research methodology and experimental design

February 7, 2010

SInce we are no longer discussion NAET, I am taking the liberty of

changing the thread name. I hope this is considered proper conduct on

this list serve.

On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:49 AM, wrote:

> Thea,

> I looked back at the discussion from over a month ago about the Qi-

> gong

> circle and their subjective interpretation of Shu di and Chen pi.

>

> So, we might think about other ways to test the herbs with some

> 'blinds'

> and controls for experimentation. If you and your audience didn't know

> which herbs were being observed, that would have been double-blind.

> But,

> the students were looking at the herbs, right? so there weren't any

> blinds

> at all.

>

Experimental design and research methodology are a subject of deep

interest to me; just give me a soap box and I can go on for hours.

Here I will confine myself to what strikes me as relevant to this

post, although even so, some background theory is required.

Experimental design is one place where the skills of deductive

analysis must be very carefully wielded; the slightest bit of sloppy

thinking can lead us far astray. Often unclarity about the nature of

our inquiry, or the nature of what we have already assumed, can lead

to poor experimental design.

For instance, there have been many animal behavior studies which were

based on experiments that observed the behaviors of animals in

captivity, under laboratory conditions. Conclusions based on these

findings turned out to be largely irrelevant when compared with

studies which observed animals in their own habitat, under natural

conditions.

When we remove a phenomenon from its context in order to study it, we

have no way to predict or evaluate the relevance of our findings. It

is one of the greatest challenges in research: how do I know where to

draw parameters as to the relevant data field? If I study the

behaviors of white mice in a cardboard box, is this data generalizable

to brown mice in a cornfield? If I study the effects of parasitic

fungi on fish in a big tank in my lab, will my findings be

generalizable to the same fish and same fungi in the Chesapeake Bay?

Or a river in Eastern Europe? If I study herbs grown in China, will

this data be generalizable to the same herbs grown in North America?

If I study the effects of the acupuncture point ST 36, will the

results be the same if the point is administered by lab technicians

versus trained acupuncturists who de qi?

It's one of the most difficult challenges in experimental design: How

do I set up an experiment so that the data I gather is maximally

generalizable?

For this reason, it is most realistic to set up experiments that as

closely as possible resemble actual field conditions. This is a

relevant principle whether we are studying acupuncture, qi gong, wild

life, or anything else.

I will return to this point when considering your above proposal after

bringing forward a second (but just as important) criterion for good

experimental design.

Often experimental design is misleading and ineffective because it is

not clear what question it is seeking to answer, and may conflate into

one experimental schema more than one line of inquiry. Both of these

lines of inquiry may be valuable in and of themselves, but they may

not be compatible within the same experimental structure. For

instance, one might design experiments to elucidate whether or not

acupuncture really works. This is a line of inquiry implying an

experimental structure quite different from, for instance, the

question of HOW acupuncture works. The methodological issues involved

in these two different lines of inquiry, being of an entirely

different nature, are enormous.

I am not sure how much detail to go into here. I doubt that anyone

wants me to go into a full scale lecture on research... although if I

did, what I had to say would owe a great deal to the brilliance and

thoroughness of Claire Cassidy, editor of Contemporary Chinese

Medicine and Acupuncture. Conversation over the years with Claire,

when we were both living in the Baltimore area, impressed me deeply

with her grasp of the many parameters of significance in different

aspects of research methodology and experimental design, especially

within the field of Chinese medicine.

For the moment, let us just say that the question of HOW something

works-- acupuncture, for instance-- is a question of a very different

nature than WHETHER something works, e.g. acupuncture (or qi gong).

Without going into great detail, at the very least it may be seen

plainly that the question of HOW something works cannot profitable be

asked until we do, in fact, know that something does work. To test

whether something works, e.g. acupuncture, in the absence of knowing

HOW it works, it is important that we set up our experiments to

resemble field conditions as closely as possible. This is because in

the absence of knowing HOW it works, we are at greatest risk for

designing experiments that will not in fact yield generalizable data

(see above) because we may be testing the phenomenon under

significantly different conditions than its field of natural occurrence.

