Guest guest Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 To rise in the defense of something on faith without evidence of any objective kind is the domain of religion, not science. I have nothing much to say in rebuttal of such arguments as one cannot debate when one's initial premises are at odds. I expressed a logical dispute with a fundamental premise. It cannot be argued by merely refuting other premises dependent on this initial one, which seems to be that CM is an infallible fountain of wisdom and always has the last word on all subjects related to medicine and is only limited by the fallibility of the those who practice it. Instead, I consider CM the highly fallible product of men, one that yields impressive results in the treatment of syndromes, providing far more effective care than WM in most cases. But there is a limit to the efficacy of any model of thought and that limit in TCM may rooted in the concept of jing vacuity (a chinese concept, BTW). I am not sure why this is so upsetting to some, but I will merely point out that I still await EVIDENCE, not protestations, that any of the conditions I have listed is typically " cured " with TCM. These possibly jing related diseases stand apart from the wide range of common conditions that are indeed caused by the internal, external and miscellaneous factors. I think most of what I typically see falls into this latter group. I think it should be also clear that the ancient chinese had no knowledge of diseases as they are understood according to western biochem and pathophys. They had cough and dizziness and things like bi and lin and running piglet. My critique applies solely to the analysis and treatment of western named disease according to TCM. It is a modern phenomena. In the past, there would have been no way of knowing whether successful elimination of a syndrome actually eliminated such jing related diseases or just held their symptoms at bay. The leading cause of death amongst the elderly in china throughout history was the same as it was everywhere else until modern times -- pneumonia. If a person takes herbs to relief their syndromes for their entire adult lives and then succumbs to pneumonia, probably as a result of weakened immune system and the presence of cancer and chronic viruses, the ancients would have no idea that the real problems were jing related. The patient would have appeared to have died from a bad cough when in all likelihood there was a lot else going on. We know at least 85% of men over the age of 75 have prostate cancer. While it may not kill them before their heart fails, the mere presence of cancer causes severe malnutrition. How can one say cancer (if genetic in origin) does not cause a syndrome rather than be caused by it. Faith in our dogma alone. Chinese Herbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 We have had this discussion before, and so one last time, this time around, I will respond, and let you get the last word in, if you choose. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 04:42:38 -0800 < writes: > > To rise in the defense of something on faith without evidence of any > > objective kind is the domain of religion, not science. I have > nothing > much to say in rebuttal of such arguments as one cannot debate when > one's initial premises are at odds. I expressed a logical dispute > with > a fundamental premise. Be careful. To view the theories of science,and laboratory research and clinical trials as being factual evidence of scientific achievement, sounds like one who advocates the religion of " scientism " . For those unfamiliar with the term: scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth. If that's what you advocate OK, then let's call a spade a spade. But understand, that this TOO is a belief system and a fundamentalism: a faith which in our case of research has stretched the hoped for future to already be a fait acommpli. To reinterate, it is my contrary view, that WM research is based upon the faulty mechanical model that if a part is diseased or damaged that it can simply be replaced, irrespective to what caused it to be dysfunctional. For to be unconcerned with the pathogenesis of disease nor to address those morphological changes that brought about the state of unwellness will doom the therapy to in the long run fail. The allopathic model which is an integral part of WM says that a diseased part needs to be attacked by a magic bullet, instead of considering that the pathogen results from imbalance or a collective load of imbalances, and that the host needs to be strengthened, the imbalances need to be corrected, as well as the pathogens neutralized. This foolhardy approach has led to superinfections and compromised immunity. Bottom line is that without evidence of sustainable results of permanent healing without side effects, WM research will continue to promise a future which will never come. It cannot be argued by merely refuting other > > premises dependent on this initial one, which seems to be that CM is > an > infallible fountain of wisdom and always has the last word on all > subjects related to medicine and is only limited by the fallibility > of > the those who practice it. Instead, I consider CM the highly > fallible > product of men, one that yields impressive results in the treatment > of > syndromes, providing far more effective care than WM in most cases. > > But there is a limit to the efficacy of any model of thought and > that > limit in TCM may rooted in the concept of jing vacuity (a chinese > concept, BTW). I am not sure why this is so upsetting to some, but > I > will merely point out that I still await EVIDENCE, not > protestations, > that any of the conditions I have listed is typically " cured " with > TCM. > These possibly jing related diseases stand apart from the wide > range > of common conditions that are indeed caused by the internal, > external > and miscellaneous factors. I think most of what I typically see > falls > into this latter group. I think it should be also clear that the > ancient chinese