Proper disclosure

[Guest guest]

I

heard today from two completely different sources that one of the more prolific

and well respected translators of Chinese medical history and literature does

not believe that Chinese medicine is effective (it isn’t anyone on this

list). I don’t know if it is true, and I suppose I don’t

really care. The question that comes to mind is whether an author has a

responsibility to clarify his views on a subject before engaging the reader.

Is there some unwritten rule regarding this type of disclosure? It seems

this information would be helpful when determining how many grains of salt to

use when critically reading something new.

[Guest guest]

I'm not really sure that it matters. If the work is good, it is

usually pretty clear based on the sources cited, the reputation of the

author and what the intent of the author is. Does it really matter

if a medical historian thinks a particular medical science is

effective? Or if a historian of religion believes in the religion

he/she is studying? This would then make it very difficult to write

about anything that one did not believe in. Because a

practitioner of Chinese medicine does not believe that vaccinations are

good for children does that mean that he/she should not write about the

use of vaccinations or the history of vaccinations (which originated in

China). Stating one's opinion about a given topic prior to

discussing it gives the reader a preconception about what he/she is about

to read. If the author were writing about clinical efficacy, his/her

work should be based on clinical experience or proven research. As

a historian, one is coming from a completely different perspective and in

general, one's writing does not overtly judge the inherent value of the

medical system. However, if one is a careful reader of an

individual's corpus of writing, one can usually tell from the more

" opinion " pieces how an author feels about a particular medical

system. Many of the historians of Chinese medicine did not care to

even test its efficacy - that is not really relevant to the historian,

unless he/she is writing about the hhistory of its efficacy, in which

case his/her bias might influence how he/she interprets data. But

this is true in al research/writing. An individual's opinion about

efficacy should not influence the reader's opinion of the quality of the

work.

Marnae

At 10:15 PM 6/10/2003 -0700, you wrote:

I heard

today from two completely different sources that one of the more prolific

and well respected translators of Chinese medical history and literature

does not believe that Chinese medicine is effective (it isnt anyone on

this list). I dont know if it is true, and I suppose I dont really

care. The question that comes to mind is whether an author has a

responsibility to clarify his views on a subject before engaging the

reader. Is there some unwritten rule regarding this type of

disclosure? It seems this information would be helpful when

determining how many grains of salt to use when critically reading

something new.

 

 

[Guest guest]

> I heard today from two completely different sources that one of

the more

> prolific and well respected translators of Chinese medical history

and

> literature does not believe that Chinese medicine is effective (it

isn't

> anyone on this list). I don't know if it is true, and I suppose I

don't

> really care. The question that comes to mind is whether an author

has a

> responsibility to clarify his views on a subject before engaging

the reader.

> Is there some unwritten rule regarding this type of disclosure?

 

Let me clarify my view on the responsibility

of authors to clarify their views. In an ideal

world, one would actually know what an author's

views on a subject are by simply reading what

the author writes. Those with clear views would

appear lucid and clear. Those with unclear or

dim views would appear murky...perhaps turbid?

 

I'm largely unconcerned about what they

write about themselves of what they have

written. What is written should speak for

itself.

 

I would much rather read the carefully written

and clear views of an author who does not

believe that any given subject works or is

otherwise valid than the clearly prefaced

work of someone who believes in the truth

of his or her own ideas but presents them

in a befuddled way.

 

What I find most useless is the ardantly

argued work of people who profess undying

loyalty to a subject, more or less regardless

of what the facts state or how well the work

is organized, presented, and supported.

 

It seems

> this information would be helpful when determining how many grains

of salt

> to use when critically reading something new.

 

I recommend a minimum of five grains of

salt for reading virtually anything. In

Chinese medicine, seven or eight should

be used...

 

....three times a day.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...>

wrote:

> I'm not really sure that it matters. If the work is good, it is

usually

> pretty clear based on the sources cited, the reputation of the

author and

> what the intent of the author is. Does it really matter if a

medical

> historian thinks a particular medical science is effective? Or if

a

> historian of religion believes in the religion he/she is studying?

This

> would then make it very difficult to write about anything that one

did not

> believe in. Because a practitioner of Chinese medicine does not

believe

> that vaccinations are good for children does that mean that he/she

should

> not write about the use of vaccinations or the history of

vaccinations

> (which originated in China). Stating one's opinion about a given

topic

> prior to discussing it gives the reader a preconception about what

he/she

> is about to read. If the author were writing about clinical

efficacy,

> his/her work should be based on clinical experience or proven

research. As

> a historian, one is coming from a completely different perspective

and in

> general, one's writing does not overtly judge the inherent value of

the

> medical system. However, if one is a careful reader of an

individual's

> corpus of writing, one can usually tell from the more " opinion "

pieces how

> an author feels about a particular medical system. Many of the

historians

> of Chinese medicine did not care to even test its efficacy - that

is not

> really relevant to the historian, unless he/she is writing about

the

> hhistory of its efficacy, in which case his/her bias might

influence how

> he/she interprets data. But this is true in al research/writing.

