Falsifiability
Chinese Medicine, Western medicine
The discussion to Tracy’s post Response to: What is alternative medicine anyway? ended with me saying
[Qi theory] is no woo but a fascinating philosophy that pervades Chinese thought, art, martial arts, flower arranging and medicine.
and PalMD replying
It is beautiful and interesting…just not correct. You cannot use it to measure or predict anything. It cannot be falsified. It is a nice “philosophy”, but not science.
But what is meant by falsified?
Falsifiability is an idea in the philosophy of science that in simple terms says a theory cannot be scientific unless it can be disproved. This sounds like an odd thing to say but the thrust of the argument is that each generation of scientists make observations and theories of the universe that are ultimately improved upon and rejected by future generations.
For example physics has progressed from the initial observations of the ancient Greeks, through to Newtonian mechanics and into Einstein’s general relativity. Each theory was able to model the observations made in their time but were rejected as more modern observations found them wanting. Einstein is only right because one day a better theory will be found.
Some statements are not Falsifiable. Conspiracy theories are not for example because the absence of evidence is always given as further proof of the conspiracy. Governments are hiding the existence of extra-terrestrial contacts. The continuing lack of evidence is given as proof. One cannot test the theory because of this loop of logic. But then economic theory, ethics, and the theory of evolution are also ideas that are not considered falsifiable. Falsifiability is just one theory in the philosophy of science that is widely accepted but still has its critics.
But falsifiability is an idea used to beat alternative health practitioners so it seems prudent to ask how does that affect those of us interested in shiatsu and Chinese medicine? In my contributions to the debate above I said the theory of Qi was a philosophical one and not science. I would not expect it to be falsifiable. But the criticism being put forward by PalMD was that Chinese medicine can never evolve or improve in the way that Western medicine does. It is stuck with the thousand year old observations of the ancient Chinese.
That Chinese medicine is effective is proven in many studies. What is at issue is how it works and because the Chinese idea of the body is so different from science I can never see how one is to test it to the critics’ satisfaction. Stagnation of energy in the lower burner may have a direct Western pathology, or of course many pathologies since Chinese medicine recognises the pattern not the Western label. All that can be done is to test outcomes of patients seeking conventional and alternative approaches.
I am not about to claim an answer to this ongoing debate. I am not sure there will ever be one. Alternative approaches and scientific methods both have their strengths and so will meet different needs during every person’s lifetime. All we can hope is that society remains tolerant enough to allow people decide how they meet those needs.
Tony Brown @ September 11, 2007
We have to stop using mechanistic science’s standards as our own. Chinese medical science is a separate system and has its own standards that sometimes coincide with mechanistic science, and sometimes do not.
I love how proponents of that model of science insist that they have a monopoly on the truth of the universe. They can say that Qi as a concept does not conform to the standards of Western mechanistic science, and that can continue to be a problem FOR THEM. They cannot thereby say that the concept of Qi (or whatever else) is “not correct.”
People need to judge the conceptual framework of Chinese medicine from another standard. First - is the system internally consistent? Second - does it yield consistent results in the real world that are predicted by the system? If yes to both - wtf is the problem?
Eric
http://deepesthealth.com
[…] There is an interesting conversation going on across a couple of blogs, Shiatsu blogger and, where the conversation began, Shiatsu Blog. The topic, basically, concerns the fit of “alternative medicine”, in the broader field of “science.” You need to look through the comments on that second post to see where the conversation goes. It’s not an uncommon conversation and PalMD effuses the standard skeptical standpoint. Essentially - Chinese medicine is not science (or such and such a concept within Chinese or other alternative medicine is not scientific) because it does not fit within the framework of materialistic science as we might read about it in a textbook on scientific methodology. […]
I agree that we should not use Western methods to judge Chinese medicine but it is important to understand the weapons that people like PalMD are using. Falsifiability was a new idea to me so this post was my attempt to understand it.
I agree with Eric on this. Couldn’t have said it better. Why do we feel the need to be accepted into the western medical community. My practice thrives and my relationships with Md’s are slim.
That doesn’t mean one ignore what Western Medicine has to offer. There is a time and place for all knowledge and having the ability to find that balance is key. While many Md’s are not open to the idea of chinese medicine, they do their patients a dis-service.
Had I went to an MD for my elbow pain, I would have been told, ice and medicines. Medicines with potential adverse effect to the liver/kidney. My acupuncturist, however, helped the condition heal with no ill effects. What more proof does one need?
Sorry, i just noticed the thread.
Would it interest you to know that most doctors in China do not reject “western methods”? Medicine in China is every bit as advanced as in the U.S. Traditional methods are used in many places, but are not seen as having the same credibility as “real” medicine.
You can’t reject “western standards” because that is what allows you to use your computer–just try plugging it into your Qi.
PalMD - thank you for visiting my site.
In this post I was trying to understand the concept of falsifiability and I don’t think I say anywhere that “western standards” should be rejected. I am not saying that Chinese medicine is better it is just different.
Yes, western science enables this computer, this blog, this internet but at the same time you can use different models to comprehend what happens. How many people care about routers, bandwidth, big-endianness? You don’t have to have extreme technical knowledge to make this stuff work.
Chinese medicine is not techie it just uses a different model to understand the complexity of the body. It is not a challenge to your scientific method that works as do some of the alternatives.
“I agree that we should not use Western methods to judge Chinese medicine”
“I don’t think I say anywhere that “western standards” should be rejected.”
Sorry.
I note that Tony says: “That Chinese medicine is effective is proven in many studies.”
Are these studies classic double blind studies?
PalMD: I think your comment is saying that I am rejecting Western methods by saying it cannot be used to judge Chinese medicine. I see your point but I would rather develop my point in an article than a comment.
Bob M: It is very bad form of me to quote studies without giving examples. I will do some research and post some examples.
Thank you both for pulling me up on my loose use of language.