Clipping Board » Medical Myths ─ The truth about healthcare is often different from what you intuitively think.
Article Summary: Materialists unquestioningly and dogmatically believe that human senses can reflect the world and that people can correctly understand it. This leads them to believe there is a single truth in the world, which they can attain. Thus, they fulfill what Nobel Prize-winning physicist Max Born described as the root of all evil in the world.
Author: Zhong Weiguang
Publication Date: March 12, 2007
The Germany I currently live in is considered one of the most conservative and xenophobic regions in the world. Yet, over the past two decades, a significant change has occurred here: Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has gradually entered the lives of ordinary Germans. It is expected that TCM will continue to develop considerably in Germany in the near future, especially since German insurance companies have already begun conditionally covering TCM treatments. I believe this shift is also observable in other Western regions.
However, at the same time, a destructive farce has recently emerged in mainland China, moving against the tide of global progress. A group led by He Zuoxiu has launched a crusade against TCM, labeling it as "pseudoscience" and calling for its abolition. This is truly a phenomenon that not only baffles the Western public but also leaves Western academia stunned. Moreover, the methods, language, and arguments used in the ensuing debate—whether from supporters or opponents—have left Western scientific circles, scientific thought, and the history of science utterly confused.
Fully explaining this stark contrast would require far more than a few thousand words. Yet, even a brief, surface-level inquiry should give China's intellectual elite pause for thought.
In the contemporary West, not only TCM but even practices like feng shui are gaining popularity, with no one attacking them for not being "scientific." Could it be that Western academia, the birthplace of science, understands the nature of science less profoundly than He Zuoxiu and his ilk in China? In today's world, pluralism is widely accepted in intellectual circles—pluralistic civilizations, cultures, and ideas. Are He Zuoxiu and his followers not merely resurrecting the long-discarded dogma of "scientism"?
What is science (Science)? In the West—or more accurately, in the general academic world outside Communist societies—whether for scientists and scientific thinkers who study it or for irrationalists and environmentalists who scrutinize or oppose it, the definition is clear. It is a method of describing the world that originated in Greece, closely tied to observation and experimentation through human "reasoning" and "rationality." In modern times, due to its adoption of rigorous systems like mathematics, modern science in the West is also referred to as "Exact Science." In this sense, TCM is certainly not science, nor is feng shui, because the conceptual terminology of TCM lacks strict logical reasoning, and its concepts, terms, and outcomes cannot be precisely confirmed or falsified through corresponding observation and experimentation.
However, the key question is: So what if TCM isn't science? Does that provide a sufficient or necessary reason for its abolition? And where does this opposition to TCM truly stem from?
The answer lies in the Communist Party's textbook-style interpretation of science. For the world outside Communist societies, science is a method of describing phenomena—never a value judgment.The development of the history of science tells us that in order to better and more accurately describe the world and even predict more phenomena, thereby adapting to and harnessing these natural phenomena, the methods scientists use to describe them are constantly changing or expanding. From Aristotle's speculative theories on motion in ancient Greece to the modern mathematical descriptions of motion, from geometry, algebra, group theory, and topology to the Eastern concepts of "being" and "non-being," what we see is the evolution of descriptive methods.
However, the author must emphasize here that in this sense, "mathematics" cannot be called science—this is a consensus in the West.
Human understanding and exploration of the world are certainly not limited to this single method of description. Imagination, speculation, intuition, poetry, literature, philosophy, music, painting, and religion are all ways people understand and explore the world and life. None of these are science, yet they all have their intrinsic value. Together, they form the rich and diverse tapestry of human life. For this reason, people have long recognized—not just now but since ancient times—that scientific description is an extremely limited method of understanding.
But how can we absolutize one method of description into the sole criterion of value judgment? The problem arises precisely when science is treated as a value judgment, a stance rooted in materialism. Materialists unquestioningly and dogmatically believe that human senses can reflect the world and that people can correctly understand it. This leads them to believe in a singular truth in the world, which they can attain. As Nobel Prize-winning physicist Max Born once said, this belief is the root of all evil in the world.
In the early 1980s, when American historian of science Nathan Sivin visited the Institute for the History of Natural Sciences at the Chinese Academy of Sciences as a visiting scholar, I had the opportunity to meet him. He expressed puzzlement at the pride with which the Chinese Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine announced that it had begun using computers to diagnose and prescribe for patients. He remarked that the West had already recognized the limitations of Western medicine and considered it absurd to treat patients as unchanging machines by using computers for diagnosis. He wondered why the Chinese academic community turned a blind eye to this. Sivin mentioned that his first report on the history of Chinese science was about redefining "Science"—that is, clarifying his concept of science. To avoid misunderstandings, he used the term "Sciences" when describing the history of Chinese science. He also found it strange that the Chinese were so anxious about whether ancient China had science. In his writings, he explicitly stated that the presence or absence of science did not diminish the greatness of Chinese civilization.
Now, more than twenty years later, China's academic and intellectual circles remain surprisingly abnormal. The statement that traditional Chinese medicine is not science is not a negative judgment to Western scholars but rather an affirmation—even praise. It precisely highlights the invaluable contributions of traditional Chinese medicine and the potential insights and treatments it offers for human health. Yet, among China's intellectual elite, this statement is taken as a negative judgment—utterly incomprehensible!
The same logic applies to the attacks on Falun Gong. To say that Falun Gong is unscientific is, to a scientist, a meaningless statement. Falun Gong explores realms beyond the scope of science; calling it science would be irrelevant and even demeaning.Rather than debating the issue of "pseudoscience," China's academic circles would do better to reflect on whether the materialist foundation of epistemology is even possible, to question whether the yardstick they use to measure problems is flawed, and to ask whether Marxism truly qualifies as science. Of course, by the same logic, even if Marxism is not "science," it still has its raison d'être in some sense—as a romantic literary theory, as a voice of resistance against inequality. However, as "science" or as the sole truth, it is untenable.
As for the scientific and naturalistic views of figures like He Zuoxiu, they are even more inferior—merely dogmatic propaganda reliant on and subservient to power. In a world of free inquiry and a normal society, they hold no value for discussion and have no possibility of existence.
This latest round of discussions on discarding traditional Chinese medicine and Chinese traditional culture can only remind people once again of the Cultural Revolution. It makes people feel once more that not only does the ideological foundation for cultural revolution persist, but this cultural revolution has also been ongoing in Chinese society.
February 7, 2007, Essen, Germany
Source: http://www. fireofliberty. org/ trad/ article/ 3122. asp
Zhong Weiguang: Blind Spots in the "Pseudoscience" Debate
Author: Zhong Weiguang
Publication Date: March 12, 2007
The Germany I currently live in is considered one of the most conservative and xenophobic regions in the world. Yet, over the past two decades, a significant change has occurred here: Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has gradually entered the lives of ordinary Germans. It is expected that TCM will continue to develop considerably in Germany in the near future, especially since German insurance companies have already begun conditionally covering TCM treatments. I believe this shift is also observable in other Western regions.
However, at the same time, a destructive farce has recently emerged in mainland China, moving against the tide of global progress. A group led by He Zuoxiu has launched a crusade against TCM, labeling it as "pseudoscience" and calling for its abolition. This is truly a phenomenon that not only baffles the Western public but also leaves Western academia stunned. Moreover, the methods, language, and arguments used in the ensuing debate—whether from supporters or opponents—have left Western scientific circles, scientific thought, and the history of science utterly confused.
Fully explaining this stark contrast would require far more than a few thousand words. Yet, even a brief, surface-level inquiry should give China's intellectual elite pause for thought.
In the contemporary West, not only TCM but even practices like feng shui are gaining popularity, with no one attacking them for not being "scientific." Could it be that Western academia, the birthplace of science, understands the nature of science less profoundly than He Zuoxiu and his ilk in China? In today's world, pluralism is widely accepted in intellectual circles—pluralistic civilizations, cultures, and ideas. Are He Zuoxiu and his followers not merely resurrecting the long-discarded dogma of "scientism"?
What is science (Science)? In the West—or more accurately, in the general academic world outside Communist societies—whether for scientists and scientific thinkers who study it or for irrationalists and environmentalists who scrutinize or oppose it, the definition is clear. It is a method of describing the world that originated in Greece, closely tied to observation and experimentation through human "reasoning" and "rationality." In modern times, due to its adoption of rigorous systems like mathematics, modern science in the West is also referred to as "Exact Science." In this sense, TCM is certainly not science, nor is feng shui, because the conceptual terminology of TCM lacks strict logical reasoning, and its concepts, terms, and outcomes cannot be precisely confirmed or falsified through corresponding observation and experimentation.
