无疑，现代医学是以科学自居的。伽利略说，科学是测量。西医对于病人首先 要检查化验各种生化指标，从这点看来，西医的方法是符合科学的定义的。
中医则明显不同，中医似乎更重视患者的具体症状。从表面上看，西医的方法 似乎是很客观的，而中医的方法则似乎有些主观。毕竟各种指标是在仪器下看得见 的，人们都相信这一点，而病人的主观症状除了病人之外别人无法感觉得到。
但仔细想想似乎有些不对，疾病毕竟首先是患者自己的事，除了极特殊的情况 患者通常不会装病，如果患者自身感受到的非常的痛苦，如剧烈的疼痛，还不能算 是疾病的话，那么在科学的眼里究竟什么才算是病呢？
实际上西医是经验医学，其理论对疾病的描述是本末倒置的，西医能够很细致 地描述疾病的结果，却无法清楚地说明致病的原因。至于那些还没有发生器质性变 化的疾病西医更是无法诊断，这都是人所共知的事实，任何一面之词都不能抹煞的 。
人是自然的产物，只有自然疗法才是能够被人类身体接受能够真正彻底解决人 类疾病的治疗方法。中医正是这种应用自然方法的医学，客观有效的治疗结果证实 了中医基础理论的正确。中医的长处在于认识论与方法论的客观有效，符合自然规 律。在合成技术日新月异的今天，人们那么热衷提倡绿色食品说明了什么？纯棉衣 料的再度兴起说明了什么？自然的才是健康的，如是而已。
人类至今还吃着大自然赐予的粮食，并没有改吃化学合成的食物，而且在今天 人们颇有些谈化学食品而色变的趋势，为什么对药物就没有这种普遍自觉的觉醒呢 ？其实药物的危害与食品比起来，简直是百千万亿不可计倍的。
虽然科学在不断发展，但自然界还是自然界，一切自然的产物都还在以自己的 本来面目存在着，虽然遭到了科学的破坏，但还是以自己的方式顽强地存在着。人 是自然的产物，而非化学合成的产物，化学的方法对自然物的干预是以破坏自然的 方式进行的，对人也一样。
如今，西药对人体机能的破坏作用越来越明显地表现出来，不断有药物被证实 是导致很多绝症的罪魁祸首，但在没有被证实致命副作用之前，那些药物还是西医 临床方面的主力。不难推测，在今天仍在全面应用的药物中，在不久的将来必然又 要有不知多少种因为被发现致命的副作用而被禁用，这几乎已经成了客观的规律， 所有西药似乎概莫能外。这不得不让人追问到这种制药方法是否有问题。
直到今天，西医还不断发现他们制作的很多药物对人体的伤害是致命的，很多 血液病患者就是这种无辜的受害者。这是不是说明了西药从一开始产生就走进了危 险的误区？
几千年过去了，人类的食物种类虽然有些变化，但还是用嘴吃饭，消化排泄方 法也没有随着化学的产生发生本质的改变，只是人类的疾病种类增加了化学破坏的 原因。单单从人类的身体看，化学究竟给人带来了更多的福利还是灾难？
当然，西医在人体解剖学上有着细微的观察，这方面是值得称道的，但对不具 解剖学意义的气脉运行机制还缺乏认识，这一点也不能忽视。客观地说，西医对一 些必须外科手术解决的问题还是有些长处的，但对内科疾病由于在病因认识论方面 存在根本缺陷，所以在实践上还很盲目。
由于西医不能从根本上认识导致人体生病的原因（西医大多时候是只看到病的 结果而非原因），从某种意义上说，西医还不能算作一门真正意义上的医学，最多 只能算作是杂合解剖学、化学、生物学、细菌学等等的综合学科。只有接受对生命 科学有着完整真实认识的中医理论的指导，西医的实践才会有相对明确的方向，才 能获得真正的医学的意义。
中医最重者，理法，然后才是方药。现代医学的理论无法理解中医理论的现实 意义，只看到了中医方药的有效性，所以试图用他们的理论重新解释中药治病的原 理，但事实早已作出了回答，这条路是行不通的。就如一定要用细胞学的理论去指 导一个木匠的技能一样，是完全风马牛不相及的事。一定如此，只能最后让木匠无 所适从，连自己原先的手艺都丢掉。
说到不为大众理解，其实现代科学的复杂程度比阴阳五行的学说更不容易理解 。对大众而言，无论你怎么解释，都将是如隔山对话。大众之所以更趋向于首先相 信西医，绝非大众对西医的理论更能了解，相反，倒是因为缺乏必要的了解，才会 对西医形成盲目迷信。大众的取舍其实是一种趋炎附势行为，也即谁得势听谁的， 而不是因为哪个更容易理解。对于一个缺乏理论训练的普通人，任何医学都是难以 理解的，就像中医往往被理解成清热，西医往往被理解为消炎一样。