Let us now bring these concerns to the question of designing an

experiment of inquiry into the phenomenon of the qi gong class and the

herbs. The first question is, are we seeking to determine WHETHER qi

gong can help us know the nature of herbs, or HOW qi gong can help us

know the nature of herbs? If we are inquiring into matters of means

and mechanism, we will set up our experiments differently than if we

just want to know if something is really happening here.

It seems to me to make the most sense to assume nothing, and let our

first experiments be focused on just establishing whether something is

happening, i.e. whether some increased knowledge of herbs is in fact

being derived from using qi gong. In this first stage, since we do

not know what is or is not relevant to HOW qi gong might increase

knowledge of herbs, we must take care to design an experiment which

does not eradicate some significant portion of the field of context.

For instance, was it important that the class was holding hands? Was

it important that the lights were off in the room? Was it important

that we could see and smell the herbs? Perhaps qi gong works

supernaturally, like ESP, independently of our natural senses. In

that case it would make no difference if we could smell or touch the

herbs. But what if it is not supernatural, but in fact is an

enhancement of our natural sensory abilities? In this case it is

entirely unreasonable to test without the herb present to be seen and

smelled and touched. We have no idea of these things in this early

stage of inquiry, and so we must first test under conditions which as

closely as possible fulfill the natural field conditions of using qi

gong to sense the nature of herbs: with all of our senses engaged,

and with our minds and book learning also engaged-- because what

herbalist would ever be practicing herbs based on qi gong knowledge

alone? It is an absurdity. No, we must look at designing experiments

which would be crafted to ascertain whether the addition of qi gong to

an herbalist's way of knowing herbs is significant or not, with all

else being equal.

Once we have finished this phase of experimentation, in which we are

determining under realistic field conditions whether there is in fact

clear evidence that qi gong does potentially enhance herbal knowledge,

before we can consider HOW qi gong enhances herbal knowledge, we must

explore under what conditions does qi gong enhance herbal knowledge?

This is a necessary prelude to being able to determine HOW it works.

What are the parameters of the most highly effective field of context

for qi gong to provide augmentation of herbal knowledge? Is it most

effective when the student knows nothing at all about herbs, or is it

more effective when the student already has a foundation of knowledge

to build upon? Is it most effective when the student has sensory

engagement with the herbs, or when she is divorced from direct sensory

engagement? Is it most effective when combined with rational tools of

corroborative thought that allow us to self-evaluate for internal

consistency, or when analytical thought is completely disallowed from

the process (although how you would test that, I am not sure)?

You see my point, perhaps. Testing for the ideal conditions under

which a phenomenon exhibits is a natural prelude to discovering the

mechanism of an effect. If it turns out that qi gong is not a form of

ESP or magic or other supernatural powers, then a double blind study

which isolates the student from the sensory or other capacities which

qi gong may enhance will not prove anything at all.

I am delighted to engage in intelligent, thoughtful and rigorous

experimental design for this or other topics of mutual interest. It s

very exciting to me. But I have zero patience for research

methodology and experimental design that is not rigorous, and I will

not spend any time on it. I likely won't even bother to debunk it.

There's just too much of it around.

Thea Elijah

p.s. just to be clear, qi gong is only a small part of my own

methodology in understanding the nature of herbs. I proceed primarily

as discussed previously, by taking Su Wen chapter 5 and the principle

of gan ying seriously.

> So, if I may ask, how do we know about the " psycho-spiritual

> characteristics " of herbs without projecting our own psyche's

> pre-conditioned ideas onto them?

>

February 8, 2010

Hi Thea -

Thanks for changing the subject.

There are dis

Positivism remains at the center of the Evidence Based Medicine movement's world

view. I am presenting here, four basic principles of positivism: verification,

falsification, covering law and neutrality. The verification principle suggests

that a scientific concept can be reduced to an empirical observation. In

positivism, the only meaningful statements are those that can be tested through

observation. It must be measurable in order to be studied. The domain of

feelings, thoughts and social concerns – that do not fit into the realm of the

seen and the measurable – are not seen as substantive forms of inquiry. The

second principle of positivism is the falsification principle. Karl Popper is

famous for the idea that science can only disprove, it does not prove a given

hypothesis. The falsification principle poses distince problems for a medical

view that employs an array of diagnostic methods that may be shifted in response

to the patient. The failure of a method is a sign to switch methods of thought

rather than to eliminate the method all together in perpetuity. Third is the

covering law is derived from a set of laws together with certain factual

statements, as we might explain 'Fido barks' by saying 'All dogs bark and Fido

is a dog'. The covering law presents a challenge for Chinese medicine which

involves abstract concepts such as qi, yin and yang or experiences such as pain

which can be difficult to transform into quantitative, measurable criteria. The

last feature of positivism is neutrality, where knowledge is purely instrumental

in form. The findings in the world view of positivism are often presented in the

3rd person in order to capture the feeling of neutrality.

