The same thing has happened in the case of Chinese Medicine. The premises and presuppositions of that paradigm are different to modern mainstream Science... and cannot necessarily be measured by the same criteria.
The thing is we can quantify aspects of CM... as in testing people's health markers before, during, and after treatment. When that occurs, it is undeniable that the treatment has worked.
the problem is when CM is taken into the lab, its hard to find repeatable quantifiable data.
The practice of the medicine evolved in a paradigm that didn't place weight on the 'repeatability' of results - which is crucial to scientific research (and rightly so).
The question I always ask detractors and colleagues alike is this - if the results are found in the clinic, but not in the lab, what does that suggest in the bigger picture?
How can we bring two very different paradigms of understanding together? Seemingly if we can stand aside from our respective parochialism, we might take our understanding of pathophysiology to a whole new level.
and eventually, science slowly catches up. i.e. Science Finally Proves Meridians Exist - or like the comment on Part ONE talking about the scientist that attempted to disprove astrology, yet ended up proving correlations he didn't expect.
I suppose the final question embodies the nature of the east-west, yin-yang balance... :-)
The same thing has happened in the case of Chinese Medicine. The premises and presuppositions of that paradigm are different to modern mainstream Science... and cannot necessarily be measured by the same criteria.
The thing is we can quantify aspects of CM... as in testing people's health markers before, during, and after treatment. When that occurs, it is undeniable that the treatment has worked.
the problem is when CM is taken into the lab, its hard to find repeatable quantifiable data.
The practice of the medicine evolved in a paradigm that didn't place weight on the 'repeatability' of results - which is crucial to scientific research (and rightly so).
The question I always ask detractors and colleagues alike is this - if the results are found in the clinic, but not in the lab, what does that suggest in the bigger picture?
How can we bring two very different paradigms of understanding together? Seemingly if we can stand aside from our respective parochialism, we might take our understanding of pathophysiology to a whole new level.
Great article!!!
YEP.
and eventually, science slowly catches up. i.e. Science Finally Proves Meridians Exist - or like the comment on Part ONE talking about the scientist that attempted to disprove astrology, yet ended up proving correlations he didn't expect.
I suppose the final question embodies the nature of the east-west, yin-yang balance... :-)
Fantastic article, after a long time I have read something good.. Thumbs Up to you ! upvoted !
glad to be of appreciated service... ;-)
Thanks for you spread the good knowledge！
your welcome. 🙏
Great post thank waiting for another articles
your welcome. also plenty of gems to be discovered if you scroll back through some of my other posts... ;-)
Ok @rok-sivante
Note to self: I really should stop reading @rok-sivante posts in the mornings when I have to get ready to work. xD
mmm... possible double-edged sword....
could provide some excellent inspiration to start the day with...
could also end up realizing you're two hours late for work...
:-D
xD yup
You could just be the kind of motivation I'd need to get back to getting up at five again, but that would not guaranty avoiding the second scenario.