Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

This article is about traditional Chinese medicine

It is not about religion nor is it about western science. If you are not knowledgeable enough about this subject to tell the difference, please take your much-needed editing skills to aticles that need your help. There are many. Vandalising this article is not helping much. heidimo 03:12, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

This article is a Wikipedia article. What it is not is a personal POV page for anyone. I think the article is very good, well written, and tends to be clear and fairly balanced. However, there is certainly more than one way of looking at TCM. I have moved all of RK's additions to more proper (IMHO) places within the text. I intend to edit these down or combine them with other statements in the article as I have time. I do not agree that disputing the tenets of any article on a social issue is something that must go at the top. Those most knowledgeable about TCM should dominate the description of it; not those most critical. Aafter all, until they fairly and well describe it, criticism is a waste of time. I see plenty of opportunity in the article's lower sections to discuss the scientific basis of TCM (or lack thereof). I expect that in these sections, the skeptical point of view will receive fair treatment. I also expect both sides to buy in on what I am saying here; that is, take the editing to those sections where it is most helpful. I remind both parties that this page will be editied by many others for years to come; long after your involvement has ended. Therefore, it is pointless to just protect a POV. Your only guarantee that your ideas will continue to be expressed here is by presenting them so well and non-controversial, that others will not bother to improve on them. - Marshman 00:57, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Great Chinese Medicine article !

Thank you, Heidimo! Nice work you were doing there! (just linked to your parts from Wiki) - irismeister 17:42, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the feedback! heidimo 02:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dear Heidimo, we should perhaps do something in concert about vandals mixing their own POV under a spurious NPOV aegis and massacrating perfectly legitimate, deep and caring research, as you did in Chinese Medicine.

Perhaps we should complain and reverse to your version systematically when people step in and start quibbling about "religious" matterns in a system that works continuously for what - six thousand years, twelve thousand years...

During that period we had shamanism and animism, Bon and Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, and who knows what else. And yet Chinese Medicine works as good as ever.

If Dr Kim Bong Han was stupid enough to describe collagen "bodies" under some points and Swift's scientists were busy eating poems written on bread, it does not mean that Chinese Medicine has to yield some evidence for our poor minds. It means that we, in Western Medicin,e are not subtle enough to understand the marvelous human being.

As we started cutting the hair in four like we did, my feeling is that conventional medicine will never integrate Chinese Medicine, which is simply too much for everybody in the West to understand fully. Considering all this, you did a very subtle and great article by any standard. Thank YOU for doing it so fine, knowledgeable and profound. - Yours, - irismeister 21:08, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

Irismeister, thanks for your insightful comments on the topics at hand (tcm and vandalism). I'm sure the vandals will be back, since tcm is such an irresistable target. I appreciate your vigilance in these matters. Seems arrogant to me that a few scientists seem to feel that tcm owes them a scientific explanation as to why, how, and if something works after thousands of years of success, but that is only my opinion. heidimo 02:46, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's my opinion, too, Heidimo! Look, do not let yourself intimidated, and keep up the good work. With time, the difference will be made, as if all by itself (like in the glorious millennia of TCM so far.) I might not write you back for a while, since I'll be banned soon for defending the search for truth in various Wikipedic matters, but I'm not bitter at all. There is no valediction, only a caveat in such TCM editing case stories. As long as you keep your humor and your sense of everlasting value (which are abundent by all standards) you'll ride the tide. "There is the dark side, and then the luminous side... The lighting on the hill is subtle and can only be judged by its results..." :O) Yours - irismeister 07:34, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Heidimo & Co.,

Well done. Traditional Chinese Medicine isn't "scientific," but it is academic and in many schools, effective. There are many different branches of TCM (China is a big country with a looong history), some more effective than others. To want to belittle all of TCM because it doesn't meet a narrow outside definition of proof (even though it has helped millions of people for thousands of years using techniques which are reproducible) is like saying the Egyptian pyramid builders were also so many useless frauds because they didn't subscribe to Scientific American. So, thank you for standing up for us quaint, childlike natives and preserving a dignified perspective for an important article.

