Agency based on translational opinoin

[Guest guest]

Will> Let me rephrase: In my opinion, the creation of agency on the basis of

> translational opinion is wrong. It belongs in the forum of academic

debate.

: I disagree with your opinion. BTW, the concept of protesting too

loudly is usually directed

at someone who is trying to deflect attention from their true intentions by

making a lot of

noise about something. Do you think I am hiding something?>>

 

Will: - your reaction was such an intense response I had to ask. It merely

seemed disproportionate. I am somewhat surprised that you appear to be

denigrating the way TCM has been consistently taught in every college in the

United

States and in China by characterizing qi as being akin to

" mysticism " or " religion " . Yet, at the same time, you characterize

the NOMAA approach as being consistent with the " application of classical

texts " and " with science " . AS you have seen on this list, it is the

subject of substantial

academic dispute whether NOMAA's approach is properly grounded in the

classics -- and many TCM scholars strenuously disagree, some of whom I have

had direct

conversations about this .

 

NOMAA's entire curriculum is based on the translational opinion of a

single individual (not " rational discourse " , not " science " , not recognized

" scholarly underpinnings " , and certainly not based on " evidence " ) which

fails to meet any standard for competency of practice or for ensuring

public safety in any jurisdication world wide. It would amount to

permitting practice based on an entirely experimental curriculum that has

never been used previously in any country. This is simply unheard of in

any professional field.

 

best - Will