所以对于大众并不存在说服的问题，倒是对政策的决策者以及有关舆论的操纵 者需要做说服的工作。西医的得势，是与现代科学的影响分不开的，但这种影响并 没有为大众就医提供正确的指导，电脑或者核磁共振与治疗某种病并无直接的因果 关系，但很多人会在下意识中将两种不相干的事理作超越逻辑的对接。治病的方法 其实并不在复杂的技术之中，就像吃饭一样，人用不着将咽喉首先换成最先进的电 子产品，嘴也用不着换成橡胶合成或是金属玻璃钢制品，人类无论如何进化，有些 自然属性都是无法彻底退化掉。只要人的自然属性还在，人的生存与健康就离不开 自然的因素，如空气、水、阳光、粮食、药。中药是自然的产物，所以在原理上能 治疗作为同是自然产物的人的疾病。就像人要吃土生土长的粮食而不食用化学合成 的食物一样。
中医理论就像人饿了要吃饭消化之后要排泄一样，简单明了，万古常新，并不 会因为人类的一些发明创造而改变。所以也没有必要一定要用新发现的理论解释传 统的方法，就如吃饭一样，自古以来就是这样吃，用不着不断推陈出新改变吃法， 只要能够解饥，吃饭的目的就已经达到了。同理，只要能治病，不管现代科学的理 论能不能解释都说明这种方法是实用的，也没有必要一定要用现代科学解释治病的 原理。其实能治病首先就说明了方法的正确，现代科学不能解释只能说是现代科学 的理论还有局限，还需要不断完善，不能用局限的理论来否定实用有效的方法。其 实中医的理法方药是一个完整的医疗体系，几千年来的医疗实践证实了中医理论的 正确，为什么不能从中医自身的理论解释中医实践的疗效呢？其实现代科学的某些 理论是把问题复杂化了，在解决问题时自设障碍，反而在没有必要的细节中失去了 要领，茫然无归。所以在现代科学指导下的西医理论与实践除了在与解剖学密切相 连的外科手术中不断进步之外，对于内科疾病，尤其是尚未成形的内科疾病，至今 仍缺乏适当的诊断方法，更不用说有效治疗了。
其实各自在各自的理论中研究问题，本不会发生冲突，只要在平等的条件下面 对患者，两种理论认识与医疗水平孰高孰下，疗效会帮助人们做出判断。但不可否 认的是，目前中医由于种种的原因受到了各个方面的不公正待遇，使自身的优势无 法正常发挥。同时一些不法之徒冒充中医打入中医内部钻法律的空子招摇撞骗，严 重损害了中医的声誉，致使不辨是非的群众因为假冒伪劣的欺骗而迁怒于真正的中 医。其实道理是显然的，不能因为假酒的存在就要砸茅台酒的招牌，但往往很多人 就是不能分清对象盲目行事。
还有一个重要的问题，就是到底什么人能代表真正的中医水平？中医的个体差 异太大了，自古就有上工中工下工庸工之分，这是一个不能回避的现实问题。难道 可以因为庸工的众多而否认上工的存在吗？能够以庸工的普遍水平来代表中医的水 平吗？就像体育比赛一样，难道会让老弱伤残人员代表国家参赛而不选拔出最优秀 的运动员吗？
如何提高中医从业者的整体水平，如何正确运用中医理论治疗疾病，这才是中医自 身生存与发展的首要问题，而不应是更多的关注如何与现代科学理论对接，甚至不 惜削足适履地否定传统理论的有效性，邯郸学步地以适应目前科学水平的认识能力 与理解能力。
在疼痛中认识西医的“客观指标”
韩济生院士是我国研究镇痛首屈一指的学者，在一次学术报告会上有人向他问 到是否知道疼痛的机理，他的回答是不知道。这不是个科学正在研究的可以“越来 越精确”的问题，而是一个目前科学还无从下手的问题，虽然这个问题在科学上的 重要性是不容置疑的。因为科学不知道疼痛的机制，所以时至今日，科学家们还没 有开发出一种能够测量人是否疼痛的仪器，而且不知道将来有没有可能开发出这种 仪器。这是一个科学主义者的叙述，从中可以感受到真正的科学家（非科学迷信者 ）的尴尬与无奈。
反过来再考察一下中医，中医的所谓主观其实又是很客观的，人都有过疼痛的 经验，疼痛在人是很客观的事情，不能因为无法测量就否定其客观实在性，凡是思 维正常的人按道理都应该能达成这样的共识。中医的客观表现在能够正视患者的自 觉症状，而不会像西医那样貌似客观的轻易否定患者的感受，说疼痛无法测量之类 的奇谈怪论。