However, the key question is: So what if TCM isn't science? Does that provide a sufficient or necessary reason for its abolition? And where does this opposition to TCM truly stem from?
The answer lies in the Communist Party's textbook-style interpretation of science. For the world outside Communist societies, science is a method of describing phenomena—never a value judgment.The development of the history of science tells us that in order to better and more accurately describe the world and even predict more phenomena, thereby adapting to and harnessing these natural phenomena, the methods scientists use to describe them are constantly changing or expanding. From Aristotle's speculative theories on motion in ancient Greece to the modern mathematical descriptions of motion, from geometry, algebra, group theory, and topology to the Eastern concepts of "being" and "non-being," what we see is the evolution of descriptive methods.
However, the author must emphasize here that in this sense, "mathematics" cannot be called science—this is a consensus in the West.
Human understanding and exploration of the world are certainly not limited to this single method of description. Imagination, speculation, intuition, poetry, literature, philosophy, music, painting, and religion are all ways people understand and explore the world and life. None of these are science, yet they all have their intrinsic value. Together, they form the rich and diverse tapestry of human life. For this reason, people have long recognized—not just now but since ancient times—that scientific description is an extremely limited method of understanding.
But how can we absolutize one method of description into the sole criterion of value judgment? The problem arises precisely when science is treated as a value judgment, a stance rooted in materialism. Materialists unquestioningly and dogmatically believe that human senses can reflect the world and that people can correctly understand it. This leads them to believe in a singular truth in the world, which they can attain. As Nobel Prize-winning physicist Max Born once said, this belief is the root of all evil in the world.
In the early 1980s, when American historian of science Nathan Sivin visited the Institute for the History of Natural Sciences at the Chinese Academy of Sciences as a visiting scholar, I had the opportunity to meet him. He expressed puzzlement at the pride with which the Chinese Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine announced that it had begun using computers to diagnose and prescribe for patients. He remarked that the West had already recognized the limitations of Western medicine and considered it absurd to treat patients as unchanging machines by using computers for diagnosis. He wondered why the Chinese academic community turned a blind eye to this. Sivin mentioned that his first report on the history of Chinese science was about redefining "Science"—that is, clarifying his concept of science. To avoid misunderstandings, he used the term "Sciences" when describing the history of Chinese science. He also found it strange that the Chinese were so anxious about whether ancient China had science. In his writings, he explicitly stated that the presence or absence of science did not diminish the greatness of Chinese civilization.
Now, more than twenty years later, China's academic and intellectual circles remain surprisingly abnormal. The statement that traditional Chinese medicine is not science is not a negative judgment to Western scholars but rather an affirmation—even praise. It precisely highlights the invaluable contributions of traditional Chinese medicine and the potential insights and treatments it offers for human health. Yet, among China's intellectual elite, this statement is taken as a negative judgment—utterly incomprehensible!
The same logic applies to the attacks on Falun Gong. To say that Falun Gong is unscientific is, to a scientist, a meaningless statement. Falun Gong explores realms beyond the scope of science; calling it science would be irrelevant and even demeaning.Rather than debating the issue of "pseudoscience," China's academic circles would do better to reflect on whether the materialist foundation of epistemology is even possible, to question whether the yardstick they use to measure problems is flawed, and to ask whether Marxism truly qualifies as science. Of course, by the same logic, even if Marxism is not "science," it still has its raison d'être in some sense—as a romantic literary theory, as a voice of resistance against inequality. However, as "science" or as the sole truth, it is untenable.
As for the scientific and naturalistic views of figures like He Zuoxiu, they are even more inferior—merely dogmatic propaganda reliant on and subservient to power. In a world of free inquiry and a normal society, they hold no value for discussion and have no possibility of existence.
This latest round of discussions on discarding traditional Chinese medicine and Chinese traditional culture can only remind people once again of the Cultural Revolution. It makes people feel once more that not only does the ideological foundation for cultural revolution persist, but this cultural revolution has also been ongoing in Chinese society.
February 7, 2007, Essen, Germany
Source: http://www. fireofliberty. org/ trad/ article/ 3122. asp
Shen Yaozi said, "The sun bakes the earth, dissipating all things."