There are many other world views that have been trampled by the imperialism

inherent to positivism and its uses for policy development. I think that we

should be careful about valuing this world view without a critical eye.

Consider the five types of arguments have been made against the EBM movement

since its rise in the early 1990s: (a) it lacks a philosophical basis; (b) the

definition of evidence is too narrow; © the movement itself is not

evidence-based; (d) it has limited usefulness in its application to individual

patients; and (e) it threatens the autonomy of the patient-physician

relationship(Cohen AM, 2004). Such forms of knowledge building are incomplete as

a medical epistemology (the study of how we know what we know) because it cannot

account for all the factors in a physician's decision-making process (Henry SG,

2007).

There are other world views beyond the reductionist scientism that seems to

pervade positivist works. Such perspectives might provide a philosophical

underpinning to your work without selling out to the positivist game. They

include: perspectivism, constructivism, critical realism and participatory world

views.

Research methods such as phenomenology and participatory action research may

fill in a methodological void. They are both subject to narrative or other

creative forms of reporting the findings.

Warmly,

Will

February 8, 2010

Glad to see you back Thea,

This is an extremely important topic for our profession because it's the

lens through which other healthcare professions and public policy makers

view us and our medicine. Their lens, like all lenses, has inclusions,

areas big and small with an incomplete color spectrum, imperfect refraction

which radically changes the shape of the object in view, and narrow fields

of vision. And let's not forget simple surface dirt.

More importantly, most of us raised during the " Science is King " period in

the Occident reached adulthood using that same lens and we consciously or

otherwise have the most confidence in it's accuracy. This intellectual

ethnocentrism has made much mischief for people studying the medicine of a

culture that in many ways is the diametric opposite of Euro-American

culture. Consider how you struggled with this in your first year of school:

Asia has " unity of opposites " and the West has " mutual exclusivity " .

Ironically, except for those educated and practiced in scientific method,

the public is unaware of the numerous opportunities for error to burrow into

an experiment (since there are few if any scientific methodologists in our

ranks we must consider ourselves members of the ignorant public). Enough

burrowing and the experiment doesn't measure what it's intended to measure.

Burrows diminish and destroy the accuracy of an experiment and render it

invalid.

It is extremely difficult to counter an attack by a method of reasoning that

we do not understand and believe superior to our own. But if we have been

educated in scientific method, experimental design, and statistical

reasoning we have the tools to examine, criticize, rebut or neutralize the

research (so-called) that produces wrong conclusions about our medicine. We

will also recognize of the elements of scientific method in our method.

Clear and accurate thought exists independent of culture and is found in

many disparate societies.

Enough of this sesquipedalian verbiage. I have to sink into my yin for the

night.

Ta, Joe

February 9, 2010

On Feb 8, 2010, at 9:25 PM, Joseph Balensi MS LAc wrote:

> Glad to see you back Thea,

>

same to you mister! ;-)

> More importantly, most of us raised during the " Science is King "

> period in

> the Occident reached adulthood using that same lens and we

> consciously or

> otherwise have the most confidence in it's accuracy.

>

Yah, I grew up in a family that is heavy into biochemistry. Science

was our language. When I decided to study acupuncture, it sent shock

waves. At large family gatherings they still remind me that it's not

too late to go to medical school. For my part, I was naively

enthusiastic about how I was going to bring the scientific rigors of

my Western bioscience-oriented family to Chinese medicine, and in

return bring back to Western science all these fabulous new insights

about the nature of the body and being human. It sure didn't work out

that way! (at least not yet.)