疼痛还需要测量，这是只有在现代科学的语境中才会出现的荒唐语言。如果因 为缺乏工具而否定无法测量的事物，这是不是伪科学的态度？科学就是测量，科学 又是一个不断发展的认识过程，这就决定了科学的无法回避的局限性。科学无法否 认以目前的认识水平必然无法测量所有的事物，相对于无限的宇宙与未知世界，科 学的测量对于存在来说永远是微不足道的，这是人类的局限性与科学认识向外的方 向性决定的。不能正视这个现实甚至试图抹煞客观现实的存在，是地地道道的伪科 学的做法。伪科学其实不是对现象的解释或叙述，而是试图用现有的认识水平解释 一切现象，并用现有认识否定其无法认识的现象的一种冒充科学者的态度。
比如疼痛，在患者自身是一种真切的现实，而当现有的医学无法测量疼痛的指 标时，疼痛被现代医学定义为患者的主观感受（即所谓的神经痛，说白了就是神经 病），也就是在现实中根本不存在的东西，只存在于患者的主观感受或幻觉中。这 样，疼痛本身就成了非客观性存在。这也就是西方现代医学对于他们所定义为神经 性疾病无法治疗的根本原因，或者也可以说因为无法诊断与治疗，所以定义为神经 性疾病，因为神经性疾病从他们的客观上看是不存在的。自然，患者其他方面的感 受只要无法测量，现代医学也可以作如是观。
如果患者自身的感受都不能成为疾病与健康的判断依据，那么什么才是衡量健 康与疾病的客观标准呢？在现代医学能够测量到的指标都正常的情况下，患者自身 的感受就可以忽略不计了吗？无法被测量到的患者主观感受到的很真切的无法忍受 的疼痛在现代科学眼中就毫无意义了吗？
其实，现代医学的这种伪客观态度是对患者主观感受的歧视与抹煞。而疾病本 身首先就是患者的主观感受，这就决定了现代医学的研究对象从实质上来说，并非 疾病本身，而是一些与疾病无关的其他现象。所以从本质上说，现代医学还不能算 是真正意义上的医学。因为，医学是以治疗疾病为目的的学科，离开具体的疾病作 与疾病无关的研究是医学之外的事情。
到底谁是伪科学？
毫无疑问，现代医学自认为是科学的。伽利略曾说，科学在于测量。西医在对待病人时，首先检查并化验各种生化指标，从这一点来看，西医的方法符合科学的定义。
中医则明显不同，中医似乎更重视患者的具体症状。表面上看，西医的方法似乎很客观，而中医的方法似乎有些主观。毕竟各种指标是在仪器下可见的，人们都相信这一点；而病人的主观症状除了病人自己之外，别人无法感知到。
但仔细想想似乎有些不对。疾病毕竟是患者自己的事，除非极特殊的情况，患者通常不会装病。如果患者自身感受到的非常痛苦，如剧烈的疼痛，还不能算作是疾病的话，那么在科学的眼里究竟什么才算是病呢？
实际上，西医是经验医学，其理论对疾病的描述是本末倒置的。西医能够很细致地描述疾病的结果，却无法清楚地说明致病的原因。至于那些还没有发生器质性变化的疾病，西医更是无法诊断，这都是人所共知的事实，任何一面之词都不能抹煞的。
人是自然的产物，只有自然疗法才是能够被人类身体接受、能够真正彻底解决人类疾病的治疗方法。中医正是这种应用自然方法的医学，客观有效的治疗结果证实了中医基础理论的正确。中医的长处在于认识论与方法论的客观有效，符合自然规律。在合成技术日新月异的今天，人们那么热衷提倡绿色食品说明了什么？纯棉衣料的再度兴起说明了什么？自然是健康的，如是而已。
人类至今还吃着大自然赐予的粮食，并没有改吃化学合成的食物，而且在今天人们颇有些谈化学食品而色变的趋势，为什么对药物就没有这种普遍自觉的觉醒呢？其实药物的危害与食品比起来，简直是百千万亿不可计倍的。
虽然科学在不断发展，但自然界还是自然界，一切自然的产物都还在以自己的本来面目存在着。虽然遭到了科学的破坏，但还是以自己的方式顽强地存在着。人是自然的产物，而非化学合成的产物，化学的方法对自然物的干预是以破坏自然的方式进行的，对人也一样。
如今，西药对人体机能的破坏作用越来越明显地表现出来，不断有药物被证实是导致很多绝症的罪魁祸首，但在没有被证实致命副作用之前，那些药物还是西医临床方面的主力。不难推测，在今天仍在全面应用的药物中，在不久的将来必然又要有不知多少种因为被发现致命的副作用而被禁用，这几乎已经成了客观的规律，所有西药似乎概莫能外。这不得不让人追问到这种制药方法是否有问题。
