Digest Number 605 / evidence and explanations

[Guest guest]

Hi Dermot and all, two thoughts...

 

--- Dermot O'Connor <dermot

wrote:

>> 1Because there really is no proof of Qi gong being

>> effective treating disease.

 

> This is what many in the medical profession say

> about TCM in general. There

> is in fact a large body of evidence that TCM and

> Qigong are effective at treating disease.

 

Just *one* researcher (formerly?) in Toronto, Bruce

Pomeranz, has detailed 16 different lines of evidence

for the efficacy of acupuncture. Let's stop buying

into the unscientific assertions that this stuff is

unproven.

 

> Sometimes we dont know why, but

> this is a different issue.

 

This is an important point for me - /who/ knows why?

As far as I can see, the " why " of things is far too

deep for intellectual understanding. The " why " is an

attempt to see the superset of our existence - which

is a little difficult as long as we are constrained by

our existence, which is the subset.

The answers that we can get scientifically are

strictly of the " how " nature. The are exactly and no

more than descriptions of processes. They can be very

detailed and congratulations to science and whatever,

but let's not get our heads all blown out of

proportion - even as an " advanced " society, we know

very little of the 'how', let alone the 'why'. Witness

the technological mess we currently have.

My point is this: Chinese medicine has a broad " how "

and Western medicine has a detailed " how " . CM has a

link to the spiritual and so has a pointed finger at a

" why " . But, in the end, it is, as they say, ineffable

anyway.

The joke about doctors:

Q: What's the difference between doctors and God?

A: God doesn't think it's a doctor.

 

Western medicine likes to think it has a " why " . It

does not.

 

Thanks for reading,

Hugo

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________ALL-NEW

Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

Hugo I think you misread me....I don't question the effectivenes of

acupuncture at all.

 

 

-

" Hugo Ramiro " <subincor

<Chinese Medicine >

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 6:48 PM

Re: Digest Number 605 / evidence and explanations

 

 

> Hi Dermot and all, two thoughts...

>

> --- Dermot O'Connor <dermot

> wrote:

> >> 1Because there really is no proof of Qi gong being

> >> effective treating disease.

>

> > This is what many in the medical profession say

> > about TCM in general. There

> > is in fact a large body of evidence that TCM and

> > Qigong are effective at treating disease.

>

> Just *one* researcher (formerly?) in Toronto, Bruce

> Pomeranz, has detailed 16 different lines of evidence

> for the efficacy of acupuncture. Let's stop buying

> into the unscientific assertions that this stuff is

> unproven.

>

> > Sometimes we dont know why, but

> > this is a different issue.

>

> This is an important point for me - /who/ knows why?

> As far as I can see, the " why " of things is far too

> deep for intellectual understanding. The " why " is an

> attempt to see the superset of our existence - which

> is a little difficult as long as we are constrained by

> our existence, which is the subset.

> The answers that we can get scientifically are

> strictly of the " how " nature. The are exactly and no

> more than descriptions of processes. They can be very

> detailed and congratulations to science and whatever,

> but let's not get our heads all blown out of

> proportion - even as an " advanced " society, we know

> very little of the 'how', let alone the 'why'. Witness

> the technological mess we currently have.

> My point is this: Chinese medicine has a broad " how "

> and Western medicine has a detailed " how " . CM has a

> link to the spiritual and so has a pointed finger at a

> " why " . But, in the end, it is, as they say, ineffable

> anyway.

> The joke about doctors:

> Q: What's the difference between doctors and God?

> A: God doesn't think it's a doctor.

>

> Western medicine likes to think it has a " why " . It

> does not.

>

> Thanks for reading,

> Hugo

[Guest guest]

--- Dermot O'Connor <dermot

wrote:

> Hugo I think you misread me....I don't question the

> effectivenes of

> acupuncture at all.

 

Nope, that's why I wrote " Dermot and all " . Did not

have original poster's name (the one with the double

>). Sorry for confusion.

 

Thanks,

Hugo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________ALL-NEW

Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.