theory and fact

[Guest guest]

One of my teachers at PCOM-NY, who I respect very much has said, " Chinese

medicine IS scientific; the science just isn't understood yet. " (he's Chinese).

From just a general understanding of the 'evolution' of western science, my

impression is that as western physical science evolves, it moves more toward

'eastern' ideas - relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, etc. I think

Einstein's proofs show that gravity isn't really 'gravity' as we think we know

it.

 

Observation is perhaps the most simple act of science. Close observation can

teach you just about everything you need to know. What are 'western' medical

studies anyway, but observations? Observing from the inside (cutting bodies

up, taking out hearts to see if blood still pumps, etc.) doesn't necessarily

teach one any more than observing from the outside. It's all observation. Of

course, how the observations are interpreted can be 'right' or 'wrong'. But

there's no doubt there are PLENTY of 'wrong' observations in western medicine.

If you've witnessed your close friends or family dying of illnesses, you get

a chance to experience up close the limitations of western medicine. Yes,

some aspects of western medicine are very effective and save a lot of lives.

But

many approaches of western medicine don't really work all that well, despite

years of testing and billions of dollars put toward research.

 

One last thing, genetics isn't really theoretical, is it? It's just

observation on a more minute level. The whole genome has been mapped - I don't

think a

geneticist would think of genes and chromosomes as theoretical.

 

-RoseAnne S.

[Guest guest]

It occurred to me after I was asked that incomprehensible question

about James Watson and DNA that this was hardly the matter on my mind.

I am mostly interested in physiology and to a lesser degree,

biochemistry and pharmacology. I was never any good at cellular

genetics and in any event, I have always been more interested in

observable events than abstract theory of any kind. Suffice it to say

that I believe the vast majority of biologists believe both Darwin and

Watson are well supported by the evidence. Since I cannot understand

the complexity of this argument fully enough, I defer to them until

evidence compels me otherwise.

 

Physiology is lot more straightforward to me. An important

naturopathic teacher who was also an L.Ac. first imparted to me the

idea that I should view CM doctrine through the lens of physiology,

not biochemistry or energy. Subhuti also took a decidedly

physiological approach in his course in chinese herbology. He was my

first teacher and after my exposure to Unschuld, I was completely

convinced that Subhuti's physiological pragmatism was what appealed to

me. My main teacher of herbs at OCOM and afterwards, Li Wei, was also

a medical doctor and researcher. Thus all my main influences in these

formative years were of such ilk.

 

Anyway, when I think of physiology, I would submit that I am not

talking about theory at all here, but raw hard facts. The heart pumps

blood. The bladder stores and expels urine. The liver processes

poisons and metabolites, essentially being the main factor in

maintaining normal blood chemistry. Intact nerve pathways are needed

for motor and sensory functions. These are all measurable things that

can be proven in a variety of barbaric experiments. The most obvious

of these were known in TCM. Others were not or at least not in the

same way. Perhaps when we say the liver smooths the qi, this is

actually the same thing as maintaining normal blood chemistry, but how

does one ever " prove " the former? Disruptions in blood chemistry now

being considered the main cause of mental illness, for example. My

point is that one can easily prove that the blood pumping will be

impaired if the heart is removed and the blood chemistry altered if the

liver is impaired in some way. This can be done in a reproducible and

reliable way. That is the key that distinguishes scientific fact from

merely being accepted doctrine.

 

Now I utilize CM doctrine all day long and find it immensely useful for

what Farquhar calls the pivot into the CM archive (everyone should read

Knowing Practice as I think it gives the best description of the

relation between theory and practice in CM). But without considerable

indoctrination, I can never prove the reality of many chinese ideas,

such as yin and yang and qi. I cannot design experiments or write

mathematical equations that allow me to use these ideas to predict or

explain anything in a reliable and reproducible fashion. Qi is not

like gravity, another invisible force we know only by its effects, but

which yields its secrets in simple mathematical equations. I believe

all of these chinese forces are just concepts which can never be

measured. Qi is like emotions, something one perceives with the human

mind when simultaneously biochemical changes are happening within. I

also find Freud's ideas about id, ego and superego interesting and

useful, as do I also find intriguing Wilber's discussion of transegoic

states. But Wilber would be the first to admit that his ideas can only

be proven when a community of those who have studied the same doctrines

and dialogued on it reach a consensus of the mind. Wilber is clear

that there is an eye of the flesh, mind and spirit. Much of western

science looks at the world using the eye of the flesh as its primary

tool (can I touch it, see it, etc.). Theory (a product of the eye of

the mind) is supposed to be based upon a preponderance of evidence

accumulated by the eye of the flesh. Theory of this sort can always be

then tested to see if the empirical evidence stands up under close

scrutiny. For example, the periodic table of the elements has proven

useful and reliable in many practical apps despite it being a mental

abstraction.

 

So the question is can we say the same thing about chinese ideas like

five phases. Needham basically said the chinese failed to develop the

modern scientific approach because they were trapped in their own

cultural dogma. Lets us not forget that science was not welcomed in

the west, either. We had our own dogmas to contend with. I know some

will say that science has it own assumptions and dogma, but I think

science is clearly the least dogmatic of all ways of looking at the

world for several reasons.

 

1. continual reevaulation is built in. how can something that changes

so often based upon new evidence be considered anywhere near as

dogmatic as ideas that have just been accepted and not tested or

analyzed in any controlled way.

 

2. it has been welcomed by all societies to some degree, even the

most traditional, because of its practical power and because acceptance

of science does not mean rejection of other beliefs (most american

scientists believe in God, for example)

 

I believe that evolution now proceeds on the cultural level. The

myriad cultures of earth have developed many options in their various

niches (like random variations and mutations in the genetic code). But

now those aspects that provide the most adaptation for the species are

the ones that will pass into posterity. the others will fall by the

way side. Evolution is random without design and good ideas may die

because they are not adaptive at the time they emerge. I hope to see

at least some of the ideas of CM fully integrated into a 21st century

healthcare system. But I suspect others will fall by the wayside, as

they always have.

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX:

 

 

[Guest guest]

Qi is not

like gravity, another invisible force we know only by its effects, but

which yields its secrets in simple mathematical equations. I believe

all of these chinese forces are just concepts which can never be

measured.

>>>Todd this is were i disagree and Qi like gravity as effects that can be

measured and should be demonstatable within the uninivesial langue or

mathematics.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, ra6151@a... wrote:

 

>

> Observation is perhaps the most simple act of science. Close

observation can

> teach you just about everything you need to know. What are

'western' medical

> studies anyway, but observations? Observing from the inside

(cutting bodies

> up, taking out hearts to see if blood still pumps, etc.) doesn't

necessarily

> teach one any more than observing from the outside. It's all

observation. Of

> course, how the observations are interpreted can be 'right' or

'wrong'. But

> there's no doubt there are PLENTY of 'wrong' observations in western

medicine.

 

Yes very true!

 

> If you've witnessed your close friends or family dying of illnesses,

you get

> a chance to experience up close the limitations of western medicine.

Yes,

> some aspects of western medicine are very effective and save a lot

of lives. But

> many approaches of western medicine don't really work all that well,

despite

> years of testing and billions of dollars put toward research.

 

Good one… This is my favorite... If western scientific testing is 'all

that' - and time-tested Chinese theory `empiricism' is the evil qi we

must rid this world of, then how could it be possible that the latter

could manifest results that not only beat the former, but are better

for the human condition as a whole, [something western medicine many

times misses…] Wow… this would mean something too terrible to speak

of… Western thought process or view of disease is inferior (in some

situations). I think such examples clearly demonstrate that there are

very valid ways besides the scientific double-blind method to come up

with useful tools – and that is all we really care about – tools that

work… And yes billions of billions of $$$$ can and have been spent on

useless pursuits, just think how much suffering could be relieved with

the money… I view CM history as one big scientific experiment, trial

after trial… just not the pedantic double-blind study…

 

-

[Guest guest]

It's all observation. Of

course, how the observations are interpreted can be 'right' or 'wrong'. But

there's no doubt there are PLENTY of 'wrong' observations in western medicine.

If you've witnessed your close friends or family dying of illnesses, you get

a chance to experience up close the limitations of western medicine.

>>>>I think we need to stop the knee jerk reaction of comparing WM weaknesses.

Again, from my perspective we are beyond trying to just justify CM. WM has tones

of short comings, it is however a highly evolving system seeing change as the

root of its essence.There will be practical theories and tools that will come

from CM and will become WM. No Question

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

It's important to note that the controlled clinical trial was not introduced

until the early 1950's. Many articles have been introduced as well as research

(from medline) conducted showing the flaws in the modern model of clinical

" science. "

It's going to take time to thoroughly research CM to placate western

thinking. That research IS being conducted now. However, read a book like " The

Body

Electric " to see how difficult Dr Becker and others find it, both

politically and financially, to do breakthrough research that goes outside the

mainstream medical model.

That's not to say we shouldn't do research. However, to wait till something

is fully accepted by the mainstream in light of obvious benefits to public

health is,IMO, a tragedy.