直到今天，西医还不断发现他们制作的很多药物对人体的伤害是致命的，很多血液病患者就是这种无辜的受害者。这是不是说明了西药从一开始产生就走进了危险的误区？
几千年过去了，人类的食物种类虽然有些变化，但还是用嘴吃饭，消化排泄方法也没有随着化学的产生发生本质的改变，只是人类的疾病种类增加了化学破坏的原因。单单从人类的身体看，化学究竟给人带来了更多的福利还是灾难？
当然，西医在人体解剖学上有着细微的观察，这方面是值得称道的，但对不具有解剖学意义的气脉运行机制还缺乏认识，这一点也不能忽视。客观地说，西医对一些必须外科手术解决的问题还是有些长处的，但对内科疾病由于在病因认识论方面存在根本缺陷，所以在实践上还很盲目。
由于西医不能从根本上认识导致人体生病的原因（西医大多时候是只看到病的结果而非原因），从某种意义上说，西医还不能算作一门真正意义上的医学，最多只能算作是杂合了解剖学、化学、生物学、细菌学等等的综合学科。只有接受对生命科学有着完整真实认识的中医理论的指导，西医的实践才会有相对明确的方向，才能获得真正的医学的意义。
中医最重者，理法，然后才是方药。现代医学的理论无法理解中医理论的现实意义，只看到了中医方药的有效性，所以试图用他们的理论重新解释中药治病的原理，但事实早已作出了回答，这条路是行不通的。就如一定要用细胞学的理论去指导一个木匠的技能一样，是完全风马牛不相及的事。一定如此，只能最后让木匠无所适从，连自己原先的手艺都丢掉。
说到不为大众理解，其实现代科学的复杂程度比阴阳五行的学说更不容易理解。对大众而言，无论你怎么解释，都将是如隔山对话。大众之所以更趋向于首先相信西医，绝非大众对西医的理论更能了解，相反，倒是因为缺乏必要的了解，才会对西医形成盲目迷信。大众的取舍其实是一种趋炎附势行为，也即谁得势听谁的，而不是因为哪个更容易理解。对于一个缺乏理论训练的普通人，任何医学都是难以理解的，就像中医往往被理解成清热，西医往往被理解为消炎一样。
所以对于大众并不存在说服的问题，倒是对政策的决策者以及有关舆论的操纵者需要做说服的工作。西医的得势，是与现代科学的影响分不开的，但这种影响并没有为大众就医提供正确的指导，电脑或者核磁共振与治疗某种病并无直接的因果关系，但很多人会在下意识中将两种不相干的事理作超越逻辑的对接。治病的方法其实并不在复杂的技术之中，就像吃饭一样，人用不着将咽喉首先换成最先进的电子产品，嘴也用不着换成橡胶合成或是金属玻璃钢制品，人类无论如何进化，有些自然属性都是无法彻底退化掉。只要人的自然属性还在，人的生存与健康就离不开自然的因素，如空气、水、阳光、粮食、药。中药是自然的产物，所以在原理上能治疗作为同是自然产物的人的疾病。就像人要吃土生土长的粮食而不食用化学合成的食物一样。
中医理论就像人饿了要吃饭、消化之后要排泄一样，简单明了，万古常新，并不会因为人类的一些发明创造而改变。所以也没有必要一定要用新发现的理论解释传统的方法，就如吃饭一样，自古以来就是这样吃，用不着不断推陈出新改变吃法，只要能够解饥，吃饭的目的就已经达到了。同理，只要能治病，不管现代科学的理论能不能解释都说明这种方法是实用的，也没有必要一定要用现代科学解释治病的原理。其实能治病首先就说明了方法的正确，现代科学不能解释只能说是现代科学的理论还有局限，还需要不断完善，不能用局限的理论来否定实用有效的方法。其实中医的理法方药是一个完整的医疗体系，几千年来的医疗实践证实了中医理论的正确，为什么不能从中医自身的理论解释中医实践的疗效呢？其实现代科学的某些理论是把问题复杂化了，在解决问题时自设障碍，反而在没有必要的细节中失去了要领，茫然无归。所以在现代科学指导下的西医理论与实践除了在与解剖学密切相连的外科手术中不断进步之外，对于内科疾病，尤其是尚未成形的内科疾病，至今仍缺乏适当的诊断方法，更不用说有效治疗了。
其实各自在各自的理论中研究问题，本不会发生冲突，只要在平等的条件下面对患者，两种理论认识与医疗水平孰高孰下，疗效会帮助人们做出判断。但不可否认的是，目前中医由于种种的原因受到了各个方面的不公正待遇，使自身的优势无法正常发挥。同时一些不法之徒冒充中医打入中医内部钻法律的空子招摇撞骗，严重损害了中医的声誉，致使不辨是非的群众因为假冒伪劣的欺骗而迁怒于真正的中医。其实道理是显然的，不能因为假酒的存在就要砸茅台酒的招牌，但往往很多人就是不能分清对象盲目行事。