> This intellectual

> ethnocentrism

>

That's really what it seems to come down to. As Will's post points

out, there are amply paradigms for valid scientific study of Chinese

medicine-- they are just not used much. Why not? Partly because it

is hard for any of us conceive of a " reality " outside of our paradigm,

and partly for political reasons-- knowledge is currency. The

devaluation of the coin of another realm is, unfortunately, also a

motivating factor in " studying " Chinese medicine with unfit research

models. I think it's important not to be blind to the politics of

knowledge (I learned that at the dinner table growing up).

>

> It is extremely difficult to counter an attack by a method of

> reasoning that

> we do not understand and believe superior to our own. But if we have

> been

> educated in scientific method, experimental design, and statistical

> reasoning we have the tools to examine, criticize, rebut or

> neutralize the

> research (so-called) that produces wrong conclusions about our

> medicine. We

> will also recognize of the elements of scientific method in our

> method.

>

Yah, yah, it is true-- but then there is also this other aspect which

has certainly affected me, and perhaps others: a kind of exhaustion

that sets in after arguing for too long with those who do not actually

want to understand. When the problem is political, we actually need

more than just clarity about the actual subject matter at hand i.e.

the validity of one research method over another. We need savvy in

talking to those who have a profound stake in the intellectual or

scientific status quo, and thus a profound stake in not understanding

another point of view.

I don't have that skill. I'd love to develop it. Any discussion or

advice on how to effectively discuss not-really-science-but-actually-

politics would probably be very helpful for many of us who would like

to contribute to the field, but who become very daunted by the closed-

mindedness and contentiousness for its own sake that crops up

frequently among the " scientific " community. I'd like to learn a lot

more about remaining effective but not gritting my teeth over it all.

Yes most of this is an inside job-- I know-- but I am sure that

others have more experience than I do in negotiation the rocky terrain

of politics of knowledge. All advice on strategy would be welcome

(for the outer work, I mean). It may hold the key to our future, to

become not only knowledgeable about research methodology and

experimental design, but how to communicate specifically into a very

strong prevailing counter-wind.

> Enough of this sesquipedalian verbiage. I have to sink into my yin

> for the

> night.

>

Actually, your post was very readable-- and this is a whole other

very important issue! So much scientific writing, and so much

research, is written in language that seems almost to pride itself on

being hard to understand. I think it is essential that we look at

this trend, and reverse it! Why use big jargon words and outrageously

complex syntax when small words and shorter sentences will do?

Sometimes I have to read papers three times in order to understand

what the deuce they are actually saying, and then I think, " Gaaaw, why

not just say that? Why whip it all up into a tangle before publishing

it? "

Sometimes, I must admit, I have the feeling that the complexification

of " scientific " writing is deliberate-- an attempt to make it seem

more " intelligent " than it actually is, because just reading the stuff

is a kind of intelligence test. I think this is both gratuitous and

ultimately harmful to us. True, perhaps the problem is only that many

researchers just don't write very well, but I strongly suspect that

there is also a tendency to try to make things sound more " important "

or " objective " by using a maximally inaccessible writing style. Once

again this is a matter of politics rather than science, an attempt at

inflation of the coin of our paper's realm-- and it is not conducive

to the genuine intention to share and evaluate knowledge and ways of

knowing.

I'll attach here a nice little piece by Claire Cassidy on Model Fit

Validity, which I think is our central issue in Chinese medicine

research these days. Perhaps the moderator can help me figure out how

to post it somewhere accessible to others? I have dial up only; help

with such things is appreciated.

>

Thea Elijah

>

> Ta, Joe

>

February 9, 2010

Thirty years ago -- just before embarking on my studies of Chinese medicine,

I was a PhD student at UC Berkeley in a program called " Logic and the

Methodology of Science. " My prior academic interests, including the history

and philosophy of science and the philosophy of language, have laid an

interesting foundation for those subsequent studies. My interest in Asian

thought began with Buddhism and fairly soon shifted to Daoism, which led me

to Chinese medicine. I now realize that CM is not specifically and solely

" Daoist, " my path led me in that fashion, and there has certainly been a

substantial contribution from that direction.

