“援物比类，取象比类”实际上就是西方的逻辑学所讲的归纳法，只是西方 的逻辑偏重于数理，而对象和数之间的关系则有所缺略，归纳和演绎都不很充分。 象与数之间所构成的逻辑表达与意义系统则属于演绎法的范畴，这是建立中国传统 科学的基础，也是中国科学与西方科学的区别所在。而运用这个象数系统所能够解 决的具体问题，往往正是西方科学无法解决的，从中可见东方科学与西方科学的互 补性。这一点在医学中体现的最为明显，运用中医理论可以轻而易举解决的问题， 往往正是西医学理论无从下手的难题。其实世界已经到了西方向东方寻找智慧的时 候了，其中的现实意义远非二进制的产生计算机的发明受周易卦象的启发那么简单 。这是关系到人类存亡的大事，如果西方的科学再不受到一种与其相反的理智的力 量的制约，用不了多久就会将人类引向灭亡的境地，这从目前的环境问题、能源问 题、资源问题等一系列关系到可持续发展的问题中已经深刻体现出来了。
文字与解读：中医与现代
记得新文化运动的主将们曾经梦想着用拼音取代汉字，以求彻底地用现代取代 传统，将文化革命进行到底。可惜最终事与愿违，直到今天拼音也没能彻底取代方 块字，在电脑技术日新月异的今天，汉字反而在字母文字横行天下之时不断表现出 意想不到的优势，令时人不得不刮目相看。
中医现代化的问题和汉字现代化的问题一样，并不是简单的简化与变化的问题 ，而是一个传承与使用的问题，就像汉字虽可以用拼音来标示读音，但不能用拼音 代替汉字本身一样。一切存在于现代的事物都必然面临这样的问题，实际上存在于 现代本身就是现代化的表现，而不一定非要改头换面不可。就像水的存在，千古不 易，难道现代的水与古代的水会有什么传统与现代的区别吗？要说区别，或许可能 就是多了一点污染而已吧！
其实所谓的现代化不过是一个解读方式的问题，声随世转，用拼音标示读音， 没问题；用英文翻译汉文，没问题。但想用英文取代汉文就出问题了，床前明月光 就不存在了，红楼梦也不存在了。
有时候要想真正理解文字的本意，只靠翻译是不行的，必须要学会这种文字并 且亲身进入这种文字的语境才行，不然就只能捕风捉影道听途说张冠李戴以讹传讹 了。
要学明白中医，就要学好阐述中医理论的经典，要学好经典，就要掌握中医的 思维与语言，这是很简单的道理，并不需要反复论证。试图用西医理论解释中医， 就像试图用英文解释唐诗的意境、用油画的技法分析水墨画的格调一样，即使滔滔 不绝，绘声绘色，在真正的行家听来也必然是驴唇不对马嘴的。
汉字与中医
文以载道，文字本身就是符号，汉字作为一种文字符号，当然具备这样的功能 。汉字不同于其他语系的最大特点是六书，也就是具有六种造字方法。六书首先是 象形，不同于西方语系的只是声音符号。比如水火二字在小篆中，火是焰上之势， 水是流动之势，这属于文字学范畴。在音火为徵音，水为羽音，这属于音韵学范畴 。在意水火为五行之一，火曰炎上，水曰润下；水之气寒，火之气热；冬盛于水， 夏盛于火；这些属于训诂学范畴。这在过去都属于小学的范畴，是读书进道的基础 。这些都不是换成一个数字符号可以取代的。当然，天一生水，地六成之，地二生 火，天七成之，水火同样可以用数字来表示。但是，天地阴阳，不以数推以象之谓 ，如果完全抽象，就不是中医学了，更不是东方思维了。
汉字可以表述西方的东西，而且可能表述的更好，英语却无法表述东方的东西 ，如中医所讲的气与神，英语就无法表述。所以动辄东方神秘主义，其实无所谓神 秘，只是他们无法理解而已。这就是汉语作为语言的优越性。
文字虽能概括与反映客观事物，但也不能忽略文字对客观事物的歪曲与遮蔽。 一种语言是一种思维方式的产物，这种思维方式所忽略的客观事物，必然无法被其 语言所表述、概括和反映。禅宗不立文字的原因，就是因为文字本身也能遮蔽自性 的直觉，这种遮蔽作用在两种文字的转化之中无疑会更加明显，尤其是在产生于两 种不同的思维方式之下的毫无通约性可言的医学之间。
说的越多，离得越远。禅家所谓狮子扑人，韩卢趁块是也。因指可以见月，但 不可执月为指。语言亦有显秘之分，象显可征，虽愚不惑；形潜莫睹，在智犹迷。 秘语皆无意义，有意义者非秘语。老子云大音希声，白石老人有印文“学心听”， 此庶近之，然恐非西方思维可解也。
中西医的区别
历史地看，中西医的产生与发展过程有着本质的不同，这种差异导致了这两种 医学的认识论与方法论的根本性区别。
中医理论是从人对自身乃至宇宙万物的生命及其能量流动的深刻体验出发的， 中医治病的原理就是调整人身的能量动态使之归于平衡的常态，中医的一切理论都 是围绕这种能量状态的消长变化展开的，理法方药莫不如此。如果偏离了这种观察 思考的角度，处方用药必将变得毫无方向。所以中医学是以理论为第一要义的，经 验只是在理论指导下的实践的积累。离开了中医的基本理论，即使用中药治病，也 只能是简单的经验医学，不能归入中医纯粹的辨证施治体系了。
西医是随着解剖学与化学的发展产生并发展起来的，由于起点远离了直接的生 命体验，导致了其认识论与方法论的机械主义倾向。一般来说，西医是把人体当作 一部机器对待的，西医的治疗方法除了作用于诸大系统的内科化学疗法外，外科的 方法更像是木匠或裁缝工作。这样就忽略了作为一个生命体的个人的生命力的能量 存在状态，及其作用于人的直接或即发性病理状态。由于其认识论与方法论的局限 ，导致了西医治疗学体系的重大缺陷——无法正确诊断能量状态的非常态客观存在 。常见的现实如：病人能够很明显地感觉得到自身的某种不适症状，但经过西医病 理检查，却被告知没有病，于是，对于病人来说很现实的客观症状就被歪曲成了一 种主观错觉。还有诸如手术后病人已经死亡，却得出了手术非常成功的荒谬结论， 等等。
这些现象从本质上来说都是由于其认识论与方法论的先天缺陷造成的，中医的 认识论与方法论的客观实在性与可验证性，证实了中医理论针对疾病治疗的正确性 的同时，也从客观上弥补了西医方法论上的这种先天不足。可惜绝大多数自以为很 了解西医很相信科学的明白人并不能清醒地认识到这一点，他们熟视无睹或有意回 避其局限性，科学在他们的头脑中已经图腾为一种拜物教似的迷信。
中医治病是以十全（100%)为最终目的的，但由于客观因素的局限，能够达到 十全的上工寥寥无几。西医是以十全六七(60%-70%)为目的的，只要整体上达到这 样的有效率就算成功。
中医自古就是以个体行医的，治疗对象也是个体，不会等到凑全人数才开始治 疗。西医是以群体行医，治疗是分组进行的，实际上同时是在拿患者作实验。中医 的标准是上工，真正达标的医生很少。西医是以下工为标准，只要能够与整体相应 就算合格。
中医是在进行治疗，西医是在进行实验。因为大多数中医不能真正代表中医， 所以中西医之间其实一直没有机会进行真正的整体比较。个案相比，西医明显不敌 ，治疗结果相差悬殊。整体对比，中医又似乎处于劣势，统计结果无法验证。
从经营上看，中医是个体经营，西医是集体经营。中医是小农生产方式，西医 是工业生产方式。两者的结果表现在规模与效果上（如所造成的污染）存在差异， 两种结果的区别在于，前种方式更能够对作为个体的患者有利，后种方式更能够对 作为集体的医生有利。所以，从治疗的效果看，中医是胜利者，而从经营的结果上 看，西医是胜利者。其区别的本质表现在目的性上，一个是以服务为根本目的，一 个是以盈利为根本目的。一个是福利性质的，一个是商业性质的（至少目前在国内 是这样表现的）。
但这些其实还不是最根本的区别，二者最根本的区别在于，真正能代表两种医 学的治疗结果（权威的水平）的疗效的性质，即标本的差别，也即预后的情况。是 真正的治愈了，还是只是掩盖一时，比如激素的短期效果与后期副作用。这种区别 才是两种医学理论所指导下的医学实践的本质区别，而不是人为造成的错误之间的 区别。
注：所谓权威的水平，指的是医术，而非资格或资历。当然，作为整体运作的 西医之间的个体差异是不大的，就像机器的零部件一样，只存在合格与不合格的差 别，是不太分别精品和次品的。
中西医如何汇通？
一些思想开明人士，始终希望中西两种医学能够结合起来，相互取长补短，这 听起来当然是个很好的想法，但几十年的经验告诉我们，想要结合不是一件容易的 事，一定要找到新的更加合理的契合点才行，不然结果只能是事与愿违欲速不达。
可这个契合点究竟在哪里呢？窃以为西医对解剖细节与微观结构的探索，可以 作为对中医诊断学的补充，西医的一些诊断方法（除切片、骨穿之类对身体形成伤 害的）对中医诊断成形疾病的病位及规模具有指导意义。这应该是很多西医人士乐 于接受的认识。
但目前双方还是只能互相借鉴，无法深入结合，因为在群体认识不能做到公平 中正的前提下，这种结合只能是以一方对另一方的吞并或消灭为结果的，而不可能 是相得益彰的相互补充。这是当前以势论成败的群体思维定势决定的，在远未达到 认识能力集体启蒙的今天，搞这种汇通是很危险的，因为人类有可能在蒙昧状态中 扼杀了真正能够将人类带出灾难困境的文化类型，这不只是中医面临的问题，一切 东方的人类传统文化都面临着这种处境。
至于将来如何结合，窃以为首先要分清主次，各就其位，切忌越俎代庖。中医 可以在认识论与方法论上提供理论基础。西医可以在解剖学与检验学方面补充中医 诊断的不足，以及在外科手术方面发挥自己的长处。至于产生于化学方法的西医药 物学就完全可以由应用自然药物的中药学所取代了。
结合的结果竟然是以中医统领西医，这恐怕是科学主义者们所不能接受的，但 医学是以治疗疾病为最终目的的，如果那些依赖于其他学科的治疗方法远远落后于 真正可以推广成熟的自然医学的疗效，那时候科学这杆大旗恐怕对他们也起不到什 么保护作用了。
这是历史的必然，因为中医自古以来就有这样的疗效，目前中医整体疗效的不 尽如人意是中医教育侧重以西医理论指导中医，现实医疗体制下的大部分中医不能 正确运用传统中医理论诊断治疗的结果。中医目前的首要任务应该是提高中医从业 者的整体治疗水平，将那些打着中医旗号的不学无术的骗子以及思维不适合学习这 种医学理论的学术异己清除出中医的队伍，使中医在整体纯洁的基础上发展壮大起 来。
中西医能否结合？
中医是在气的层次上研究病情，最高境界是“不治已病治未病”，重在调节生 命的功能。西医是在物的基础上研究病情，最高境界是干预物质构成的秩序，重在 修复器官的结构。中医属形上的医学，是以重道理；西医属形下的医学，是以重器 质。上下相形，实无轻重。
然种子之所以能生根发芽开花结果者，以其内蕴生气也，不识此气而但观其形 ，不免流于形下，与隐形存在相失。此西医所以于内科疾病不能查明病因之故耶？ 而中医于形器已坏之身体损伤殊无良策，此亦于形迹未能穷理尽性之过欤？
两种医学各有所长，亦各有局限，是以应并行不悖，相得益彰。可以互相补充 ，不能互相取代；可以互相借鉴，不应互相攻讦。宜扬长避短，取长补短，相互补 充，兼容并蓄。忌以长攻短，恃长护短，如同寇仇，互相轻视。
然欲结合，先当平等，科学自然，相互节制，不可先存此轻彼重此是彼非之成 见。当一切以事实为依据，以最好疗效检验理论是否正确，据此明辨是非改正错误 ，统一理论，消灭分歧。一切以临床效果（当以患者感受为主，不可执着客观指标 ，如以驼背为病态，强为拉直，驼背则直矣，而人则死矣，是治病之道耶？）为判 断标准，一切以患者利益为最高准则，果能如是则中西结合为必然之事也。
实话：鉴定方舟子
“援物比类，取象比类”实际上就是西方的逻辑学所讲的归纳法，只是西方的逻辑偏重于数理，而对象和数之间的关系则有所缺略，归纳和演绎都不很充分。象与数之间所构成的逻辑表达与意义系统则属于演绎法的范畴，这是建立中国传统科学的基础，也是中国科学与西方科学的区别所在。而运用这个象数系统所能够解决的具体问题，往往正是西方科学无法解决的，从中可见东方科学与西方科学的互补性。这一点在医学中体现的最为明显，运用中医理论可以轻而易举解决的问题，往往正是西医学理论无从下手的难题。其实世界已经到了西方向东方寻找智慧的时候了，其中的现实意义远非二进制的产生计算机的发明受周易卦象的启发那么简单。这是关系到人类存亡的大事，如果西方的科学再不受到一种与其相反的理智的力量的制约，用不了多久就会将人类引向灭亡的境地，这从目前的环境问题、能源问题、资源问题等一系列关系到可持续发展的问题中已经深刻体现出来了。