还有一个重要的问题，就是到底什么人能代表真正的中医水平？中医的个体差异太大了，自古就有上工、中工、下工、庸工之分，这是一个不能回避的现实问题。难道可以因为庸工的众多而否认上工的存在吗？能够以庸工的普遍水平来代表中医的水平吗？就像体育比赛一样，难道会让老弱伤残人员代表国家参赛而不选拔出最优秀的运动员吗？
如何提高中医从业者的整体水平，如何正确运用中医理论治疗疾病，这才是中医自身生存与发展的首要问题，而不应是更多的关注如何与现代科学理论对接，甚至不惜削足适履地否定传统理论的有效性，邯郸学步地以适应目前科学水平的认识能力与理解能力。
在疼痛中认识西医的“客观指标”
韩济生院士是我国研究镇痛首屈一指的学者，在一次学术报告会上有人向问到是否知道疼痛的机理，他的回答是不知道。这不是个科学正在研究的可以“越来越精确”的问题，而是一个目前科学还无从下手的问题，虽然这个问题在科学上的重要性是不容置疑的。因为科学不知道疼痛的机制，所以时至今日，科学家们还没有开发出一种能够测量人是否疼痛的仪器，而且不知道将来有没有可能开发出这种仪器。这是一个科学主义者的叙述，从中可以感受到真正的科学家（非科学迷信者）的尴尬与无奈。
反过来再考察一下中医，中医的所谓主观其实又是很客观的，人都有过疼痛的经验，疼痛在人是很客观的事情，不能因为无法测量就否定其客观实在性，凡是思维正常的人按道理都应该能达成这样的共识。中医的客观表现在能够正视患者的自觉症状，而不会像西医那样貌似客观的轻易否定患者的感受，说疼痛无法测量之类的奇谈怪论。
疼痛还需要测量，这是只有在现代科学的语境中才会出现的荒唐语言。如果因为缺乏工具而否定无法测量的事物，这是不是伪科学的态度？科学就是测量，科学又是一个不断发展的认识过程，这就决定了科学的无法回避的局限性。科学无法否认以目前的认识水平必然无法测量所有的事物，相对于无限的宇宙与未知世界，科学的测量对于存在来说永远是微不足道的，这是人类的局限性与科学认识向外的方向性决定的。不能正视这个现实甚至试图抹煞客观现实的存在，是地地道道的伪科学的做法。伪科学其实不是对现象的解释或叙述，而是试图用现有的认识水平解释一切现象，并用现有认识否定其无法认识的现象的一种冒充科学者的态度。
比如疼痛，在患者自身是一种真切的现实，而当现有的医学无法测量疼痛的指标时，疼痛被现代医学定义为患者的主观感受（即所谓的神经痛，说白了就是神经病），也就是在现实中根本不存在的东西，只存在于患者的主观感受或幻觉中。这样，疼痛本身就成了非客观性存在。这也就是西方现代医学对于他们所定义为神经性疾病无法治疗的根本原因，或者也可以说因为无法诊断与治疗，所以定义为神经性疾病，因为神经性疾病从他们的客观上看是不存在的。自然，患者其他方面的感受只要无法测量，现代医学也可以作如是观。
如果患者自身的感受都不能成为疾病与健康的判断依据，那么什么才是衡量健康与疾病的客观标准呢？在现代医学能够测量到的指标都正常的情况下，患者自身的感受就可以忽略不计了吗？无法被测量到的患者主观感受到的很真切的无法忍受的疼痛在现代科学眼中就毫无意义了吗？
其实，现代医学的这种伪客观态度是对患者主观感受的歧视与抹煞。而疾病本身就是患者的主观感受，这就决定了现代医学的研究对象从实质上来说，并非疾病本身，而是一些与疾病无关的其他现象。所以从本质上说，现代医学还不能算是真正意义上的医学。因为，医学是以治疗疾病为目的的学科，离开具体的疾病作与疾病无关的研究是医学之外的事情。
到底谁是伪科学？
Undoubtedly, modern medicine claims to be scientific. Galileo said that science is measurement. Western medicine first examines and tests various biochemical indicators for patients; from this perspective, the methods of Western medicine conform to the definition of science.