 

Ken

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

> >>>>I think we need to stop the knee jerk reaction of comparing WM

weaknesses. Again, from my perspective we are beyond trying to just

justify CM. WM has tones of short comings, it is however a highly

evolving system seeing change as the root of its essence.There will be

practical theories and tools that will come from CM and will become

WM. No Question

> Alon

>

>

Alon,

 

I think there is this knee jerk reaction because you are making IMO

silly statments that CM doesn't evolve, and is stuck in Dogma without

you having access to the past literature. You are clearly saying WM

is superior in their evolution. When you defence for this rests on

rationlizing cases that demonology is still used (by a minute few) or

dog shit can still be used to cure nigthblindness, then I feel you are

grasping at straws. This is not and the mainstream view is

important.. I don't open texts and find these 1000's of discraded

theories still published... CM has clearly discarded as many

non-working ideas as WM - if not more... WM is also just working from

their past also. IT is just two different paradigms. WM has their

idea of how the body works, and CM theirs...

 

-

[Guest guest]

, krhkempo@a... wrote:

> It's important to note that the controlled clinical trial was not

introduced

> until the early 1950's. Many articles have been introduced as well

as research

> (from medline) conducted showing the flaws in the modern model of

clinical

> " science. "

> It's going to take time to thoroughly research CM to placate western

> thinking. That research IS being conducted now. However, read a book

like " The Body

> Electric " to see how difficult Dr Becker and others find it, both

> politically and financially, to do breakthrough research that goes

outside the

> mainstream medical model.

> That's not to say we shouldn't do research. However, to wait till

something

> is fully accepted by the mainstream in light of obvious benefits to

public

> health is,IMO, a tragedy.

>

> Ken

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

> >>>>I think we need to stop the knee jerk reaction of comparing WM

weaknesses. Again, from my perspective we are beyond trying to just

justify CM. WM has tones of short comings, it is however a highly

evolving system seeing change as the root of its essence.There will be

practical theories and tools that will come from CM and will become

WM. No Question

> Alon

>

>

Alon,

 

I think there is this knee jerk reaction because you are making IMO

silly statments that CM doesn't evolve, and is stuck in Dogma without

you having access to the past literature. You are clearly saying WM

is superior in their evolution. When you defence for this rests on

rationlizing cases that demonology is still used (by a minute few) or

dog shit can still be used to cure nigthblindness, then I feel you are

grasping at straws. This is not and the mainstream view is

important.. I don't open texts and find these 1000's of discraded

theories still published... CM has clearly discarded as many

non-working ideas as WM - if not more... WM is also just working from

their past also. IT is just two different paradigms. WM has their

idea of how the body works, and CM theirs...

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board

approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

 

>>>>I do not disagree with most of what you say. But there is quite a difference

between discarding main ideas and some vague treatments such as dog shit used to

cure nigthblindness. Also can you show anywhere that this was at anytime a

" mainstream " idea. My point is that if we look at the classic of internal

medicine we can not find any major idea that aver been discarded. My point is

that CM has not used lab style and clinical studies to assess its ideas. And

both are often needed to eliminate the darkness. I am not discarding shared

clinical experience either. Obviously there is much to learn and CM has used

this to grow and develop for 2000 years. It is also true that there has been

mainstream committees to " correct mistakes in medicine " etc. My points may sound

overdone, but the essence of the tradition of CM as been respect for the old

without the kind of challenge we see in modern science. All i am saying is that

clearly many effects of disease can not be assessed without these scientific and

WM understanding of diseases and disease processes.

Now clearly CM and WM are two different paradigms, it is there clinical

application that i am talking about. However, i am one that believes that we can

find many correlations and identical ideas once one goes beyond lingo.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <

> >>>>I do not disagree with most of what you say. But there is quite

a difference between discarding main ideas and some vague treatments

such as dog shit used to cure nigthblindness. Also can you show

anywhere that this was at anytime a " mainstream " idea. My point is

that if we look at the classic of internal medicine we can not find

any major idea that aver been discarded. My point is that CM has not

used lab style and clinical studies to assess its ideas. And both are

often needed to eliminate the darkness. I am not discarding shared

clinical experience either. Obviously there is much to learn and CM

has used this to grow and develop for 2000 years. It is also true that

there has been mainstream committees to " correct mistakes in medicine "

etc.

 

(jason) And through the ages there are volumes of books written on

this topic.. With 1000's of case studies and discussions of

mistreatments, misdiagnosis etc etc... This is called evaluation. It

is just different , but valid!

 

>My points may sound overdone, but the essence of the tradition of CM

as been respect for the old without the kind of challenge we see in

modern science. All i am saying is that clearly many effects of

disease can not be assessed without these scientific and WM

understanding of diseases and disease processes.

 

Yes this is true.. But one can also say that many diseases can't be

assessed properly without something like CM… it goes both ways…

 

> Now clearly CM and WM are two different paradigms, it is there

clinical application that i am talking about. However, i am one that

believes that we can find many correlations and identical ideas once

one goes beyond lingo.

 

Ok we agree on this…

 

-JAson