文字与解读：中医与现代
记得新文化运动的主将们曾经梦想着用拼音取代汉字，以求彻底地用现代取代传统，将文化革命进行到底。可惜最终事与愿违，直到今天拼音也没能彻底取代方块字，在电脑技术日新月异的今天，汉字反而在字母文字横行天下之时不断表现出意想不到的优势，令时人不得不刮目相看。
中医现代化的问题和汉字现代化的问题一样，并不是简单的简化与变化的问题，而是一个传承与使用的问题，就像汉字虽可以用拼音来标示读音，但不能用拼音代替汉字本身一样。一切存在于现代的事物都必然面临这样的问题，实际上存在于现代本身就是现代化的表现，而不一定非要改头换面不可。就像水的存在，千古不易，难道现代的水与古代的水会有什么传统与现代的区别吗？要说区别，或许可能就是多了一点污染而已吧！
其实所谓的现代化不过是一个解读方式的问题，声随世转，用拼音标示读音，没问题；用英文翻译汉文，没问题。但想用英文取代汉文就出问题了，床前明月光就不存在了，红楼梦也不存在了。
有时候要想真正理解文字的本意，只靠翻译是不行的，必须要学会这种文字并且亲身进入这种文字的语境才行，不然就只能捕风捉影道听途说张冠李戴以讹传讹了。
要学明白中医，就要学好阐述中医理论的经典，要学好经典，就要掌握中医的思维与语言，这是很简单的道理，并不需要反复论证。试图用西医理论解释中医，就像试图用英文解释唐诗的意境、用油画的技法分析水墨画的格调一样，即使滔滔不绝，绘声绘色，在真正的行家听来也必然是驴唇不对马嘴的。
汉字与中医
文以载道，文字本身就是符号，汉字作为一种文字符号，当然具备这样的功能。汉字不同于其他语系的最大特点是六书，也就是具有六种造字方法。六书首先是象形，不同于西方语系的只是声音符号。比如水火二字在小篆中，火是焰上之势，水是流动之势，这属于文字学范畴。在音火为徵音，水为羽音，这属于音韵学范畴。在意水火为五行之一，火曰炎上，水曰润下；水之气寒，火之气热；冬盛于水，夏盛于火；这些属于训诂学范畴。这在过去都属于小学的范畴，是读书进道的基础。这些都不是换成一个数字符号可以取代的。当然，天一生水，地六成之，地二生火，天七成之，水火同样可以用数字来表示。但是，天地阴阳，不以数推以象之谓，如果完全抽象，就不是中医学了，更不是东方思维了。
汉字可以表述西方的东西，而且可能表述的更好，英语却无法表述东方的东西，如中医所讲的气与神，英语就无法表述。所以动辄东方神秘主义，其实无所谓神秘，只是他们无法理解而已。这就是汉语作为语言的优越性。
文字虽能概括与反映客观事物，但也不能忽略文字对客观事物的歪曲与遮蔽。一种语言是一种思维方式的产物，这种思维方式所忽略的客观事物，必然无法被其语言所表述、概括和反映。禅宗不立文字的原因，就是因为文字本身也能遮蔽自性的直觉，这种遮蔽作用在两种文字的转化之中无疑会更加明显，尤其是在产生于两种不同的思维方式之下的毫无通约性可言的医学之间。
说的越多，离得越远。禅家所谓狮子扑人，韩卢趁块是也。因指可以见月，但不可执月为指。语言亦有显秘之分，象显可征，虽愚不惑；形潜莫睹，在智犹迷。秘语皆无意义，有意义者非秘语。老子云大音希声，白石老人有印文“学心听”，此庶近之，然恐非西方思维可解也。
中西医的区别
历史地看，中西医的产生与发展过程有着本质的不同，这种差异导致了这两种医学的认识论与方法论的根本性区别。
中医理论是从人对自身乃至宇宙万物的生命及其能量流动的深刻体验出发的，中医治病的原理就是调整人身的能量动态使之归于平衡的常态，中医的一切理论都是围绕这种能量状态的消长变化展开的，理法方药莫不如此。如果偏离了这种观察思考的角度，处方用药必将变得毫无方向。所以中医学是以理论为第一要义的，经验只是在理论指导下的实践的积累。离开了中医的基本理论，即使用中药治病，也只能是简单的经验医学，不能归入中医纯粹的辨证施治体系了。
西医是随着解剖学与化学的发展产生并发展起来的，由于起点远离了直接的生命体验，导致了其认识论与方法论的机械主义倾向。一般来说，西医是把人体当作一部机器对待的，西医的治疗方法除了作用于诸大系统的内科化学疗法外，外科的方法更像是木匠或裁缝工作。这样就忽略了作为一个生命体的个人的生命力的能量存在状态，及其作用于人的直接或即发性病理状态。由于其认识论与方法论的局限，导致了西医治疗学体系的重大缺陷——无法正确诊断能量状态的非常态客观存在。常见的现实如：病人能够很明显地感觉得到自身的某种不适症状，但经过西医病理检查，却被告知没有病，于是，对于病人来说很现实的客观症状就被歪曲成了一种主观错觉。还有诸如手术后病人已经死亡，却得出了手术非常成功的荒谬结论，等等。
这些现象从本质上来说都是由于其认识论与方法论的先天缺陷造成的，中医的认识论与方法论的客观实在性与可验证性，证实了中医理论针对疾病治疗的正确性的同时，也从客观上弥补了西医方法论上的这种先天不足。可惜绝大多数自以为很了解西医很相信科学的明白人并不能清醒地认识到这一点，他们熟视无睹或有意回避其局限性，科学在他们的头脑中已经图腾为一种拜物教似的迷信。
中医治病是以十全（100%)为最终目的的，但由于客观因素的局限，能够达到十全的上工寥寥无几。西医是以十全六七(60%-70%)为目的的，只要整体上达到这样的有效率就算成功。
中医自古就是以个体行医的，治疗对象也是个体，不会等到凑全人数才开始治疗。西医是以群体行医，治疗是分组进行的，实际上同时是在拿患者作实验。中医的标准是上工，真正达标的医生很少。西医是以下工为标准，只要能够与整体相应就算合格。