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is obviously different; it seems to place greater emphasis on the patient's specific symptoms. On the surface, the methods of Western medicine seem very objective, while the methods of TCM seem somewhat subjective. After all, various indicators are visible under instruments, and people believe this; however, a patient's subjective symptoms can only be perceived by the patient themselves, not by others.
But upon careful reflection, this seems incorrect. Illness is ultimately the patient's own matter; except in extremely special cases, patients usually do not feign illness. If the intense suffering felt by the patient, such as severe pain, cannot be considered an illness, then what exactly constitutes an illness in the eyes of science?
In reality, Western medicine is empirical medicine, and its theoretical description of disease puts the cart before the horse. Western medicine can describe the results of disease in great detail but fails to clearly explain the causes of pathogenesis. Furthermore, Western medicine is unable to diagnose diseases that have not yet undergone organic changes; these are facts known to all, which cannot be negated by one-sided arguments.
Humans are products of nature, and only natural therapy can be accepted by the human body and truly and thoroughly resolve human diseases. TCM is precisely such a medicine that applies natural methods; objective and effective treatment results have confirmed the correctness of the basic theories of TCM. The strength of TCM lies in the objectivity and effectiveness of its epistemology and methodology, which conform to natural laws. In today's world where synthetic technology is advancing rapidly, what does people's enthusiasm for promoting green food indicate? What does the resurgence of pure cotton clothing indicate? Nature is healthy, and that is all there is to it.
To this day, humans still eat grains bestowed by nature and have not switched to chemically synthesized foods. Moreover, today there is a trend among people to speak of chemical foods with horror. Why is there no such universal conscious awakening regarding drugs? In fact, compared to food, the harm caused by drugs is countless times greater.
Although science is continuously developing, nature remains nature, and all natural products continue to exist in their original forms. Although damaged by science, they persist tenaciously in their own ways. Humans are products of nature, not chemically synthesized products. Chemical methods intervene in natural objects by destroying nature, and the same applies to humans.
Nowadays, the destructive effects of Western drugs on human physiological functions are becoming increasingly apparent. Drugs are constantly being proven to be the culprits behind many terminal illnesses. However, before their lethal side effects are confirmed, those drugs remain the mainstay of Western clinical practice. It is easy to speculate that among the drugs currently widely used, in the near future, countless more will inevitably be banned due to the discovery of lethal side effects. This has almost become an objective law, seemingly applicable to all Western drugs. This forces one to question whether there is a problem with this method of drug manufacturing.
Until today, Western medicine continues to discover that many drugs they produce cause fatal harm to the human body, with many hematological disease patients being innocent victims. Does this not indicate that Western drugs have entered a dangerous trap from the moment of their inception?
Thousands of years have passed. Although the types of human food have changed somewhat, humans still eat with their mouths, and digestive and excretory methods have not essentially changed with the advent of chemistry; only the types of human diseases have increased due to chemical destruction. Judging solely from the human body, has chemistry brought more welfare or disaster to humans?
