ideology and debate-the science of CM

[Guest guest]

Dear Todd and Alon,

 

I have been quietly on the sidelines following your arguments and feel

that I must offer an observation, for I feel that your passion has

blinded you.

 

IMHO there is a tremendous difference between blind faith which ipso

facto is dogma, and belief in any system or tradition based upon one's

view that those scholars and forebears representing that system or

tradition convey a consistancy of presentation and brilliance of ideas

to justify that belief. As Rory implies, one can be in awe of that

system and its classical progenitors and still (within the laws and

guidelines of that system- for that is its science--see below) healthily

and respectfully question. A respectful scepticism aims to harmonize and

resolve inconsistancies and apparent contradictions, not to breakdown and

discredit. For one to apply the rules of a different science to

discredit that system I believe is disingenuous and immature.

 

The belief that the systematized logic presented by the authors of the

early classics of Chinese medicine is integrated, has its own laws and

has left room in it for evolution and development is hardly dogmatic,

and based upon the definition of what a science is, is quite a

scientific system.

 

Webster's new unabridged dictionary of the English language defines

" science " as:

 

1. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study or

experimentation carried on in orderto determine the nature or principles

of what is being studied (Sounds like CM doesn't it?)

2. a branch of knowledge or study, especially one concerned with

establishing and systematizing facts, principles and methods, as by

experiments and hypothesis, as the science of music. (Sounds like CM

doesn't it?)

3. the systematized knowledge of nature and the physical world or any

branch of this.(Could be applied to CM in a macro sense).

4. Skill, technique or ablility based upon training, discipline or

experience(definitely sounds like CM).

 

Where CM harmonizes or overlaps with Western Medicine, well and good, but

where it doesn't, don't attempt to compare two different sciences, each

with their own rules. Can you compare baseball, a game not connected to

a clock, with basketball, football, soccer or hockey which are? of course

not. Yet they are all sports. Therefore, good people who I hold in the

highest of esteem, please, consider you terms carefully, before shooting

from the hip.

 

SIncerely,

 

Yehuda

 

 

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:42:42 -0500 Rory Kerr <rorykerr

writes:

> At 10:27 AM -0800 2/4/04, wrote:

> >Because when you accept the tenets of chinese medicine without

> skepticism, you

> >are accepting them on faith. No one likes to have their faith

> >challenged. And believers are usually quite dogmatic. In other

> words,

> >if its in the scriptures, it must be true. How could one ever back

> >down from a faith based assumption without sacrificing one's entire

> >identity.

> >

> >BTW, if anyone on this list finds the questioning of faith based

> belief

> >offensive, I apologize, but I will not back down.

> --

>

>

> I must be forgetting, so could you give us a typical instance of

> someone on this list taking the literature of CM on unquestioning

> faith. Has anyone in this conference suggested that the classics of

> Chinese medicine should be read, or their content accepted,

> uncritically? Unless you can come up with an example of a common

> pattern, I'll have to conclude that this is a straw man.

>

> I'm a pretty skeptical person, not just with the CM literature, but

> with any notion that I may have helped my own patients when they get

>

> better under my care. Nevertheless, I see this claim of your's and

> Alon's being used as a bludgeon to deride the positions of those who

>

> don't agree with you.

>

> And could you explain the correlation you are making between

> acceptance of a body of medical knowledge which has demonstrated

> utility, and religious belief. It seems to me these are quite

> different things.

>

> Rory

> --

>

>

>