中医是在进行治疗，西医是在进行实验。因为大多数中医不能真正代表中医，所以中西医之间其实一直没有机会进行真正的整体比较。个案相比，西医明显不敌，治疗结果相差悬殊。整体对比，中医又似乎处于劣势，统计结果无法验证。
从经营上看，中医是个体经营，西医是集体经营。中医是小农生产方式，西医是工业生产方式。两者的结果表现在规模与效果上（如所造成的污染）存在差异，两种结果的区别在于，前种方式更能够对作为个体的患者有利，后种方式更能够对作为集体的医生有利。所以，从治疗的效果看，中医是胜利者，而从经营的结果上看，西医是胜利者。其区别的本质表现在目的性上，一个是以服务为根本目的，一个是以盈利为根本目的。一个是福利性质的，一个是商业性质的（至少目前在国内是这样表现的）。
但这些其实还不是最根本的区别，二者最根本的区别在于，真正能代表两种医学的治疗结果（权威的水平）的疗效的性质，即标本的差别，也即预后的情况。是真正的治愈了，还是只是掩盖一时，比如激素的短期效果与后期副作用。这种区别才是两种医学理论所指导下的医学实践的本质区别，而不是人为造成的错误之间的区别。
注：所谓权威的水平，指的是医术，而非资格或资历。当然，作为整体运作的西医之间的个体差异是不大的，就像机器的零部件一样，只存在合格与不合格的差别，是不太分别精品和次品的。
中西医如何汇通？
一些思想开明人士，始终希望中西两种医学能够结合起来，相互取长补短，这听起来当然是个很好的想法，但几十年的经验告诉我们，想要结合不是一件容易的事，一定要找到新的更加合理的契合点才行，不然结果只能是事与愿违欲速不达。
可这个契合点究竟在哪里呢？窃以为西医对解剖细节与微观结构的探索，可以作为对中医诊断学的补充，西医的一些诊断方法（除切片、骨穿之类对身体形成伤害的）对中医诊断成形疾病的病位及规模具有指导意义。这应该是很多西医人士乐于接受的认识。
但目前双方还是只能互相借鉴，无法深入结合，因为在群体认识不能做到公平中正的前提下，这种结合只能是以一方对另一方的吞并或消灭为结果的，而不可能是相得益彰的相互补充。这是当前以势论成败的群体思维定势决定的，在远未达到认识能力集体启蒙的今天，搞这种汇通是很危险的，因为人类有可能在蒙昧状态中扼杀了真正能够将人类带出灾难困境的文化类型，这不只是中医面临的问题，一切东方的人类传统文化都面临着这种处境。
至于将来如何结合，窃以为首先要分清主次，各就其位，切忌越俎代庖。中医可以在认识论与方法论上提供理论基础。西医可以在解剖学与检验学方面补充中医诊断的不足，以及在外科手术方面发挥自己的长处。至于产生于化学方法的西医药物学就完全可以由应用自然药物的中药学所取代了。
结合的结果竟然是以中医统领西医，这恐怕是科学主义者们所不能接受的，但医学是以治疗疾病为最终目的的，如果那些依赖于其他学科的治疗方法远远落后于真正可以推广成熟的自然医学的疗效，那时候科学这杆大旗恐怕对他们也起不到什么保护作用了。
这是历史的必然，因为中医自古以来就有这样的疗效，目前中医整体疗效的不尽如人意是中医教育侧重以西医理论指导中医，现实医疗体制下的大部分中医不能正确运用传统中医理论诊断治疗的结果。中医目前的首要任务应该是提高中医从业者的整体治疗水平，将那些打着中医旗号的不学无术的骗子以及思维不适合学习这种医学理论的学术异己清除出中医的队伍，使中医在整体纯洁的基础上发展壮大起来。
中西医能否结合？
中医是在气的层次上研究病情，最高境界是“不治已病治未病”，重在调节生命的功能。西医是在物的基础上研究病情，最高境界是干预物质构成的秩序，重在修复器官的结构。中医属形上的医学，是以重道理；西医属形下的医学，是以重器质。上下相形，实无轻重。
然种子之所以能生根发芽开花结果者，以其内蕴生气也，不识此气而但观其形，不免流于形下，与隐形存在相失。此西医所以于内科疾病不能查明病因之故耶？而中医于形器已坏之身体损伤殊无良策，此亦于形迹未能穷理尽性之过欤？
两种医学各有所长，亦各有局限，是以应并行不悖，相得益彰。可以互相补充，不能互相取代；可以互相借鉴，不应互相攻讦。宜扬长避短，取长补短，相互补充，兼容并蓄。忌以长攻短，恃长护短，如同寇仇，互相轻视。
然欲结合，先当平等，科学自然，相互节制，不可先存此轻彼重此是彼非之成见。当一切以事实为依据，以最好疗效检验理论是否正确，据此明辨是非改正错误，统一理论，消灭分歧。一切以临床效果（当以患者感受为主，不可执着客观指标，如以驼背为病态，强为拉直，驼背则直矣，而人则死矣，是治病之道耶？）为判断标准，一切以患者利益为最高准则，果能如是则中西结合为必然之事也。
实话：鉴定方舟子
"Yuanwu Bilei, Quxiang Bilei" (Drawing analogies from objects and comparing images) is essentially the inductive method discussed in Western logic. However, Western logic tends to emphasize mathematics and numbers, lacking a sufficient relationship between objects and numbers, making both induction and deduction imperfect. The logical expression and meaning system constituted by the relationship between images and numbers belong to the category of deductive methods. This forms the foundation of traditional Chinese science and distinguishes Chinese science from Western science. The specific problems that can be solved using this image-number system are often those that Western science cannot solve, revealing the complementary nature of Eastern and Western sciences. This is most evident in medicine: problems that can be easily resolved using Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) theory are often dilemmas where Western medical theory finds no foothold. In fact, the world has reached a point where the West seeks wisdom from the East. The practical significance of this goes far beyond the simple inspiration of binary computing and computer invention from the hexagrams of the *I Ching* (Book of Changes). This is a matter concerning the survival of humanity. If Western science is not constrained by a counterbalancing rational force, it will soon lead humanity to destruction. This is profoundly reflected in current environmental, energy, resource, and sustainable development issues.
Text and Interpretation: TCM and Modernity
I recall that the leaders of the New Culture Movement once dreamed of replacing Chinese characters with Pinyin, seeking to completely replace tradition with modernity and carry out the cultural revolution to the end. Unfortunately, events did not go as planned. To this day, Pinyin has not completely replaced square characters. In an era of rapidly advancing computer technology, Chinese characters have unexpectedly demonstrated advantages even when alphabetic scripts dominate the world, forcing contemporaries to look at them with new respect.
The issue of modernizing TCM is the same as modernizing Chinese characters. It is not a simple matter of simplification or change, but rather one of inheritance and usage. Just as Pinyin can indicate pronunciation but cannot replace Chinese characters themselves, so too does everything existing in the modern era face such issues. Actually, existing in the modern era is itself a manifestation of modernization; there is no need necessarily to undergo a complete transformation. Consider water: its existence has remained unchanged for millennia. Is there any difference between ancient water and modern water in terms of tradition and modernity? If there is a difference, perhaps it is merely a bit more pollution!