Of course, Western medicine has meticulous observations in human anatomy, which is commendable. However, it lacks understanding of the运行机制 (mechanism of Qi and blood vessels) which has no anatomical significance; this point cannot be ignored. Objectively speaking, Western medicine has some strengths in solving problems that require surgical intervention, but due to fundamental flaws in the epistemology of etiology regarding internal medicine, its practice remains quite blind.
Because Western medicine cannot fundamentally understand the causes of human illness (Western medicine mostly sees the results of disease rather than the causes), in a sense, Western medicine cannot be considered a true medical science; at most, it can be regarded as a comprehensive discipline combining anatomy, chemistry, biology, bacteriology, etc. Only under the guidance of TCM theory, which possesses a complete and true understanding of life sciences, will Western medical practice have a relatively clear direction and attain the true meaning of medicine.
The most important aspects of TCM are principles and methods (Li Fa), followed by formulas and herbs. Modern medical theory cannot understand the practical significance of TCM theory; it only sees the effectiveness of TCM formulas and herbs, thus attempting to use its own theories to re-explain the principles of herbal treatment. However, facts have already provided the answer: this path is unworkable. It is like trying to guide a carpenter's skills using cell theory; the two are completely unrelated. Insisting on this would only leave the carpenter bewildered, causing them to lose even their original craft.
Regarding the lack of public understanding, the complexity of modern science is actually harder to understand than the theories of Yin-Yang and Five Elements. For the general public, no matter how you explain, it will be like talking across a mountain. The reason the public tends to trust Western medicine first is absolutely not because they understand Western medical theories better; on the contrary, it is precisely because of a lack of necessary understanding that blind superstition towards Western medicine arises. Public choice is actually a behavior of following power trends, i.e., listening to whoever is dominant, rather than choosing what is easier to understand. For an ordinary person lacking theoretical training, any medicine is difficult to understand, just as TCM is often misunderstood as merely "clearing heat" and Western medicine as merely "anti-inflammation."
Therefore, there is no need to persuade the general public; instead, persuasion is needed for policy decision-makers and manipulators of public opinion. The dominance of Western medicine is inseparable from the influence of modern science, but this influence has not provided correct guidance for public healthcare. Computers or MRI scans have no direct causal relationship with treating certain diseases, yet many people subconsciously make illogical connections between these unrelated things. The methods of healing do not lie in complex technologies. Just as eating requires no one to replace their throat with the most advanced electronic product, nor their mouth with rubber-synthesized or metal-glass-fiber products, no matter how humans evolve, some natural attributes cannot be completely degenerated. As long as human natural attributes remain, human survival and health cannot be separated from natural factors, such as air, water, sunlight, grain, and medicine. Chinese herbal medicine is a product of nature, so theoretically it can treat diseases in humans, who are also products of nature. Just as humans should eat naturally grown grains rather than chemically synthesized foods.
TCM theory is simple and clear, like humans eating when hungry and excreting after digestion; it is eternally new and will not change due to human inventions. Therefore, there is no need to use newly discovered theories to explain traditional methods. Just as eating has been done this way since ancient times, there is no need to constantly innovate and change the way we eat; as long as hunger is satisfied, the purpose of eating is achieved. Similarly, as long as a method can cure disease, regardless of whether modern scientific theories can explain it, it proves the method is practical. There is no need to insist on using modern science to explain the principles of curing disease. In fact, the ability to cure disease first indicates the correctness of the method. The inability of modern science to explain it simply means that modern scientific theory has limitations and needs continuous improvement; limited theories should not be used to negate practical and effective methods. In fact, the principles, methods, formulas, and herbs of TCM constitute a complete medical system. Thousands of years of medical practice have confirmed the correctness of TCM theory. Why not explain the efficacy of TCM practice from its own theoretical perspective? In reality, certain theories of modern science complicate issues, creating obstacles for themselves when solving problems, and losing the main point in unnecessary details, leaving them lost. Therefore, under the guidance of modern science, Western medical theory and practice have only continued to advance in surgeries closely related to anatomy. Regarding internal medicine, especially incipient internal diseases, appropriate diagnostic methods are still lacking to this day, let alone effective treatments.
Actually, researching problems within their respective theories should not cause conflict. As long as both face patients under equal conditions, the superiority of the two theoretical understandings and medical levels will be judged by efficacy. However, it cannot be denied that currently, TCM has received unfair treatment from various aspects due to various reasons, preventing its advantages from functioning normally. Meanwhile, some illegal individuals posing as TCM practitioners have infiltrated TCM, exploiting legal loopholes to swindle and bluff, severely damaging the reputation of TCM. This causes the masses, unable to distinguish right from wrong, to take out their anger on genuine TCM due to deception by counterfeit goods. The logic is obvious: one should not smash the brand of Moutai liquor because fake wine exists, yet many people act blindly without distinguishing the target.
