The topic of whether Chinese medicine is scientific involves far too much; every one of the “small topics” involved is big enough in itself! Before talking about it, it may be worth reflecting a little first. On what understanding of the question itself does one actually base one’s discussion? If everyone is approaching it from different points of focus and discussing the issue from their own angles, it is very easy to get tangled up. I think that, regarding “whether Chinese medicine is scientific,” there are at least four different perspectives:
The first angle is something like asking whether psychology is scientific, whether astrology is scientific, whether the ancient Chinese “heavenly studies” are scientific, and so on; what is being asked is whether “Chinese medicine is a science.” The answer to this can be very simple—medicine is not a science to begin with, and Chinese medicine is of course even less likely to be a science. Ancient medicine was not scientific from the outset; it was more a matter of “technique” or “craft.” Even modern Western medicine is still more properly classified as “technology.” In discussing what science is, it is quite important first to distinguish the two concepts of science and technology. Even if modern science and technology have already formed an inseparable “superstructure,” they still should not be regarded as one and the same thing.
The second angle is this: although Chinese medicine is not a purely scientific discipline, does it nonetheless contain “science,” or at least contain “the germ of science,” “an elementary form of science”? Or is it another scientific system “incommensurable” with Western science? Discussing the issue from this angle inevitably draws in the debate over the Needham question. There has been a great deal of discussion in this area; I am rather in favor of related articles by Tian Song. Against that background, saying “there was no science in ancient China” is a pointed statement, aimed at the views of those who argue that “there was science in ancient China.” In their understanding of “science,” I believe that ancient China did not have science, nor could it spontaneously produce modern science. As for whether the emergence of modern science is related to “cultural tradition,” there has been far too much debate on that point, and I have previously written down some of my own related views.
The third angle is asking whether Chinese medicine is “scientific,” that is, treating scientific as an adjective, just as one might say that eating three meals a day is “scientific,” while skipping breakfast is “unscientific”; going to a Western hospital when ill is “scientific,” while inviting someone to perform a spirit-summoning rite is “unscientific.” Then asking whether going to see a Chinese medicine practitioner when sick is “scientific” makes the question of whether it is “scientific” akin to asking whether Chinese medicine is “effective.” In fact, in discussion we often stress the benefits of Chinese medicine. However, this topic can be pressed further: is Chinese medicine effective because it is “scientific,” or precisely because it is utterly different from Western science that it has such miraculous efficacy?
The fourth angle is asking whether Chinese medicine “should” be “scientific,” that is, whether Chinese medicine needs to be “scientized,” and how it should be “scientized,” and so on. There are also two kinds of advocacy for Chinese medicine’s need to be “scientized”: one is to have Western medicine absorb Chinese medicine, that is, to “turn Chinese medicine into Chinese materia medica,” making Chinese medicine also adopt Western-style methods of experimentation, instrumentation, quantification and qualitative analysis, and so on, while stripping away vague notions such as internal heat and other dubious concepts; the other is a milder position, which asks Chinese medicine to absorb some things from Western medicine appropriately, but allows it to retain theoretical systems that cannot be explained by science, as well as Chinese medicine’s distinctive operating methods (individualized, emphasizing subjective experience), and so on. Personally, I support the moderate “scientization” of Chinese medicine, but exactly how to grasp that degree is hard to say. Moreover, there is in fact no need at all right now for anyone to advocate the “scientization” of Chinese medicine, because reverence for science is the “default configuration” of modern China. Therefore, in the present situation, views that argue Chinese medicine should not be scientized, or that Chinese medicine should keep its distance from science, even if somewhat stubborn, are more urgently needed.
March 4, 2006
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply