Last November the “Chinese Medicine Research Institute”, established in 1955, changed its name to the “Chinese Medicine Science Institute”. The addition of the word “science” to the title is one of many recent attempts to end the debate about whether or not chinese medicine is scientific.
It would be foolishly easy to rely on this wordplay to end the debate. Creationists in America established the “Scientific Institute for the Creationism”, yet academic circles do not recognize creationism as a scientific principle. While there is debate among western scholars over the effectiveness of various chinese treatment methodologies, for example acupuncture, there is a clear consensus among them over whether or not chinese medicine is science: it is not. Both the American Institute of Health and the American Society of Medicine throw chinese medicine and other folk medicine into a broad category called “alternative medicine”. And the famous organization of skeptics, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, consistently blasts chinese medicine as superstition, sorcery, and pseudoscience.
Supporters of chinese medicine are often criticized. They respond that their critics do not understand chinese medicine; and that only those who are involved in the industry are truly qualified enough to criticize it. By this logic, only palm readers, fengshui masters, and tarot-card readers have the credentials to be skeptical of their own trades. It’s not necessary to have been an chinese medicine practitioner in order to criticize it; so long as one applies the same scientific standards of evaluation that they apply elsewhere, that is sufficient. Modern medicinal knowledge is very well equipped at judging the claims of chinese medicine, and as long as modern medicinal knowledge is present it trivial to disprove them.
If one uses the widely accepted testing standards that are the core of science, namely defensibility, testability, measurability, and provability, to analyze chinese medicine it would be easy to believe that it is not scientific. Without diving into the numbing topic of what science is. But by coming from the angle of “what science is not” I can clearly show why chinese medicine is not science.
Science stresses innovation, not ancient superstition. Thus in science there are no required readings or unquestionable tenets. Modern students of medicine that are interested in medical history read Hippocrates, Galen, Mansuri, Harvey, and others.
But those that do read these classic works practice the same medicine as those who do not. And in modern medical research, no one will cite dated works when a modern, authoritative source will do. Chinese medicinal research is radically different; the Inner Canon of the Yellow Emperor, Treatise on Cold-induced Febrile Diseases, Synopsis of Prescriptions of the Golden Chamber, along with other historical documents are all considered peerless, mandatory readings. This only leaves modern Chinese medicine the task of clarifying and expounding upon their claims. In this way Chinese medicine is more of an art than a science.
The natural laws of science transcend national borders, nationality, and cultural attributes. Although modern science developed in the West, it has become a wealth of knowledge that all of humanity can enjoy. It has influenced and been influenced by both Western and Eastern thinkers. There is no branch of science that is limited to or dominated by one nationality, just as there is no branch of science where a certain cultural background is pervasive and necessary. Thus China does not need to study and grasp western culture in order to appreciate modern science. Our claims that Chinese medicine is “our special kind of science” and thus impossible for westerners to understand is simply absurd.
Science is a complete system of knowledge. All branches of science are interconnected, and there is not one part of the web that isn’t somehow attached to all other parts, even if there are conflicts.
Modern science is established on the foundation of biology, whose foundation is based on physics and chemistry. Chinese medicine is not just incompatible with modern medicine; it is incompatible with all of modern science and its component branches. Thus Chinese medicine can be called metaphysics or a philosophy but it cannot be called a science.
Chinese medicine often defends itself by saying that it is a “science of experience”, that it has crystallized over thousands of years worth of accumulated experimentation. Although experimentation can have scientific elements to it, itself alone is not science. Mere experience without other elements of the scientific method cannot sum up all of scientific theory. The length of time Thus the expression “a science of experience” is misleading. Furthermore, the length of time a branch of science has endured has nothing to do with its validity. Some branches of science (for example, modern medicine) have histories that are extremely short while other pseudo-sciences have extremely long histories (such as fortune telling, witchcraft, etc.) Some pseudo-sciences even outdate Chinese medicine.
In reality, mainstream Chinese medicine has traditionally not respected experience and has despised aiding common citizens in filling out prescriptions. Chinese medicine is not based on accumulated experience, but instead on the subjective, superstitious philosophies of yin and yang, five elements, and mutual promotion and restraint. The Materia Medica by Li Shizhen, recognized as an epitome of Chinese medicine, is full of recipes purportedly handed down by celestial beings. In one absurd example, a cup of the first Spring rain miraculously cures impotence. This is obviously not based on experience, rather these passages are likely aimed at coloring the symbiotic relationships between all living things. Chinese medicine believes that tiger bones, tiger penis, rhinoceros horns, bear gall bladder are effective medicines is simply because these animals have fearsome, strong associations, and Chinese medicine is attempting to impart their traits.
Chinese medicine also states that eating sun-dried leeches will invigorate blood circulation (for urinary tract problems, try eating some sun-dried earthworms). Clearly these and other “cures” are not based on experience; they are superstition in disguise.
Another argument for Chinese medicine is that it is effective. But efficacy does not necessarily mean it is scientific. Chinese people discovered during the Ming dynasty that they could prevent smallpox through vaccination. Even then, Chinese medicine recognized smallpox as a symptom of a latent congenital illness, where the appearance of the pock marks signifies the drawing out of that illness. When better vaccinations swept through China in the 19th century, Chinese medicine hailed the combination of eastern and western medicine.
Besides, the claims of efficacy are also dubious. Many believe in Chinese medicine because they feel that at one point they have been cured by it, and because Chinese medicinal experts relish every opportunity to cite medical cases where Chinese medicine succeeded. But modern medicine cannot take these kinds of patient and doctor testimonies as evidence. Many diseases cure themselves over time, especially with the aid of the placebo effect. Thus, Chinese dugs and treatment plans must undergo strictly designed clinical tests before one can safely say that they are effective.
It wasn’t until the 1940’s that such rigorous medical standards were adopted in the West. But even in this modern age, there are many doctors who still refuse modern scientific standards for clinical testing. They lavish themselves with praise when they feel that they’ve cured a disease while simultaneously ignoring any case where the illness was not cured. Even when their own relatives die, they don’t engage in any soul-searching. What’s the difference between this kind of person and a quack?
Saying that Chinese medicine is not scientific should not be taken as a total dismissal of its value. There is clearly a cultural and historical value to Chinese medicine, and some of the folk prescriptions should indeed be investigated by the scientific community. But only with the skeptical guidance of science we can verify the efficacy and safety of Chinese medicine. All countries have folk medicine, many of which far less developed than Chinese medicine.
Astronomy can not regress into astrology just as chemistry cannot regress into alchemy. There is no reason to believe that ancient superstitions can be used to surpass the accomplishments of modern science. Whether or one can look forward, past their simple outlook on Chinese medicine, is a true test of their scientific rationality.