Fire Star 20:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see a direct parallel between modern Chinese medicine and Western Medieval medicine

This conversation was copied from the former talk:Conventional medicine.

I see a direct parallel between modern Chinese medicine and Western Medieval medicine. Medieval medicine is basically Greek medicine and Galen's work at its worst! Chinese medicine, like its counter part Western Medieval medicine, is a functional medicine that develops when surgery and dissections of the human body are not permitted.

An interesting idea. however, Chinese medicine (TCM) has a few millennia of evolution behind it, while mediaeval medicine is only a crude concoction of Galen, as you correctly identified it. You are wrong however in assuming TCM is a contorted development. There is a beautiful treatise of Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China - which I cannot possibly recommend to you less. It's a masterpiece ! - - irismeister 16:01, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine has Five Elements:metal, wood, earth, water, fire. Compare that to the Western Classical elements: fire, air, water, and earth. And Galen's four humours: phlegm (water), yellow bile (fire), black bile (earth), and blood (air) has parallels in Chinese medicine.

Correct, John, TCM has the same ontologic ideas as Chinese Philosophy. However, the parallel stops there. - - irismeister 16:01, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

In short, I would no more praise Chinese medicine than I would recommend Medieval medicine. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

TCM has perhaps twelve thousand years of success behind it, and works for more than a billion people nowadays. It couldn't be wrong. Our medicine will only last as much as the Western Civilization, a very late if apparently successful outspring of the Old European Civilization. - - irismeister 16:01, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
Did you hear the one about TCM? The lecturer talked for hours about TCM. It was not until I got home that I realized that he was not talking about Traditional Conventional Medicine! Ha!, ... Hah, Ha!
The only difference between TCM and TCM (i.e., Chinese Medicine) is that the Orientals were fixated for thousands of years while Westerns got over it in a few hundred years. The only real difference between TCM and TCM are the herbs! Westerns use Western herbs and the Orients prefer their own Oriental herbs. Foreign herbs appear more exotic to Westerners. And, Chinese medicine has an exotic appeal only because it is foreign. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health

~

Yes, absolutely right and well done! The hieroglyph for Chinese medicine has three radicals, with one showing this pot where plants are apparently subject to extraction. - irismeister 17:23, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

RK's edits

Do you realize that you created a new section that already exists, resulting in two sections with the same name? Please read the article before you edit it. Cheers, Jiang 02:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RK, within a few minutes of his edit of TCM tried the same tactic on Alternative medicine. I of course, reverted his edit. It was about the 2nd or 3rd revert I did on RK this month. Once you realize that RK is just full of hot air, his tactics of intimation vaporize. I think I will check out the other articles just now vandalized by RK. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:39, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
RK's vandalism of TCM has been reported. Please report his vandalism of other articles as well. Thanks! heidimo 15:58, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
To whom and what link should RK's vandalism be reported to? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:13, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Here. heidimo 16:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against user:RK for his consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles. Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against user:RK. Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not !. Please read what the Vandalism_in_progress page is used for at Wikipedia. It is not where you list a disagreement on POV. Well-meaning edits, whether you agree or disagree with them, do not constitute vandalism. Please show more respect for those editors and admins that need to respond to vandalism - Marshman 00:57, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I know vandalism when I see it. And, I would classify what RK did as vandalism. Editors like RK should be banned. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:15, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, I do not want to have to defend everything RK has ever done, as I am not famaliar with that entire body of work. But the fact remains that what RK and heidimo are scraping about (and what heidimo reported as vandalism), is NOT vandalism. If you are now putting your opinion in on that specific issue, you need to read the vandalism page introduction. If you have another example that I might agree with you on, then send me to it - Marshman 03:54, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I stand by my previous statements. Non-"isolated instances of text deletions and replacements intentionally ... offensive .... systematic attack on several articles" (namely both alternative medicine and TCM within about one hour of each other and 3 attacks in 2004 alone in alternative medicine constitutes vandalism by the rules. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:31, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are many valid criticisms of Chinese medicine, just as there are many valid criticisms of Western medicine, and they certainly shouldn't be ignored, but vandalism is vandalism and reporting it is the way to go. One wonders why he is so threatened by the subject?

