within normal science, not

>changing what goes on in china. so then the next question is whether unschuld

>or common scholarly thought on the subject is that western science is similar

>in that way. And where does political pressure come from in a democracy.

>the people and the " experts " who are on their side. I think politics can be

>shifted with science, unfortunately not as often as I would like.

--

 

 

I haven't read Kuhn, only what has been said of him here, but I take

it that his observations were of Western science, and I wonder if

they apply even to Western medicine, let alone Chinese medicine.

Medicine is a very different enterprise than science, and while

Western medicine uses modern science to inform it's theories and

practices, it is far from a perfect match, and there are many aspects

of any type of medical care that have nothing to do with science.

 

With respect to Chinese medicine, if we look at modern TCM and how it

has evolved, I think Unshculd's point is well illustrated. The

changes that have occurred have come as a result of outside pressures

from bio-science, as a competitor, and politics, both of which have

challenged the elites of Chinese medicine to re-evaluate its theories

and practices. Of course, there are also examples of CM theories that

have been re-evaluated and expanded more from within, such as wen

bing theory over the last few centuries. In this case the theory of

wen bing, based mainly in the Nei Jing and SHL, was seen as being

inadequate to deal with diseases current in the 16th century, and

physicians started to respond by developing a better and more

elaborate theory and practice to account for the new, or perhaps

newly appreciated, reality. (I'm not a historian, and haven't read

Kuhn, so please correct me if I have any of this wrong).

 

I see the above forces as those that will continue to initiate

change, or shifts of emphasis, in Chinese medicine. Also, I think

research will become increasingly used to evaluate the validity of

our practices.

 

Rory

--