Guest guest Posted April 28, 2005 Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 For so long, western science has not had an adequate explanation for some of the phenomena related to eastern mysticism and alternative healing. this has led those who seek explanation to assume there is no scientific rationale for some of what goes on in TCM. But if you accept that all effects have causes, then you would look elsewhere for the answers. If the explanation cannot be attributed to known parts and functions, then perhaps the cause is mystical, spiritual or energetic. In other words, the cause is either completely nonmaterial (etheric) or at the least represents an unknown force of the natural world (morphogenetic fields). The former adherents don't expect science to yield any answers, so they don't even look. The latter group bemoans the conspiracy against real science that obscures the truth of things like tesla waves and the like. Skeptics like Michael Shermer call these folks pseudoscientists. A third group that has held no currency in the american field of TCM points to mounting evidence that all the phenomena once thought mysterious in TCM are yielding rapidly to recent breakthroughs in scientific knowledge. It will soon be clear that neurobiology, genetics and pharmacology are sufficient to account for all the observed effects of TCM. There is no evidence that any acupuncture response travels faster than known neural and vascular pathways could account for. And all nonlocal tissue activation is probably brain mediated, not just an impulse traveling in an independent and invisible system of vessels. Imaging clearly shows the brains role. Sever the connection between brain and body and the process is stopped. Now alteration of gene expression is accounting for many of the unusual regulatory actions of herbs. Many of us have been expecting a paradigm shift and wondering what it would look like. I have argued here in the past that Kuhn's own words on the shift suggest it happens when so-called normal science fails to account for a growing body of experimental evidence. It now seems that chinese medicine is not going to stretch the boundaries of science till they tear. But perhaps the paradigm shift has already happened. The shift just happened within the realm of medical biology, not alternative medicine. And that shift towards a medicine geared towards supporting the righteous (with stem cells and nanotech) may have been profound enough to inadvertently cast its conceptual net wide enough to envelope TCM. After decades of unsatisfactory research under the old paradigm (pre fMRI and human genome), all of sudden there is an abundance of provocative new discoveries in our field. No new forces though. Its still about DNA and neurochemistry. But the shift is decidedly holistic and root oriented this time. We can debate what will come of all this, but we cannot deny a sea change in WM research. The focus is on restoring normal function rather than attacking disease. This is already having ramifications that seem to be escaping the notice of many. Chinese Herbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2005 Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 Todd states, " There is no evidence that any acupuncture response travels faster than known neural and vascular pathways could account for. " Maybe but how do you account for light propagation along channel pathways? Mike W. Bowser, L Ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2005 Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 I wouldn't argue with that but I would ask how is it easier to teach and understand from a practical point of view? I think part of the reason Chinese medicine is successful is that it is fairly easy to propagate because it makes fairly visceral " sense " even when it contains a fair amount of contradictory and " mystical " material. How CM will get propagated to people once (if?) the various mechinisms are explained? Will there be some sort of vast rectification of all thoughts on point function with a charting of neural activity based on high resolution PET scans or some novel method of observation? Will a supercomputer suss out the interactions of the various complex molecules in a formula with a patients specific genetic structure, will we diagnose (as I understand they already are to some extent in China) via blood hormone levels? While I don't think these would be worthless endeavors, and might serve to substantiate a lot of interesting stuff in CM and promote new ideas, in the end we are still just substantiating a way of practice and learning that we all acknowledge works more or less well. Beyond that CM is practical because there is no need for those sorts of machines and laboratory equipment to do it well, just a practitioner, some plants and some needles. I wouldn't count on being in a position to have a gene resequencing machine for ones patients either. Unless they develope a shot in the bum that cures everything I think we are going to be in bussiness in the same context for some time to come. Another thing is nano. There was a note on NPR recently about the carginogenic quality of bucky balls, which apparently are problematic because they are so small they penetrate membranes with impunity (it makes the blood brain barrier look like the Maginot line). One of the principles of nano therapy would be massive redundancy, since nano is fragile and wouldn't last long in a body, so while you have nano gene repair going on, the nano junkyard in the tissue will be potentially causing as many or more genetic and other problems. Anything usefully small will have to be made out of much smaller things, and they will break, and the body will not cope well with the rubble. Do the various articles on nano take this into account? I haven't read as much as you on the topic, please inform me. Par Are you envisioning a future with some sort of quantum computing - " " < Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:14 PM paradigm shift > For so long, western science has not had an adequate explanation for > some of the phenomena related to eastern mysticism and alternative > healing. this has led those who seek explanation to assume there is no > scientific rationale for some of what goes on in TCM. But if you > accept that all effects have causes, then you would look elsewhere for > the answers. If the explanation cannot be attributed to known parts > and functions, then perhaps the cause is mystical, spiritual or > energetic. In other words, the cause is either completely nonmaterial > (etheric) or at the least represents an unknown force of the natural > world (morphogenetic fields). The former adherents don't expect > science to yield any answers, so they don't even look. The latter > group bemoans the conspiracy against real science that obscures the > truth of things like tesla waves and the like. Skeptics like Michael > Shermer call these folks pseudoscientists. > > A third group that has held no currency in the american field of TCM > points to mounting evidence that all the phenomena once thought > mysterious in TCM are yielding rapidly to recent breakthroughs in > scientific knowledge. It will soon be clear that neurobiology, > genetics and pharmacology are sufficient to account for all the > observed effects of TCM. There is no evidence that any acupuncture > response travels faster than known neural and vascular pathways could > account for. And all nonlocal tissue activation is probably brain > mediated, not just an impulse traveling in an independent and invisible > system of vessels. Imaging clearly shows the brains role. Sever the > connection between brain and body and the process is stopped. Now > alteration of gene expression is accounting for many of the unusual > regulatory actions of herbs. > > Many of us have been expecting a paradigm shift and wondering what it > would look like. I have argued here in the past that Kuhn's own words > on the shift suggest it happens when so-called normal science fails to > account for a growing body of experimental evidence. It now seems that > chinese medicine is not going to stretch the boundaries of science till > they tear. But perhaps the paradigm shift has already happened. The > shift just happened within the realm of medical biology, not > alternative medicine. And that shift towards a medicine geared towards > supporting the righteous (with stem cells and nanotech) may have been > profound enough to inadvertently cast its conceptual net wide enough to > envelope TCM. After decades of unsatisfactory research under the old > paradigm (pre fMRI and human genome), all of sudden there is an > abundance of provocative new discoveries in our field. No new forces > though. Its still about DNA and neurochemistry. But the shift is > decidedly holistic and root oriented this time. We can debate what > will come of all this, but we cannot deny a sea change in WM research. > The focus is on restoring normal function rather than attacking > disease. This is already having ramifications that seem to be escaping > the notice of many. > > > > Chinese Herbs > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > 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.