had no knowledge of diseases as they are understood > according to western biochem and pathophys. They had cough and > dizziness and things like bi and lin and running piglet. There is no argument here. The point that I made which you are NOT addressing, is the model. I contend that Western Medicine is in it's theoretical essence a flawed system, which cannot cure disease, only ameliorate symptoms, and only temporarily. Chinese medical method, by viewing imbalances in excess, deficiency, blockage, etc provides a viable framework from which to address disease and yes cure it potentially. Where it has not been successful, is in areas where it has been underdeveloped, and were 10% of the trillions thrown at WM applied to CM research, I am absolutely convinced that diseases heretofore uncurable would be resolved. By treating the whole person, by considering the relationship of the organs, by considering the impact of the emotions, by integrating planetary herbs into the materia medica, by maturing and technologically integrating CM, the already remarkable success of CM will exponentially increase. It is not a question of what CM has not healed, it is a question of efficacy, sound foundation, and updating. > > My critique applies solely to the analysis and treatment of western > named disease according to TCM. It is a modern phenomena. In the > past, there would have been no way of knowing whether successful > elimination of a syndrome actually eliminated such jing related > diseases or just held their symptoms at bay. The leading cause of > death amongst the elderly in china throughout history was the same > as > it was everywhere else until modern times -- pneumonia. If a person > > takes herbs to relief their syndromes for their entire adult lives > and > then succumbs to pneumonia, probably as a result of weakened immune > system and the presence of cancer and chronic viruses, the ancients > would have no idea that the real problems were jing related. The > patient would have appeared to have died from a bad cough when in > all > likelihood there was a lot else going on. We know at least 85% of > men > over the age of 75 have prostate cancer. While it may not kill them > > before their heart fails, the mere presence of cancer causes severe > malnutrition. How can one say cancer (if genetic in origin) does > not > cause a syndrome rather than be caused by it. Faith in our dogma > alone. Again, don't assume that CM has to live in the past. View the brilliant scholarship of the past as a starting point, and a basis for new exciting possibilities in CM treatments. I think that they are on the right track in the PRC, integrating CM to Western medicine. However, just as newly discovered herbs or medicinal substances in the past, Western pharmeceuticals need to be viewed energetically according to their temperature and flavor in order to be properly integrated into formulae. Though the use of Western drugs together with CM is used with marked success in treating patients, there must be a greater synthesis, otherwise, all we will be treating will be symptoms, not healing and being agents of wellness and balance. The approach needs to be one of integration, not reductionism and broad connective thinking rather than narrow mechanical dogma. Dogma indeed! SIncerely, Yehuda Frischman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 I'd like to affirm this point of view. I couldn't agree more. On Mar 30, 2005, at 12:49 PM, rw2 wrote: > From having debated with Todd over the years, I suspect your own > viewponts and his are not that far apart. It all depends on how > broadly one defines the term " science " . Medical science, of all of the > sciences, is probably the most jaded, hide-bound, and resistant to new > ideas of any of the sciences, because of the tremendous profits to be > made from pushing a mechanistic view of the universe that many other > sciences have long ago discarded as being simplistic and > unrepresentative of reality. > > Like you, I believe that future advances in Chinese herbology can be > made without compromising the integrity and insights of the ancients, > yet integrating much of it with insights from mathematics, systems > theory, and biology - I hesitate to put modern medical science on this > list, because, as you point out, it is debatable whether modern > medical science is really a science or a scientism, as commonly > practiced. One has to be selective and discriminating - and that rule > has to be applied to scientific developments as well as > interpretations of ancient masters. > > Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 On the issues of dogma, science vs. scientism, cause and effect, I've covered all of these issues in the introductory text I wrote for Chinese herbology students. As these issues create a tremendous amount of confusion for Western students, I find it necessary to deal with these philosophical issues directly, so that students do not plunge into the study of Chinese herbology with flawed beliefs or ideas. See: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/ai/pharintro.html (First 6 chapters of volume 1 are available for free on our website.) From having debated with Todd over the years, I suspect your own viewponts and his are not that far apart. It all depends on how broadly one defines the term " science " . Medical science, of all of the sciences, is probably the most jaded, hide-bound, and resistant to new ideas of any of the sciences, because of the tremendous profits to be made from pushing a mechanistic view of the universe that many other sciences have long ago discarded as being simplistic and unrepresentative of reality. Like you, I believe that future advances in Chinese herbology can be made without compromising the integrity and insights of the ancients, yet integrating much of it with insights from mathematics, systems theory, and biology - I hesitate to put modern medical science on this list, because, as you point out, it is debatable whether modern medical science is really a science or a scientism, as