Subject: Re: Science and TCM (was Re: Qi again)

From: [email-masked] (Jan Nauta)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 00:29:20 +0200

At 10:59 22-01-95 -0800, Z'ev Rosenberg wrote:

>>
>>I didn't subscribe to OrMed to fight or disagree.
>>Believe me, I respect TCM and the TCM-practitioners who have shown in this
>>list that they have studied Chinese and Indian philosophies very seriously.
>>But I disagree with the statement that TCM and Science are incompatible.
>>I hate Fundamentalism!
>>What about all those Chinese research institutes investigating acupuncture
>>and herb physiolgy and pharmacology?
>>Don't you think that better understanding of chinese medicine is needed for
>>better treatment of patients?
>>Jan Nauta, Groningen, the Netherlands
>
>Dear Jan, 
>  Please do not feel that everyone on this conference feels that science
>and Chinese medicine are incompatable; I for one do not.  However, how can
>one understand the deep internal logic of Chinese medicine without deep
>study, before one can translate it into another paradigm, i.e. Western
>science?  There cannot be a conflict when there is mutual respect of
>disciplines.
>  Understand, Jan, that there are individuals that would like to completely
>discard Chinese medical theory based on yin/yang and wu xing, and
>retranslate it into a physiological understanding akin to modern
>biomedicine. I, for one, feel it would be a great mistake to throw away
>3000 years of acquired wisdom and PRINCIPLE for ever-changing modern
>research ideas which are fragmented and speculative.  Modern medicine
>itself is on the verge of great changes as it slowly embraces chaos theory,
>complexity theory and systems theory from modern physics.  It is then when
>compatability can arise, in my opinion.  
>   In what CONTEXT do meridians and points exist or not exist?  What makes
>modern scientific methodology more 'real' than classical Chinese medicine's
>understanding of the body and mind? Do not both approaches treat and effect
>changes on human health?
>
I enjoyed your reply. I agree!
I disagree totally with those people who want to 'translate' Chinese
medicine into modern biomedical language.
Chinese medicine is based on care, experience and tradition (handing over).
Chinese medical theory is not a theory in the way we Westerners, who
basically all have been educated in the western scientific paradigma, are
used to interprete a theory, and test, reject or accept it.
For some people Chinese medical theory seems to be too Holy for serious and
critical analysis.
With such attitude TCM can't be improved anymore, because it is already perfect.
I can't believe that. I have the impression that the health condition and
life expectancy of the average American or European is still better than for
the Chinese.
BTW, the Chinese health situation improved considerable after introduction
of Western medicine. One might therefore conclude that traditional medicine
has only a limited value.
Jan Nauta, Groningen, the Netherlands
TCMA, Traditional Chinese Medicine Association

---

From: Paul Bergner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 12:59:32 -0800 (PST)

> has only a limited value.

This is not to argue that TCM can meet the entire health care needs of a 
polulation, but consider that at the same time Western medicine was 
introduced in China, sweeping public health measures and sanitation were 
also introduced, and the economic condition of the average citizen was 
improved as well. These measures dramatically improved the health of 
Westerners when introduced there, and surely contributed to the 
improvement in the health of the Chinese. It is not all due to 
conventional medicine.