Again, this is a comment posted on Professor Liu’s blog: http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/485ea879010005nw Whether Chinese medicine is science, and what kind of science it is, is a major issue in the philosophy of technology, and it always deserves serious thought. Let me now post some preliminary discussion (there was already some discussion in last semester’s Introduction to Philosophy of Science course assignment),
Neither Chinese medicine nor Western medicine is “science”; they are “technology,” after all. The technology of medicine is very special indeed, and in the West it too has sources and traditions different from those of science. Medicine exists to cure illness; it is not human biology, not a science pursued for pure knowledge. Whether we should keep Chinese medicine is not something to be judged by whether it is scientific. Even a pluralistic view of science cannot really defend Chinese medicine very well. There are some witch-doctors that truly have no effect at all; leaving them alone is harmful, and they really do need to be banned, just as fraudulent activities need to be banned. But Chinese medicine does in fact work, and that is the strongest defense of Chinese medicine. If Chinese medicine were proven to be no more effective than suggestion, then however much one talked about the plurality of science, I think it could indeed be banned. But the effectiveness of Chinese medicine is acknowledged; to deny its therapeutic effect with eyes wide open and speak blatant falsehood is what is “unscientific.” Since it really is effective, even if one does not accept a pluralistic view of science, one ought still to recognize the significance of Chinese medicine. It is normal that Chinese medicine is not scientific, because medicine is technology rather than science. Several hundred years before Galileo used science to study the laws of projectile motion, artillerymen were already able to calculate with great precision where a shell would land. If, because the scientific principles governing the motion of shells had not been grasped, one were to deny artillery and say that artillerymen’s technique was “unscientific and must be banned,” that would be a joke. It is only in modern times that we have come more and more to see “science leading technology,” whereas throughout history, more often it has been technology leading science. One cannot deny science because it has not yet been realized technologically, nor can one deny technology because there is not yet a reasonable scientific explanation for it.
However, judging from the current situation, it seems that banning Chinese medicine is still not very likely to happen. The people in charge are not so feverish-minded as that, and if one simply speaks of emotional factors such as national sentiment and the national industry’s bringing enormous economic benefit, then no matter what, one would be reluctant to part with Chinese medicine. The more important issue now is: after preserving Chinese medicine, how should Chinese medicine be developed? This recent uproar has drawn people’s attention to it, and perhaps that may actually be a good thing for the development of Chinese medicine. At the very least, it is an opportunity for people to understand and reflect on what Chinese medicine really is.
The most important problem Chinese medicine is facing right now, in my view, is the Westernization of Chinese medicine—that is, understanding Chinese medicine through Western medicine’s way of thinking and fitting Chinese medicine into the framework of Western medicine. One consequence of this is the so-called “abolish medicine, preserve drugs” approach—one can hardly deny that Chinese medicine really does work, so long as one is not too feverish-minded, but one tendency is to explain its efficacy merely as the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine, and thus to set the direction of development as the summarizing and refining of herbs. Now increasingly, Chinese medicine formulas are made into granules, tablets, and the like, just like Western medicine, becoming universal pharmaceuticals for mass production. If you catch a cold, you can take Contac, or you can take a packet of Banlangen granules; the only difference is that the latter counts as “patent Chinese medicine.” If one places too much emphasis on the trend toward mass-produced pharmaceuticals, there is a danger of discarding one of Chinese medicine’s most important characteristics, because Chinese medicine “treats the person, not the disease,” and its methods are individualized, aimed at the patient as a whole. In order to preserve these truly important characteristics of Chinese medicine, in the end one must still emphasize a pluralistic view of science.
November 8, 2006
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply