Traditional Chinese Medicine

[rezaf]

The part where you don't show that "精气" exists and is not a figment of your (or someone else's) imagination.

Who says that I don't show the way? I don't make blind statements. I would never say anything about the existance of 精气 if I hadn't seen it for myself or if I didn't knew many people who had been trained and could do the same or if I wasn't able to teach it to others. So as you see I claim that I have a proof for what I say which means that I have actually had a scientific aproach to this concept. So now tell me before trying out the method that I claim to know, can you or can you not say that my statement is true or false?

[rezaf]

TCM doesn't lose the debate like some religion might. It is based on a scientific approach towards nature by people who could gather their data on different levels of awareness. It can be taught but it is difficult and the methods are systematic. The fact that you guys are not aware of qigong or other systems of meditation doesn't mean that they don't exist.

[daofeishi]

So now tell me before trying out the method that I claim to know, can you or can you not say that my statement is true or false?

No, neither can I claim with absolute certainty that the guy across the road who claims he has an invisible dragon in his attic is wrong. Or the guy who claims that there are spiritual leprechauns on Pluto. Or the guy who claims his undetectable lever in the garage is what makes the sun rise in the morning, etc, etc.

I'm not interested in learning your method, I am interested in you showing that it works. I don't have to learn how to play the piano to see if someone else knows how to play it. I don't need to learn TCM to be able to assess if it works or not.

As long as you can't show me that it works, I have two choices. Accept what you say at face value, or be skeptical toward your claims until evidence ticks in.

I choose the latter.

Edited May 6, 2010 at 06:49 AM by daofeishi

[rezaf]

Good at least one problem is solved but you haven't analysed it well. I claim something and I show you the way so that you can also see it. It's like I say that there is a bear in a room. If I don't show you where that room is my approach is not scientific and you guys can say whatever you want but if I give you the address then the approach is scientific and you can't say anything for or against it until you yourself follow the address. Now the next time any of you makes a comment about TCM being scientific or not ask yourself did I follow the address that that guy gave me (in this case practicing certain types of meditation)?

Edited May 6, 2010 at 05:53 AM by rezaf

[jbradfor]

rezaf, by the current western scientific method, something that requires years of training to just "sense", and can not be objectively confirmed /detected by other people or other instruments, is not scientifically valid. It really is that black and white.

If you want to argue that the current western scientific method needs changing, then please go ahead and do that. But your current arguments, that 精气 is scientifically valid because you (and potentially others) can detect it with years of training, while others can not detect it, is just WRONG. That does not full under what is currently scientifically valid.

[rezaf]

Who says that things in western science can be tried by everyone? Let's go back to that general relativity. Can all people test this theory? Correct me if I am wrong. If you want to fully understand and test this theory you have to learn years of mathematics and physics and probably you will need to learn lots of engineering, time and money to build the complicated machines for testing this theory. How is it different?

[jbradfor]

On one hand, you do bring up a good point. What is the difference between spending several years in school learning something and building instrumentation, and spending several years in mediation? To me, there is a big difference: the former seems "scientific", the later seems "religious". But I admit I can't justify the difference.

Even accepting that, I still see three categories of differences between General Relativity and 精气.

First is the difference between seeing an effect and understanding an effect. While it may take years of training to understand General Relativity in full depth, (some of) the effects of General Relativity requires NO training and NO equipment to detect by everyone. For example, gravitational lensing takes nothing more than the bare eye (or a simple telescope) to detect. In contrast, according to you, just being able to detect 精气 flow takes training. So that is one reason why 精气 is not scientific.

Second, a theory needs to be testable. Once one learns General Relativity, one can devise tests to try to disprove it. These tests (ideally) are objective in that anyone else (with a similar level of training) can reproduce (within experimental error). What tests can you propose to test the validity of 精气 ?

Third, a good theory needs to predict things that are currently unknown. For example, General Relativity predicted the existence of black holes decades before there were any evidence for it. What does 精气 predict?

[rezaf]

First is the difference between seeing an effect and understanding an effect. While it may take years of training to understand General Relativity in full depth, (some of) the effects of General Relativity requires NO training and NO equipment to detect by everyone. For example, gravitational lensing takes nothing more than the bare eye (or a simple telescope) to detect. In contrast, according to you, just being able to detect 精气 flow takes training. So that is one reason why 精气 is not scientific.

This is not correct. If you don't understand something you won't be able to see it or detect it. Let someone with no information use that telescope. The only thing that he will see is stars not any kind of theory. Or another example: I write something in farsi and I give it to you assuming that you have no experience with that kind of language the only thing that you will see is what you have been trained for which is some lines but you won't see the words.

Second, a theory needs to be testable. Once one learns General Relativity, one can devise tests to try to disprove it. These tests (ideally) are objective in that anyone else (with a similar level of training) can reproduce (within experimental error). What tests can you propose to test the validity of 精气 ?

I have tested it with a few people who were also trained. We did some kind of stuff with the energy in my body and after that we all wrote the same description of what we could see of jingqi before and after the treatment. It wasn't a treatment that we had learned in our books and we had no idea about what was gonna happen. Then we tried it more and we got the same results.

Third, a good theory needs to predict things that are currently unknown. For example, General Relativity predicted the existence of black holes decades before there were any evidence for it. What does 精气 predict?

It's not a ncessary part but with jingqi you can have a good prespective on things that might happen in pathogenesis of a disease.

[outcast]

You know, so many of Rezaf's arguments are so similair in so many ways to what creationists use to defend their 6,000 year old earth beliefs. In many ways Rezaf is the poster child for our failed science education.

[rezaf]

As I said in some other post people who don't posess enogh intelectual ability in continuing a logical debate sooner or later turn to baseless personal attacks.

[Guest realmayo]

Horatio:

O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

Hamlet:

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Don't forget, it was 'science' that told us we should stop eating butter and have margarine every day instead, or we shouldn't eat more than an egg or two a week, or that exercise is a great way to lose weight etc...

Admittedly, I'm sceptical of the grander claims of TCM, despite me having done almost no research on it. But I'm equally sceptical of lots of the 'scientific' orthodoxies that get pumped out too.

[anonymoose]

Just a couple of comments.

Firstly, most people seem to be refering to western medicine and TCM as unified systems, but let's not forget that each system contains many individual branches, some of which may have merit and some of which may not. To blanketly deny the validity of an entire system seems to be based more on emotion than reason.

Western medicine throughout history has had pracitices which were ineffective and later superceded, so the existance of an ineffective practice cannot neccessarily invalidate an entire system. The strength of western medicine is that its scientific approach, to a large extent, removes faith from the equation. Therefore, it is relatively open to advancement. As something better is discovered, it readily supercedes old methods, in a way that is difficult with faith-based methods which would require someone to first admit their old faith was wrong - which on the whole people aren't willing to do.

Anyway, both systems also have undeniable merits. Just take one example - smallpox, which used to be a widespread and deadly disease, has been completely eradicated thanks to western medicine. It only happened once vaccination technology had been developed, within the last two hundred years or so. But this is something that no other form of medicine had been able to achieve throughout history.

On the other hand, within the last few years, a "new" medicine has been adopted by western medicine in the fight against malaria - artemisinin, which aparently had been used by Chinese herbalists for over a thousand years prior to that. So there have certainly been effective aspects of chinese medicine which were unknown to western medicine.

[trien27]

TCM drugs

What in the world are "TCM drugs"? It's evident that TCM doesn't use "drugs" as Western doctors know it. TCM uses "herbs" not "drugs". I guess you're confusing things.

[rezaf]

Here is a good study on the effects of TCM in curing SARS by WHO. Personally I think this research should have been done on more people but even with its limits it shows a great potential in further reseach on TCM.

My link

[BrandeX]

Excellent link, this is exactly what was called for. Scientific research and testing, which ultimately proved that some TCM can have beneficial and curative effects on certain illnesses. Personally, however, aside from this or a similar test, which shows the effects of herbs or natural drug type reactions, I still would have no basis to believe a claim that the more mystical TCM has any validity without a similar scientific testing as this case. (i.e. acupuncture, cupping, qigong, qi, chakra, winds, etc.)

[rezaf]

, I still would have no basis to believe a claim that the more mystical TCM has any validity without a similar scientific testing as this case.

You are right. In fact this is what I have been talking about. My friends and I have done a few small tests and I have enough evidence to see the potential in this so-called mystical side, also I'm ready to do more for my thesis as one of my professors will refer me to our university's qigong research center.

There is a difference between someone who says he needs more proof and someone who rejects something without any knowledge. Science is a big thing and people who take their partial knowledge as science are not talking about science because it is not for limiting our view. As much as I respect modernism for bringing self-consciousness to our society, it has a weakness which is rejecting everything about the past without giving second thoughts and further research. Anyway modernism finished in arts and literature a long time ago and it is going to end in the so-called western science too. Now there are many research centers around the world that are willing to look back and find the treasures in the ancient science.

[outcast]

You are right. In fact this is what I have been talking about. My friends and I have done a few small tests and I have enough evidence to see the potential in this so-called mystical side, also I'm ready to do more for my thesis as one of my professors will refer me to our university's qigong research center.

There is a difference between someone who says he needs more proof and someone who rejects something without any knowledge. Science is a big thing and people who take their partial knowledge as science are not talking about science because it is not for limiting our view. As much as I respect modernism for bringing self-consciousness to our society, it has a weakness which is rejecting everything about the past without giving second thoughts and further research. Anyway modernism finished in arts and literature a long time ago and it is going to end in the so-called western science too. Now there are many research centers around the world that are willing to look back and find the treasures in the ancient science.

It's amazing that you demand logic while simultaneously commiting a major fallacy. It's also amazing that you would look to a group of people whose life expectancy was between 30 and 40 for medical advice. In the US, real pharmacueticals are regulated, but any sort of "non traditional medicine" or herbal supplments? Completely unregulated. You deride science, while simultaneously using its products for many things. While you're dithering with your potions and magic, those of us in the real world will continue to make progress to allow people to live longer and healthier. Next generation cancer treatments are showing great promise, and their success will be yet another victory for science.

Out of curiousity which university are you referring to?

[rezaf]

Outcast you are making it very personal. I never said that western medicine is completely wrong. I defend developing and using both ways of medicine until we can have a better view about what is really going on in our bodies and then hopefully they become one medicine. In fact for me this argument was never about western medicine vs. TCM. It was about both of them existing at the same time but viewing our bodies from different angles. The thing that you call magic is in fact science and the fact that you don't know anything about it can not be used as an excuse for denying the whole thing. It just proves that you should study and do more research on TCM so that you don't make any blind judgements again. For denying something scientifically first you have to have a reasonably good knowledge about it. I wonder how much you know about TCM and qigong.

I study at Shanghai University of TCM.

[rezaf]

Actually when I think about it, it is an interesting point. I would like to know if you have had any formal education in TCM and for how long, also I want to know if you have practised qigong before, also for how long and what exercises you have done. There will be two situations. Either you have enough background knowledge about TCM and qigong or you don't. If you have and you have reached the decision that you should reject TCM and qigong, then I suppose we can talk about it more professionally and bring the argument to another level. However if you don't then it means that you don't even know what you are talking about and what you are atacking, and at the same time you say that you are a man of science. Then I have to ask: since when science has become the method of making blind judgments?

[outcast]

Outcast you are making it very personal. I never said that western medicine is completely wrong. I defend developing and using both ways of medicine until we can have a better view about what is really going on in our bodies and then hopefully they become one medicine. In fact for me this argument was never about western medicine vs. TCM. It was about both of them existing at the same time but viewing our bodies from different angles. The thing that you call magic is in fact science and the fact that you don't know anything about it can not be used as an excuse for denying the whole thing. It just proves that you should study and do more research on TCM so that you don't make any blind judgements again. For denying something scientifically first you have to have a reasonably good knowledge about it. I wonder how much you know about TCM and qigong.

I study at Shanghai University of TCM.

I demand you also include Traditional Western Medicine (TWM). Afterall we should view from "different angles".