In essence, so-called modernization is merely an issue of interpretation. Sounds change with the times; using Pinyin to mark pronunciation is fine; translating Chinese into English is fine. But attempting to replace Chinese with English creates problems. "Moonlight before my bed" would cease to exist, and *Dream of the Red Chamber* would vanish.
Sometimes, to truly understand the original meaning of text, translation alone is insufficient. One must learn the language and personally enter its context; otherwise, one can only resort to hearsay, misattribution, and the spread of errors.
To understand TCM well, one must master the classics that expound TCM theory. To master the classics, one must grasp the thinking and language of TCM. This is a simple truth requiring no repeated argumentation. Attempting to explain TCM using Western medical theory is like trying to explain the artistic conception of Tang poetry in English or analyzing the style of ink wash painting using oil painting techniques. Even if one speaks fluently and vividly, to true experts, it will inevitably sound like a mismatch—completely irrelevant.
Chinese Characters and TCM
Literature conveys the Dao (Way); text itself is a symbol. As a type of textual symbol, Chinese characters naturally possess this function. The greatest characteristic distinguishing Chinese characters from other language families is the "Six Scripts" (Liushu), namely, six methods of character formation. The first of these is pictographic representation, differing from Western languages which consist merely of phonetic symbols. For example, in small seal script, the character for fire depicts the upward momentum of flames, and the character for water depicts the flow of liquid. This belongs to the realm of philology. Phonetically, fire corresponds to the Zhi tone, and water to the Yu tone; this belongs to phonology. Semantically, fire and water are among the Five Elements (Wuxing); fire is characterized by flaming upward, water by moistening downward; the qi of water is cold, the qi of fire is hot; winter thrives on water, summer on fire. These belong to exegesis. Historically, these fell under the category of "Primary Learning" (Xiaoxue), the foundation for scholars to attain the Dao. None of these can be replaced by mere numerical symbols. Of course, "Heaven generates one, Water completes it; Earth generates two, Fire completes it," allows fire and water to be represented by numbers. However, Heaven and Earth, Yin and Yang, are deduced not by numbers but by images. If completely abstracted, it ceases to be TCM and certainly ceases to be Eastern thinking.