An

> individual's opinion about efficacy should not influence the

reader's

> opinion of the quality of the work.

>

> Marnae

>

M,

 

I have to somewhat disagree. It is my understanding that in academic

writing, albeit research, history, or medical efficacy, it is proper

ethics to first discuss your biases upfront. I believe this is

important because even a historian has to pick and choose what he/she

will uncover and write about. You can say it is up to the reader to

decide, but if only one side is presented (even in a subtle way) then

what is the reader to think. Especially if the author is well known.

 

-JAson

[Guest guest]

heard today from two completely different sources that one of the more prolific and well respected translators of Chinese medical history and literature does not believe that Chinese medicine is effective (it isn’t anyone on this list).

>>>What does that mean. Not effective for anything? that is stupid. What CM is truly effective for however is still an open question

alon

[Guest guest]

heard today from two completely different sources that one of the more prolific and well respected translators of Chinese medical history and literature does not believe that Chinese medicine is effective (it isn’t anyone on this list).

>>>The other problem i see is that many of the translators have very little clinical exposure to what they are translating and have no idea if things ring true or not

alon

[Guest guest]

What I find most useless is the ardantlyargued work of people who profess undyingloyalty to a subject, more or less regardlessof what the facts state or how well the workis organized, presented, and supported.>>>>I could not agree with this more, and think that we need to heed this as individuals and as a growing profession as well

Alon

[Guest guest]

have to somewhat disagree. It is my understanding that in academic writing, albeit research, history, or medical efficacy, it is proper ethics to first discuss your biases upfront. I believe this is important because even a historian has to pick and choose what he/she will uncover and write about. You can say it is up to the reader to decide, but if only one side is presented (even in a subtle way) then what is the reader to think. Especially if the author is well known.>>>>>Since i am guessing we are talking about Unschuld, i do not think his personal beliefs are important. The quality of breath of his work, as well as the age of material he translates, as nothing to do with efficacy. Judging efficacy from Yellow Emperor is rather naive. I think the fact that he points to many of the contradictions in history clearly shows that he does not have a blind allegiance to CM. There is no need to clearly state anything on his personal opinions

Alon

[Guest guest]

--- heard today from two completely different sources that one of

the more prolific and well respected translators of Chinese medical

history and literature does not believe that Chinese medicine is

effective (it isn't anyone on this list). >>>

 

 

The bigger question that comes to mind is who has he been going to

see for treatments?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...>

wrote:

 

>

> I would much rather read the carefully written

> and clear views of an author who does not

> believe that any given subject works or is

> otherwise valid than the clearly prefaced

> work of someone who believes in the truth

> of his or her own ideas but presents them

> in a befuddled way.

 

a historian is a journalist of sorts and as such it is NOT standard to reveal

one's

biases. In fact Peter Arness lost his job during the Iraq war for such a faux

pas. One reveals one's vested interests, that's all. If the reporting is

inaccurate

or biased because of the writer's beliefs, then that should be evident from the

text. If the reporting is accurate and fair, then the supposed bias is moot.

for

example, I find the reporting on the wall street journal front page to be

surprisingly impartial, while their editorial page is decidedly biased to the

point of absurdity. But its all quite obvious. No truly biased position will

ever

stand up to the micorscope. I have no fear of that.

 

Just because undiscerning readers swallow what they read wholesale without

considering issues like bias and vested interest, we should not equate the two.

If one does not stand to gain from convincing others of their erroneous bias,

they have no vested interest and no harm has been done. The fault is with the

reader and with the teachers and institutions which lend blind authority to

clearly biased work. the historian is just doing what all good historians have

always done: making a case and letting the interpretation stand (or fall) for

itself.

 

[Guest guest]

The fault is with the reader and with the teachers and institutions which lend blind authority to clearly biased work. the historian is just doing what all good historians have always done: making a case and letting the interpretation stand (or fall) for itself.Todd

 

 

 

I believe your post overall is the clearest on this point, and this last bit hits the nail on the head. In science writing you report your findings. Historians document events from available perspectives. Ultimately you throw your writing against the rock of truth (your peers) and see what parts shatter and what parts hold together. Your peers bite into you and are nourished, or they throw the writing down and move on. No one states their personal biases (the reality you might wish for or currently believe) while you are trying to report facts. I like your reference to Peter Arness as a case in point. I'm assuming that doctoral programs in CM will bring about a lot more writing and much more rigorous peer review.

 

Emmanuel Segmen