hogwash

[Guest guest]

Z'Ev:

OK, well we've got different traditions with different point locations

and combinations, and often contradictory interpetations of the same

signs and symptoms (ever look at tongue / face charts? pulse

systems?). Are they *all* right? Well, all the different traditions

of acupuncture seem to get results, and many studies (not all) suggest

that verum and sham points do give different results, even if slightly

in some cases. What to make of all this? When we do chemistry, we

don't have different versions of the periodic table. We expect

identical results from identical tests (in vitro at least!). In our

case, we do not have such an exacting standard. Therefore, what we do

is different from science.

I'm not out to bust quacks. I'm just a skeptic. As a former religion

scholar, I know that humans more often than not derive their

perceptions from apriori ideas than vice-versa. So it is easy to have

full faith in your experience and yet not be able to share your

insights or results with your fellow humans. That is the nature of

nonscientific thought. This does not denigrate it.

I think all knowledge systems are incomplete. I think that biomedicine

is an incomplete science, though it is a science because it describes

structures that are easily investigated and processes that are easily

reproduced, at least on a cellular level, and many times on a macro

level. But this is because they work with a reduced system in order to

minimize variables. Biomedicine has lost much of the art of healing,

however, because its quest for reductive clarity has eclipsed its

understanding of the complex whole, which is often ignored, denigrated

or denied. In Biomedicine as well, apriori belief often rejects

nonconforming data. In its case, however, what often happens is that

the therapeutic options determine the diagnosis: they can't see what

thy can't treat with drugs or surgery (or, if you're lucky, PT); we

all see patients that have symptoms that are easily explained by basic

functional anatomy but have been misdiagnosed because biomedicine

can't treat it.

On the other hand, TCM / OM / CM is quite good at working with fully

human beings, but we can't explain why except by resorting to metaphor

(which is really what the language of our art is comprised of, or

maybe mnemonics - an easily understood extension of the " holistic, "

manifold ideogrammatic nature of the written Chinese language itself,

in contrast to our own " atomic " / discrete grammatic structure, which

tends to produce reductive models of reality.) Anyone who believes in

Qi as a literal force beyond the scope of scientific investigation can

be thought of as engaging in magical thinking, or at least religious

thinking. Physics is quite real, and physicists have found nothing

like Qi. However, if we look at Qi as a metaphor, or a measurement of

various functions and interactions (because we all know from our

studies that Qi describes literally everything, right?), then we can

say we " move qi " or " harmonize Qi " in good faith because we are

describing a complex process metaphorically, with definite measurable

results (if it works). But this is not science. This is clinical

medicine, where there is a mixture of bogus tradition and fairly

reliable techniques and procedures, wrapped up in plain-old mystery.

You know, string theory right now is testing science, because it is a

theory that cannot (yet, if ever) be tested. It has self-consistent

descriptive logic, but it also may describe nothing real. In a sense,

we are working with the very stuff biomedicine doesn't want to deal

with, the " dark energy " and " dark matter " (yin and yang?) of health.

But, like string theory, it may not be science.

-Ben

 

Chinese Medicine , " "

<zrosenbe wrote:

>

> When I read this e-mail, with its use of terms such as 'nonsense',

> 'religion' and 'cultural hogwash', I feel like I've just picked up a

> quackbuster's screed.

>

> Do you feel that modern medicine is " scientific " , and Chinese

> medicine is not?

>

> If you look at one specific aspect of Chinese medicine, herbal

> medicine or zhong yao/Chinese medicinals, we are dealing with

> specific substances with specific effects used in combination to

> treat systemic imbalances and illnesses. This information has been

> collected over millenia, and most of the 'ancient formulas' have

> survived, largely because they work. The theoretical foundations co-

> evolved with the clinical aspect, and they are clearly inseparable.

> The Chinese are very practical people. Warm disease and cold damage

> theory was developed not as a mental parlor game, but as criteria to

> understand and treat serious epidemic diseases.

>

> Pulse and tongue diagnosis have been developed and confirmed over a

> very long period, and despite differences in schools and approaches,

> there are basic criteria and agreements over what can be obtained

> from these methods.

>

> You may want to look at the Chinese 'cultural hogwash' a little more

> deeply before condemning it in this fashion. Or define what you are

> saying with a little more clarity.

>

>

> On Jun 18, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Benjamin Hawes, L.Ac. wrote:

>

> >

> > Indeed, most of what we do is nonsense. Most of TCM is nonsense.

> > Pulses,

> > tongues, etc. all provoke wide disagreement, and there are so many

> > differing schools and traditions as to make any claims regarding

> > superiority of technique or interpretation laughable. The art of

> > Chinese

> > medicine is figuring out that which is not complete BS. But of course,

> > this differs for every practitioner... face it: we're voodoo

> > doctors who

> > somehow make people better even though everyone is doing things

> > differently. Sure, let's have fun discussions about phlegm misting the

> > orifices or whatever, but don't mistake it for science, since it is

> > not

> > in the nature of healing to be able to faithfully reproduce results.

> > Anyone getting all hot under the collar really needs to look at

> > themselves in the mirror and ask themselves whether they belong to a

> > religion called TCM, because otherwise there is no defensible

> > reason to

> > get shrill over a pre-scientific loose set of theories over two

> > thousand

> > years old that comes to us as an admixture of clinical wisdom and

> > Chinese cultural hogwash. In other words, just because you have a tidy

> > explanation of all the humoral processes that would allow you to fly

> > doesn't mean you can.

> > -Ben Hawes, L.Ac.

> >

> > Re: Facelift Acupuncture: fact or fallacy?

> >

> >