Another important issue is: who can represent the true level of TCM? The individual differences in TCM are too large; since ancient times, there have been distinctions among superior, average, inferior, and mediocre practitioners. This is a realistic problem that cannot be avoided. Can the existence of superior practitioners be denied because there are many mediocre ones? Can the general level of mediocre practitioners represent the level of TCM? Just like in sports competitions, would one allow old, weak, disabled, and injured personnel to represent the country instead of selecting the best athletes?
How to improve the overall level of TCM practitioners and how to correctly apply TCM theory to treat diseases are the primary issues for the survival and development of TCM itself, rather than focusing more on how to connect with modern scientific theories, or even denying the validity of traditional theories by forcing a square peg into a round hole, or learning to walk by imitating others (Han Dan Xue Bu) to adapt to the cognitive and understanding abilities of current scientific levels.
Understanding Western Medicine's "Objective Indicators" through Pain
Academician Han Jisheng is a leading scholar in China in the field of analgesia research. At an academic conference, someone asked him if he knew the mechanism of pain, and his answer was that he did not know. This is not a question that science is studying to make "increasingly precise," but rather a question that science currently has no way to tackle, although its importance in science is unquestionable. Because science does not know the mechanism of pain, scientists have not yet developed an instrument capable of measuring whether a person is in pain, and it is unknown whether such an instrument can ever be developed in the future. This is a narrative from a scientism perspective, from which one can feel the embarrassment and helplessness of true scientists (non-superstitious believers).
Conversely, examining TCM, the so-called subjectivity of TCM is actually very objective. Everyone has experienced pain; pain is an objective matter for humans. One cannot deny its objective reality simply because it cannot be measured. Any person with normal thinking should logically reach such a consensus. The objectivity of TCM is manifested in its ability to face the patient's subjective symptoms squarely, unlike Western medicine, which superficially appears objective but easily denies the patient's feelings, making absurd remarks such as "pain cannot be measured."
The idea that pain needs to be measured is an absurd language that only appears in the context of modern science. If one denies unmeasurable things due to a lack of tools, is this not an attitude of pseudoscience? Science is measurement, and science is also a continuously developing process of cognition, which determines the unavoidable limitations of science. Science cannot deny that, given the current level of cognition, it is impossible to measure everything. Relative to the infinite universe and the unknown world, scientific measurement is always insignificant to existence. This is determined by human limitations and the outward directionality of scientific cognition. Failing to face this reality or even attempting to negate the existence of objective reality is a quintessential pseudoscientific approach. Pseudoscience is actually not an explanation or narration of phenomena, but an attitude of pretending to be a scientist by attempting to explain all phenomena with existing levels of cognition and denying phenomena that cannot be recognized with existing knowledge.
Take pain, for example. For the patient, it is a true reality. When existing medicine cannot measure pain indicators, pain is defined by modern medicine as the patient's subjective feeling (i.e., so-called neuralgia, plainly speaking, mental illness), which is something that does not exist in reality at all, existing only in the patient's subjective feelings or hallucinations. Thus, pain itself becomes a non-objective existence. This is the fundamental reason why Western modern medicine cannot treat what they define as neurological diseases; or rather, because they cannot diagnose and treat it, they define it as a neurological disease, because neurological diseases do not objectively exist from their perspective. Naturally, if other sensations of the patient cannot be measured, modern medicine can view them in the same light.
If the patient's own feelings cannot serve as the basis for judging disease and health, then what is the objective standard for measuring health and disease? In situations where all indicators measurable by modern medicine are normal, can the patient's own feelings be ignored? Is the very real, unbearable pain felt subjectively by the patient, which cannot be measured, meaningless in the eyes of modern science?
In fact, this pseudo-objective attitude of modern medicine is discrimination against and negation of the patient's subjective feelings. Since illness itself is primarily the patient's subjective feeling, this determines that the object of study of modern medicine, in essence, is not the disease itself, but some other phenomena unrelated to the disease. Therefore, essentially, modern medicine cannot be considered a true medical science. Because medicine is a discipline aimed at treating diseases, conducting research unrelated to specific diseases away from concrete illnesses is outside the scope of medicine.
Who is the pseudoscience after all?