I'm very interested in finding what is valuable in CM and skeptical about

attempts to study it with most " scientific methodologies. " All research

methodologies, including the historical Chinese one (which certainly wasn't

perfect), exhibit explicit and implicit assumptions. Many modern

" scientific " research methodologies include ones that are an anathema to the

linguistic, cognitive, conceptual and methodological roots of Chinese

medicine. I've moved along way along the path of being tired of trying to

explain things to people who don't want to understand them. I'm willing to

discuss these methodological issues, and personally choose to put more

energy into specifically clinical topics. I believe that the " proof is in

the pudding " so to speak. If we improve our practice of CM, our results

(over time) will speak for themselves.

Steve

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Thea Elijah <parkinglotwrote:

>

February 9, 2010

Steven,

I'm in complete agreement about going back to the classics to elevate our

clinical skills.

However, if we create new narratives and explanations for things,

such as ascribing " psycho-spiritual " attributes to herbs, where there is

textual evidence lacking,

we all need to be clear about how we are receiving the information for the

sake of evolving our medicine.

In the Shen nong ben cao jing times, these attributes could have been

attributed to a holy divine physician

who tested a hundred herbs a day. What about today?

I would like to be a Shen nong and still survive to talk about it.

We need to find a collective way to verify our own subjective experiences.

Can we talk about the best way to do that?

K

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpernwrote:

>

> Thirty years ago -- just before embarking on my studies of Chinese

> medicine,

> I was a PhD student at UC Berkeley in a program called " Logic and the

> Methodology of Science. " My prior academic interests, including the history

> and philosophy of science and the philosophy of language, have laid an

> interesting foundation for those subsequent studies. My interest in Asian

> thought began with Buddhism and fairly soon shifted to Daoism, which led me

> to Chinese medicine. I now realize that CM is not specifically and solely

> " Daoist, " my path led me in that fashion, and there has certainly been a

> substantial contribution from that direction.

>

> I'm very interested in finding what is valuable in CM and skeptical about

> attempts to study it with most " scientific methodologies. " All research

> methodologies, including the historical Chinese one (which certainly wasn't

> perfect), exhibit explicit and implicit assumptions. Many modern

> " scientific " research methodologies include ones that are an anathema to

> the

> linguistic, cognitive, conceptual and methodological roots of Chinese

> medicine. I've moved along way along the path of being tired of trying to

> explain things to people who don't want to understand them. I'm willing to

> discuss these methodological issues, and personally choose to put more

> energy into specifically clinical topics. I believe that the " proof is in

> the pudding " so to speak. If we improve our practice of CM, our results

> (over time) will speak for themselves.

>

> Steve

>

> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Thea Elijah

<parkinglot<parkinglot%40acupuncturist.edu>

> >wrote:

>

> >

>

--

""

www.tcmreview.com

February 9, 2010

As an aside to this thread, I thought I would mention the interesting field of

" systems biology " (wikki- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology). The

method of analysis differs from the reduction ones of past. Systems biology

studies the " interactions between the components of biological systems, and how

these interactions give rise to the function and behavior of that system " , and

is in direct contrast to the reductionist viewpoint, which concentrates on a

singular biologic event using a singular chemical compound to affect it. In

terms of a western defined modern science, this is a lot more in line with the

ideologies of Chinese herbal medicine.

The December, 2006, issue of the British Journal of Pharmacology stated, " The

development of systems biology has led to a new design principle for therapeutic

intervention strategy, the concept of 'magic shrapnel' (rather than the 'magic

bullet'), involving many drugs against multiple targets, administered in a

single treatment. Traditional (TCM) offers an extensive source

of examples of this concept in which several active ingredients in one

prescription are aimed at numerous targets and work together to provide

therapeutic benefit. "

This obviously opens up ways from which modern science can explain and

understand the complexities of Chinese medicine, and, as well, allows for

research to be set up that more closely represents Chinese medicine.

Cheers,

Trevor

http://www.skin.health-info.org/

, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern

wrote:

>

> Thirty years ago -- just before embarking on my studies of Chinese medicine,

> I was a PhD student at UC Berkeley in a program called " Logic and the

> Methodology of Science. " My prior academic interests, including the history

> and philosophy of science and the philosophy of language, have laid an

> interesting foundation for those subsequent studies. My interest in Asian

> thought began with Buddhism and fairly soon shifted to Daoism, which led me

> to Chinese medicine. I now realize that CM is not specifically and solely

> " Daoist, " my path led me in that fashion, and there has certainly been a

> substantial contribution from that direction.