commonly practiced. One has to be selective and discriminating - and that rule has to be applied to scientific developments as well as interpretations of ancient masters. Roger >Yehuda L Frischman < >Re: dogma > > > >We have had this discussion before, and so one last time, this time >around, I will respond, and let you get the last word in, if you choose. > > > > >On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 04:42:38 -0800 < writes: >> >> To rise in the defense of something on faith without evidence of any >> >> objective kind is the domain of religion, not science. I have >> nothing >> much to say in rebuttal of such arguments as one cannot debate when >> one's initial premises are at odds. I expressed a logical dispute >> with >> a fundamental premise. > > >Be careful. To view the theories of science,and laboratory research and >clinical trials as being factual evidence of scientific achievement, >sounds like one who advocates the religion of " scientism " . For those >unfamiliar with the term: scientism claims that science alone can render >truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to >only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, >in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects >science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it >necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, >and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended >by the scientific method. ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 Let me add that Roger does indeed make a good case for this in his introduction. When I was working as a psychomotor therapist, I was introduced to systems theory (the psychological branch of it). I was also heavily into Daoism around that time, and I was struck by the similarity I could find between the two systems- Daoism and systems theory. Whilst this might not be the kind of reductionist science that most people have got accustomed to, it is a kind of science that is probably a fairer approximation to reality as we perceive it. After all, we are all part of various systems, not isolated molecules. I am still amazed as to how systems theory is still being ignored in mainstream science. Perhaps because of conflicting world views? Tom. , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > I'd like to affirm this point of view. I couldn't agree more. > > > On Mar 30, 2005, at 12:49 PM, rw2@r... wrote: > > > From having debated with Todd over the years, I suspect your own > > viewponts and his are not that far apart. It all depends on how > > broadly one defines the term " science " . Medical science, of all of the > > sciences, is probably the most jaded, hide-bound, and resistant to new > > ideas of any of the sciences, because of the tremendous profits to be > > made from pushing a mechanistic view of the universe that many other > > sciences have long ago discarded as being simplistic and > > unrepresentative of reality. > > > > Like you, I believe that future advances in Chinese herbology can be > > made without compromising the integrity and insights of the ancients, > > yet integrating much of it with insights from mathematics, systems > > theory, and biology - I hesitate to put modern medical science on this > > list, because, as you point out, it is debatable whether modern > > medical science is really a science or a scientism, as commonly > > practiced. One has to be selective and discriminating - and that rule > > has to be applied to scientific developments as well as > > interpretations of ancient masters. > > > > Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 More so now due to faith-based groups refusing to accept the world view. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " Tom Verhaeghe " <verhaeghe_tom > > > Re: dogma >Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:27:32 -0000 > > >Let me add that Roger does indeed make a good case for this in his >introduction. When I was working as a psychomotor therapist, I was >introduced to systems theory (the psychological branch of it). I was >also heavily into Daoism around that time, and I was struck by the >similarity I could find between the two systems- Daoism and systems >theory. Whilst this might not be the kind of reductionist science that >most people have got accustomed to, it is a kind of science that is >probably a fairer approximation to reality as we perceive it. After >all, we are all part of various systems, not isolated molecules. >I am still amazed as to how systems theory is still being ignored in >mainstream science. Perhaps because of conflicting world views? >Tom. > , " " ><zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > > I'd like to affirm this point of view. I couldn't agree more. > > > > > > On Mar 30, 2005, at 12:49 PM, rw2@r... wrote: > > > > > From having debated with Todd over the years, I suspect your own > > > viewponts and his are not that far apart. It all depends on how > > > broadly one defines the term " science " . Medical science, of all of >the > > > sciences, is probably the most jaded, hide-bound, and resistant to >new > > > ideas of any of the sciences, because of the tremendous profits to be > > > made from pushing a mechanistic view of the universe that many other > > > sciences have long ago discarded as being simplistic and > > > unrepresentative of reality. > > > > > > Like you, I believe that future advances in Chinese herbology can be > > > made without compromising the integrity and insights of the ancients, > > > yet integrating much of it with insights from mathematics, systems > > > theory, and biology - I hesitate to put modern medical science on >this > > > list, because, as you point out, it is debatable whether modern > > > medical science is really a science or a scientism, as commonly > > > practiced. One has to be selective and discriminating - and that rule > > > has to be applied to scientific developments as well as > > > interpretations of ancient masters. > > > > > > Roger > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.