Chinese characters can describe Western things, possibly even better than English, whereas English cannot adequately express Eastern concepts, such as Qi (Vital Energy) and Shen (Spirit) as discussed in TCM. Thus, accusations of "Eastern mysticism" stem not from actual mystery, but from their inability to understand. This highlights the superiority of the Chinese language.
Although text can summarize and reflect objective reality, we must not ignore the distortion and obscuration that text imposes on objective reality. A language is a product of a specific mode of thinking; objective realities ignored by this mode of thinking inevitably cannot be expressed, summarized, or reflected by its language. The reason Chan Buddhism does not rely on text is precisely because text itself can obscure the intuitive perception of self-nature. This obscuring effect is undoubtedly more pronounced in the translation between two scripts, especially between medical systems arising from two fundamentally incompatible modes of thinking.
The more one speaks, the further one strays. As the Chan masters said, "When the lion attacks a person, the Han Lu dog chases a block." One can see the moon through the finger pointing at it, but one must not mistake the finger for the moon. Language has distinctions between the explicit and the esoteric. Explicit images can be verified; even the foolish are not confused. Hidden forms cannot be seen; even the wise remain lost. Esoteric words lack meaning; meaningful words are not esoteric. Laozi said, "The Great Sound is silent." Master Shi Baishi had a seal inscription reading "Learn to Listen with the Heart." This approximates the truth, though it may likely be incomprehensible to Western thinking.
Differences Between TCM and Western Medicine
Historically, the generation and development processes of TCM and Western medicine differ essentially. This difference leads to fundamental distinctions in their epistemologies and methodologies.
TCM theory originates from profound human experiences of life and the flow of energy within oneself and the universe. The principle of TCM treatment is to adjust the dynamic energy balance of the body back to a normal state. All TCM theories revolve around the waxing and waning of this energy state; principles, methods, formulas, and herbs all follow this pattern. Deviating from this perspective renders prescription and medication directionless. Therefore, TCM prioritizes theory above all else; experience is merely the accumulation of practice guided by theory. Without basic TCM theory, even using herbal medicine constitutes only simple empirical medicine, failing to enter the pure system of TCM's syndrome differentiation and treatment.
Western medicine emerged and developed alongside anatomy and chemistry. Because its starting point was distant from direct life experience, it led to a mechanistic tendency in its epistemology and methodology. Generally, Western medicine treats the human body as a machine. Apart from internal chemical therapies acting on major systems, surgical methods resemble carpentry or tailoring. This ignores the energetic state of vitality in individuals as living beings, as well as their direct or immediate pathological states. Due to limitations in epistemology and methodology, Western therapeutic systems suffer a major defect: the inability to correctly diagnose the objective existence of abnormal energy states. Common realities include patients clearly feeling discomfort, yet being told they are healthy after Western pathological examinations, thus distorting realistic objective symptoms into subjective illusions. Or the absurd conclusion that a surgery was highly successful despite the patient dying post-operation.
Essentially, these phenomena result from inherent defects in epistemology and methodology. The objectivity and verifiability of TCM's epistemology and methodology confirm the correctness of TCM theory in disease treatment while objectively compensating for this inherent deficiency in Western methodology. Regrettably, most people who pride themselves on understanding Western medicine and believing in science fail to recognize this clearly. They turn a blind eye or deliberately avoid its limitations, turning "science" in their minds into a fetishistic superstition.
TCM aims for 100% success ("Shiquan"), but due to objective limitations, few practitioners achieve this level. Western medicine aims for 60-70% success; achieving this overall efficacy rate is considered success.
Since ancient times, TCM has practiced individually, treating individuals, without waiting to gather a group before starting treatment. Western medicine practices collectively, conducting treatments in groups, effectively using patients as experimental subjects. The standard for TCM is the "Superior Physician" (Shanggong), of whom very few truly meet the criteria. The standard for Western medicine is the "Inferior Physician" (Xiagong); meeting general requirements is deemed qualified.
TCM conducts treatment; Western medicine conducts experiments. Since most TCM practitioners do not truly represent TCM, there has rarely been an opportunity for a genuine holistic comparison between the two. In individual case comparisons, Western medicine is clearly inferior, with vast disparities in outcomes. In holistic comparisons, TCM seems disadvantaged, as statistical results cannot verify the claims.
From a business perspective, TCM is individual operation, while Western medicine is collective operation. TCM employs an agrarian production model, whereas Western medicine uses an industrial production model. Their results differ in scale and effects (such as pollution caused). The former benefits the individual patient, while the latter benefits the collective of doctors. Thus, in terms of therapeutic effect, TCM is the victor; in terms of operational results, Western medicine is the victor. The essential difference lies in purpose: one serves as a fundamental goal, the other profit. One is welfare-oriented, the other commercial (at least currently in China).