SEE ABOVE. You are incorrect. (Fire Star thoughtfully responds): Thanks, I love you, too. Reporting behaviour that we may feel disruptive (trashing an entire subject is well meaning? There must be a better way to present a criticism) to an arbitrator or moderator is the accepted procedure at Wikipedia, I thought. Then a determination can be made as to whether what is happening actually IS vandalism. That is why I said reporting his edits is the way to go. I myself haven't been in an editing war with the guy, others here are dealing with him. This rant is just my two cents off article about scientific fundamentalists.

Chinese medicine is a huge, multifaceted subject with many side disciplines. The version of Chinese medicine that I am studying personally also involves the body mechanics of the Chinese martial arts (and their concomitant therapeutic effects) which is something medieval European medicine never approached. Basically, I can prove empirically that my "magical thinking" metaphors accurately describe a demonstrable technique because I am quite capable of knocking skeptics on their butts, or breaking their limbs, or paralysing their breathing, etc., with very little effort on my part and there isn't much short of firing a gun they can do to stop me! So, when they can actually do what I can do, physically, and demonstrate it to me, then I will accept their criticisms of what I do as valid. I don't say that to be pugnacious, rather I say it to point out that there are many ways (some of them painful, LOL) to demonstrate the depth of practical knowledge preserved by many traditional cultures that go beyond the limited semantic playing field some Westerners try to establish for what they insist is "reality" (as if they are the only people in the world who have a right to an opinion) because they have the scientifically approved jargonistically elaborate "magic spells" to describe things. This dismissive (at best) or coercive (at worst) attitude that many of these guys adopt smacks of the cultlike political behaviour associated with the religions they like to criticise. One begins to wonder if there is such a large functional difference between Carl Sagan's and the Amazing Randi's version of "science" and the medieval religions they would lump all us "magical thinkers" (sic) whom they feel the need to demonize, into. One gets the impression these types would dearly love to simply tell the people who work to preserve traditional Chinese culture to stop being so ethnic and start conforming to their technologically pure plan for the world. And we all know how healthy the polluting side effects of Western technology are, don't we?

Rant over...

Cheers, Fire Star 20:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We are going in circles

Marshman,

Please refer to the page history starting from where Adam Carr touched this page on January 24 and refer to the discussion in /archive1 and /archive2. The text he inserted recently was inserted a couple months ago. It was not outright reverted by User:Roadrunner, but edited to be more NPOV. RR left extensive explanations of his edits, all of which can be found the the two archives. Since this text has already been inserted and parts of it shot down while others kept and reworded, it is entirely inapproprate for us to be reinserting it. Therefore, I will revert your edits.

Note that I have not reviewed Heidimo's edits and cannot say whether he deleted text to favor TCM. If the case is with his edits, then deal with those, not RR's, Fuzheado, or mine. This is not to say that all of RK's edits are invalid. Refer to the page history and view how they have been reworded and reinsert any text that has been removed that shouldnt have. We'll build on the article this way, not with the same wording from January where we have to start the process all over again and put many edits to waste.