>

> I'm very interested in finding what is valuable in CM and skeptical about

> attempts to study it with most " scientific methodologies. " All research

> methodologies, including the historical Chinese one (which certainly wasn't

> perfect), exhibit explicit and implicit assumptions. Many modern

> " scientific " research methodologies include ones that are an anathema to the

> linguistic, cognitive, conceptual and methodological roots of Chinese

> medicine. I've moved along way along the path of being tired of trying to

> explain things to people who don't want to understand them. I'm willing to

> discuss these methodological issues, and personally choose to put more

> energy into specifically clinical topics. I believe that the " proof is in

> the pudding " so to speak. If we improve our practice of CM, our results

> (over time) will speak for themselves.

>

> Steve

>

> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Thea Elijah <parkinglotwrote:

>

> >

>

February 9, 2010

I've been following systems biology for a long time now, and have been working

on diagnostic and treatment models with a local oncologist according to this

approach.

There is also a scientist, Jan van der Greef, who has lectured on systems

biology to Chinese medical schools in Europe. You can google his work. . .

On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:25 PM, trevor_erikson wrote:

> As an aside to this thread, I thought I would mention the interesting field of

" systems biology " (wikki- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology). The

method of analysis differs from the reduction ones of past. Systems biology

studies the " interactions between the components of biological systems, and how

these interactions give rise to the function and behavior of that system " , and

is in direct contrast to the reductionist viewpoint, which concentrates on a

singular biologic event using a singular chemical compound to affect it. In

terms of a western defined modern science, this is a lot more in line with the

ideologies of Chinese herbal medicine.

>

> The December, 2006, issue of the British Journal of Pharmacology stated, " The

development of systems biology has led to a new design principle for therapeutic

intervention strategy, the concept of 'magic shrapnel' (rather than the 'magic

bullet'), involving many drugs against multiple targets, administered in a

single treatment. Traditional (TCM) offers an extensive source

of examples of this concept in which several active ingredients in one

prescription are aimed at numerous targets and work together to provide

therapeutic benefit. "

>

> This obviously opens up ways from which modern science can explain and

understand the complexities of Chinese medicine, and, as well, allows for

research to be set up that more closely represents Chinese medicine.

>

> Cheers,

> Trevor

> http://www.skin.health-info.org/

>

> , Steven Alpern <stevenalpern

wrote:

> >

> > Thirty years ago -- just before embarking on my studies of Chinese medicine,

> > I was a PhD student at UC Berkeley in a program called " Logic and the

> > Methodology of Science. " My prior academic interests, including the history

> > and philosophy of science and the philosophy of language, have laid an

> > interesting foundation for those subsequent studies. My interest in Asian

> > thought began with Buddhism and fairly soon shifted to Daoism, which led me

> > to Chinese medicine. I now realize that CM is not specifically and solely

> > " Daoist, " my path led me in that fashion, and there has certainly been a

> > substantial contribution from that direction.

> >

> > I'm very interested in finding what is valuable in CM and skeptical about

> > attempts to study it with most " scientific methodologies. " All research

> > methodologies, including the historical Chinese one (which certainly wasn't

> > perfect), exhibit explicit and implicit assumptions. Many modern

> > " scientific " research methodologies include ones that are an anathema to the

> > linguistic, cognitive, conceptual and methodological roots of Chinese

> > medicine. I've moved along way along the path of being tired of trying to

> > explain things to people who don't want to understand them. I'm willing to

> > discuss these methodological issues, and personally choose to put more

> > energy into specifically clinical topics. I believe that the " proof is in

> > the pudding " so to speak. If we improve our practice of CM, our results

> > (over time) will speak for themselves.

> >

> > Steve

> >

> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Thea Elijah <parkinglotwrote:

> >

> > >

> >

>

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

February 9, 2010

On Feb 9, 2010, at 3:30 PM, wrote:

> However, if we create new narratives and explanations for things,

> such as ascribing " psycho-spiritual " attributes to herbs, where

> there is

> textual evidence lacking,

> we all need to be clear about how we are receiving the information

> for the

> sake of evolving our medicine.