However, this is not the most fundamental difference. The core distinction lies in the nature of therapeutic outcomes representing the true authority of each medicine—the difference between treating the root versus the branch, i.e., prognosis. Whether it is a true cure or merely a temporary suppression, such as the short-term effects and long-term side effects of hormones. This distinction represents the essential difference in medical practice guided by the two theories, rather than differences caused by human error.
Note: "Authority level" refers to medical skill, not qualifications or seniority. Naturally, individual variations among Western medicine operating as a whole are minimal, like machine parts, distinguished only by pass/fail, with little differentiation between premium and substandard products.
How Should TCM and Western Medicine Integrate?
Some open-minded individuals have always hoped for the integration of Eastern and Western medicines, complementing each other's strengths. While this sounds like a good idea, decades of experience tell us that integration is not easy. A new, more reasonable point of convergence must be found; otherwise, the result will be counterproductive and hasty failure.
Where exactly is this point of convergence? I believe Western exploration of anatomical details and microstructures can supplement TCM diagnostics. Some Western diagnostic methods (excluding those causing bodily harm like biopsies or bone marrow punctures) can guide TCM in determining the location and scale of formed diseases. This should be an acceptable recognition for many Western medical professionals.
Currently, however, both sides can only borrow from each other, unable to integrate deeply. Under the premise that collective cognition cannot achieve fairness and impartiality, such integration can only result in one side swallowing or eliminating the other, rather than mutually beneficial supplementation. This is determined by the prevailing collective mindset that judges success by power dynamics. Today, far from reaching collective enlightenment in cognitive abilities, pursuing such integration is dangerous. Humanity risks strangling cultural types capable of leading it out of disaster while still in a state of ignorance. This is not just a problem facing TCM; all Eastern traditional human cultures face this predicament.
Regarding future integration, I believe primary and secondary roles must be clarified, each assuming its proper position, avoiding overstepping bounds. TCM can provide theoretical foundations in epistemology and methodology. Western medicine can supplement TCM diagnostics through anatomy and laboratory testing, and utilize its strengths in surgical operations. Western pharmacology, derived from chemical methods, can be entirely replaced by TCM pharmacology, which applies natural drugs.
The result of integration being TCM leading Western medicine might be unacceptable to scientificists. However, since medicine's ultimate goal is curing disease, if treatments relying on other disciplines lag far behind the efficacy of truly promulgated and mature natural medicine, the banner of "science" may offer them no protection then.
This is historical inevitability. TCM has possessed such efficacy since ancient times. The current unsatisfactory overall efficacy of TCM results from TCM education focusing on guiding TCM with Western theories, and most TCM practitioners in the current healthcare system failing to correctly apply traditional TCM theory for diagnosis and treatment. The primary task for TCM now should be improving the overall therapeutic level of practitioners, clearing out charlatans posing as TCM doctors and academic dissidents whose thinking is unsuitable for learning this medical theory, allowing TCM to grow and develop on the basis of overall purity.
Can TCM and Western Medicine Combine?
TCM studies illness at the level of Qi, with the highest realm being "treating disease before it arises," focusing on regulating vital functions. Western medicine studies illness on the basis of matter, with the highest realm being intervening in the order of material composition, focusing on repairing organ structures. TCM belongs to metaphysical medicine, emphasizing principles; Western medicine belongs to physical medicine, emphasizing organs and tissues. Upper and lower correspond, neither being inherently heavier or lighter.
However, seeds sprout, grow roots, bloom, and bear fruit because they contain inner vital Qi. Ignoring this Qi and observing only form inevitably leads to a focus on the physical, losing touch with invisible existence. Is this why Western medicine cannot identify causes for internal diseases? Conversely, TCM lacks effective strategies for bodily damage where form and vessels are already destroyed. Is this also a fault of failing to exhaust principles and nature through traces?
Both medicines have their strengths and limitations. Therefore, they should coexist without contradiction, enhancing each other. They can supplement each other but not replace each other; they can learn from each other but not attack each other. One should highlight strengths and avoid weaknesses, complement each other, and be inclusive. Avoid attacking weaknesses with strengths, protecting weaknesses with strengths, acting like enemies, and despising each other.
However, to combine, equality must come first. Science should be natural, with mutual restraint. One must not hold preconceived notions of light/heavy or right/wrong. Everything should be based on facts, using the best therapeutic effects to test whether theories are correct. Based on this, distinguish right from wrong, correct errors, unify theories, and eliminate divergences. Everything should be judged by clinical effects (prioritizing patient feelings, not clinging to objective indicators—for example, treating a hunchback as a pathology and forcibly straightening it; the back becomes straight, but the person dies; is this the way to treat disease?). Everything should prioritize patient interests as the highest criterion. If this can be achieved, then Sino-Western integration becomes inevitable.
Truth: Identifying Fang Zhouzi