--Jiang 01:34, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about what I did. I changed only two things: I deleted some introductory paragraphs added by RK at the very beginning—I was going to move them down lower, but found them all points better discussed already where I wanted to move them. I moved the material heidimo keeps reverting (put in by RK) to more proper subtitles. Admittedly (and as I say in my discussion at the top of this page), these writeups will need to be integrated into the existing text under those subheadings; something which I have not had time to do (and you are welcome to tackle). However, if you are just going to revert those additions, then you are doing no more than heidimo has been doing "protecting" this page from any changes. She regards RK's additions as vandalism; I think the article is pretty well balanced, but RK has some very valid points in need of amplification. I made no changes to RR's (exception as stated if you mean RK's), Fuzheado, or your material. It is apparent to me that in making wholesale deletions, some of you have lost track of the purpose of improving the article by editing. - Marshman 02:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
OK. I see that you just moved some material recently put in by RK and repeatedly reverted by hiedimo back up under "Introduction", making that section more of a "Uses" section. I have no problem there at all, but hiedimo might. You deleted the following:
TCM is based on the religious idea that the human body contains special "energies" and "elements" that are unknown to science. The foundational principle is that if all the energies are in balance, the body heals as a natural outcome.
No adeherent of TCM has been able to demonstrate the existence of "qi" in a peer-reviewed, controlled study. Scientists hold that if no one can show that such energues exists, either directly or indirectly, then one may not make the assumption that they are real. Many proponents of TCM claim that they can detect and manipulate these energies, but they can only demonstrate this to fellow believers. Scientists believe that this is analagous to people who claim that they can interact with God. In both cases, only believers agree, while no proof exists which can convince non-believers.
Most doctors and scientists hold that people who claim to sense such energies are deceiving themselves with magical thinking. Dr. Phillips Stevens writes "Many of today's complementary or alternative systems of healing involve magical beliefs, manifesting ways of thinking based in principles of cosmology and causality that are timeless and absolutely universal. So similar are some of these principles among all human populations that some cognitive scientists have suggested that they are innate to the human species, and this suggestion is being strengthened by current scientific research....Some of the principles of magical beliefs described above are evident in currently popular belief systems. A clear example is homeopathy...The fundamental principle of its founder, Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), similia similibus curentur ("let likes cure likes"), is an explicit expression of a magical principle."
The validity of the principles on which TCM is believed by its practitioners to work has not been demonstrated by Western science. The form of energy known as Qi, for example, which is central to the theory of TCM, has never been detected by Western science. Yet if such a form of energy did exist, and Western science had failed to detect it, this would surely have a major effect on the practice of medicine in the West (in other words, if the TCM explanation of illness is correct, then the Western explanation must be wrong, and this would have observable consequences).
This is also material recently added by RK and continuously reverted by hiedimo. I'm putting it here rather than returning it to the article text. We can then review it to see if it is new, better said, or otherwise worthwhile for the article.
-- Marshman 03:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine/archive1#what?, Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine/archive1#questionable statement, Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine/archive2#RK_v._RR. There's no need to repeat arguments that have already been made and edits that have already been done. Please examine the page history to see what has come out of these paragraphs and how they were changed. We will work from there. --Jiang 06:43, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK. I see your point. If you are happy where things stand right now with the article, I'm ready to "work from there" as you say. I think I understand perfectly well why many statements in RK's stuff above are unacceptable. The material you moved up to Uses was fine with me, but Heidimo had deleted it earlier, perhaps mistakingly. I restored it but moved it down, thinking it was from RK; but it looks good where you put it - Marshman 08:04, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't really say I'm happy with the article at present since I haven't really been following its changes since TomSwiss edited on 8 Feb 2004. My point is that RK's text has been added once before and does not need to be added again (he so blatantly created a duplicate "TCM theory" section so this should be obvious). If he or anyone else has problems with the current version, they should address any changes that have been made since then and not reinsert material that may exist in edited for or be removed with explanation. --Jiang 08:57, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I am concerned about Heidimo's "allies". Mr Natural Health [Refactoring out Personal Attack] who threatened me by claiming to be a Nazi, and as discussed on the Wiki-En list, [Refactoring out Personal Attack]. Mr-Natural-Health has a long history of [Refactoring out Personal Attack], and is currently [Refactoring out Personal Attack]. He also claims that [Refactoring out Personal Attack]. Please do not take my word for this; this is all verifiable. Jiang's unfounded criticisms against me also make him somewhat of a biased person as well. The point is this: A cadre of Wikipedians believe that any alternative medicine claim has to be accepted uncritically, and they view all mainstream scientific views as "vandalism" or "racism". They work hard to censor and delete all material that doesn't push their religious New-Age beliefs. Frankly, if we were to compare the recent Wikipedia article edits on this topic to real papers in peer-reviewed journals, our articles would look like a pro-New-Age religious tract, and it wouldbe laughed off as a joke. At this point in time, it still looks like they are trying to push their religious views and totally censor mainstream views. How do they justify pushing their beliefs? They merely add the sentence "This is not religious" to the nd of their religious beliefs! Frankly, I don't buy it. They can claim that these are not religious beliefs...and I can counter that having angels cure someone's cancer isn't religious as well. But such a claim is religious, no matter how much someone shouts otherwise. RK 14:42, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

A cadre of Wikipedians believe that any alternative medicine claim has to be accepted uncritically, and they view all mainstream scientific views as "vandalism" or "racism". Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I have never made a religious claim about alternative medicine, or any form there of. What I have found is that the medical scientism people have consistently violated the rules of controversial topic discussions. They make non-attributed assertions that are laced full of weaselspeak. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:24, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Special pleading is not allowed in Wikipedia

I have removed the following from the article:

One difficulty with scientific research of TCM is that the theoretical framework used by TCM practitioners does not easily map to Western medical concepts, making it difficult to judge the effectiveness of TCM theory with Western medical theory. The theory of TCM itself predates such analysis. Some TCM practitioners in the West assert that the elements of TCM are not amenable to scientific study. Other TCM practitioners believe that Chinese views of medicine can be reconciled with Western views of medicine, and that the energies and elements in TCM theory can be linked to scientifically observed biochemical processes. Little of this work has been fruitful so far, however. The topic is open to speculation.

The above analysis is not allowed in Wikipedia; this is a clear case of "special pleading", and as such is a gross violation of our NPOV policy. The above nonsense is simply a formal way of saying that "If you don't accept our religious beliefs, then you can't find any proof of their existence, therefore the problem must be with you". In any formal philosophy course special pleading is one of the first topics studied. It is a well known trick, but nothing more. The same exact same argument is often used by Christian fundamentalists to explain why atheists and heretics cannot understand why God and angels exists and intervene in the world, which they see as clear as day, while the rest of us do not find any physical proof. It is beneath us to include such childish arguments in a world-class encyclopedia. RK 14:53, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Use of terms like Energy, Force, and Religion

RK - one problem I'm having with some of your additions is the use of terms such as "energies" and "forces" to describe Qi and Yin & Yang. This confuses the issue, because I think the article elsewhere avoids these characterizations (even though most New Agers do not). Also, although I know what you are saying by describing TCM as a religious belief, I am not so sure that term is helpful. If the concepts of Qi and other elements come from religious beliefs and practices in ancient China, then that fact must be reported. But the fact that some, many, or all modern proponents of TCM now hold on to beliefs that are religious-like (i.e., beliefs, not subject to standard methods of proof) needs to be stated in a different way, because painting TCM with a "religious" label (in my atheistic mind) is too broadbrush and borders on inflammatory POV. By the same token, I do see your point about "Special Pleading" above and the relationship to religious claims - Marshman 17:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I went through your recent addition/change. Much of the "new" stuff you added is actually already said elsewhere in the article. The critical points you raise are not appropriate under History but need to go under the sections that relate to evaluation of TCM. I understand what you are getting at, but it is simply not balancing the article to repeat criticism of TCM under every subheading. For example, your statement: Until recently, observations of the results of TCM have not been subject to controled experiements or peer-review. is true and an important point to make; but it is simply inappropriate under History of TCM. - Marshman 17:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)