>

First of all, we need to be very clear about the difference between

" new narratives and explanations for things, " versus the kind of

implications that are already present in original texts. Sharon's

excellent post some time ago speaks to this-- Jason alluded to it--

that psycho-spiritual symptoms are simply that, only symptoms, and as

herbalists we need to understand the underlying movements of qi

described by the herbs, and described by the client's manifestation,

and treat accordingly. Using formulas for other symptoms than the

ones mentioned in the original texts is nothing new! We have a clear

methodology for ascertaining whether or not there is a " match " between

the client's situation and the herbal formula. This must always be

inclusive of the entire picture, not just the psycho-spiritual aspects

of the picture. This kind of extrapolation is nothing new in our

medicine-- in fact it is a requirement of daily life in the treatment

room.

Thea Elijah

> In the Shen nong ben cao jing times, these attributes could have been

> attributed to a holy divine physician

> who tested a hundred herbs a day. What about today?

> I would like to be a Shen nong and still survive to talk about it.

> We need to find a collective way to verify our own subjective

> experiences.

> Can we talk about the best way to do that?

>

> K

>

> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Steven Alpern

> <stevenalpernwrote:

>

> >

> > Thirty years ago -- just before embarking on my studies of Chinese

> > medicine,

> > I was a PhD student at UC Berkeley in a program called " Logic and

> the

> > Methodology of Science. " My prior academic interests, including

> the history

> > and philosophy of science and the philosophy of language, have

> laid an

> > interesting foundation for those subsequent studies. My interest

> in Asian

> > thought began with Buddhism and fairly soon shifted to Daoism,

> which led me

> > to Chinese medicine. I now realize that CM is not specifically and

> solely

> > " Daoist, " my path led me in that fashion, and there has certainly

> been a

> > substantial contribution from that direction.

> >

> > I'm very interested in finding what is valuable in CM and

> skeptical about

> > attempts to study it with most " scientific methodologies. " All

> research

> > methodologies, including the historical Chinese one (which

> certainly wasn't

> > perfect), exhibit explicit and implicit assumptions. Many modern

> > " scientific " research methodologies include ones that are an

> anathema to

> > the

> > linguistic, cognitive, conceptual and methodological roots of

> Chinese

> > medicine. I've moved along way along the path of being tired of

> trying to

> > explain things to people who don't want to understand them. I'm

> willing to

> > discuss these methodological issues, and personally choose to put

> more

> > energy into specifically clinical topics. I believe that the

> " proof is in

> > the pudding " so to speak. If we improve our practice of CM, our

> results

> > (over time) will speak for themselves.

> >

> > Steve

> >

> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Thea Elijah <parkinglot

> <parkinglot%40acupuncturist.edu>

> > >wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

>

> --

>

> ""

>

> www.tcmreview.com

>

February 10, 2010

psycho-spiritual symptoms are simply that, only symptoms, and as

herbalists we need to understand the underlying movements of qi

described by the herbs, and described by the client's manifestation,

and treat accordingly.

Lonny: Just a note. In my books I used the term " psycho-spiritual " and I regret

it. It is clear to me that the psychological realm, and that which is

authentically spiritual, have little to nothing to do with each other. The

psychological realm exists within the domain of ego and is always based in a

bottom up perspective in which more time is needed (forever) for " healing " . It's

intention is always to use whatever time it has left incarnated to overcome it's

past. The spirit is the dimension of the self that is never wounded, victimized,

or traumatized. Spirit only takes a top down perspective and is only concerned

with creating a better more wholesome future, right now. The authentic spiritual

perspective offers the opportunity to see whatever is not straight in the

relative psychological realm from an absolute dimension from outside of it.

TO sum, I think it's fair to talk of " psycho-emotional " issues. But I can

only see the notion of " psycho-spiritual " as a humanistic, postmodern, and

sensitive self distortion of the proper relationship between the two realms. I

regret having added to the confusion in my own texts.

February 10, 2010

Great statement. i've been pondering this for many lifetimes now ( :-) ) and

you really summed it up well for me.

Doug

, " Lonny " <revolution wrote:

>

> psycho-spiritual symptoms are simply that, only symptoms, and as

> herbalists we need to understand the underlying movements of qi

> described by the herbs, and described by the client's manifestation,

> and treat accordingly.

>

> Lonny: Just a note. In my books I used the term " psycho-spiritual " and I

regret it. It is clear to me that the psychological realm, and that which is