![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Just to point out why I'm spending so much time on this. This article just hit one of my pet peeves.
(Maybe this is because I saw the Last Samurai and I can't imagine for the life of me why the Tom Cruise character is the hero of the movie rather than the stupid villain.)
Changed wording a bit on interaction between Chinese and Western medicine. First major contact between China and the West happened in 1600, but the germ theory and biological study really didn't start having an impact on medicine until the mid-19th century. We really didn't start understanding how most drugs worked until the 1960's, and you really can't say that drugs were "designed" until the 1980's.
One of the interesting things is that China adopted Western medicine about the same time that the West did. What most Chinese define as Western medicine is surgery and that really didn't become common until the Napoleonic Wars, and only stopped being suicidal in the late 19th century. Anesthetic and disinfection was first used in the West around 1850-1860 and that this point China was on the verge of sending out its first medical students. Also one thing to keep in mind is that surgeons and doctors hated each other and were totally different fields of medicine at the start of the 19th century.
It would be interesting to try to look at historical Chinese treatments and historical Western treatments and try to compare outcomes. My sense is that Western treatments really didn't start to be superior to Chinese ones until really late in the 19th century. For some things its not clear that Western medicine is superior. Sure you want surgery if you have appendicitis, but what if you just have a headache, come down with the flu, or have bad stomach cramps. User:Roadrunner
Roadrunner, I appreciate the time you are taking to work ont his article, and the information you are contributing. However, I am concerned that you keep glossing over a very important point: Practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine are making specific scientific claims that they have never backed up, and which still have no scientific support.
We need to separate discussions of scientific phenomenon (confirmed existence of gravity, putative existence of Qi) from discussions of how people understand science. Chinese or not, the existence of gravity is demonstratable and undeniable; Chinese or not, the existence of unicorns, of eleves and of Qi, are purely speculative.
Whether or not people of any ethnicity "eschew" science is not relevant. Gravotu has been proven to be real; Qi has not, and belief in Qi has all the hallmarks of magical thinking
and none of the elements of science. When an encyclopedia discusses any claims about scientific phenomenon, by Asians or non-Asians, we are obligated to analyze such claims from a critical, NPOV perspective.
It seems to me that some of your rewrites on this article are in effect removing much of this analysis.
Roadrunner 07:50, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
RK 21:04, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
I've made significant changes:
TomSwiss 21:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Way too repetitive! The antagonism of TCM and Western in the West compared to the situation in Mainland China is explained and asserted numerous times. Kent Wang 02:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Just to point out why I'm spending so much time on this. This article just hit one of my pet peeves.
(Maybe this is because I saw the Last Samurai and I can't imagine for the life of me why the Tom Cruise character is the hero of the movie rather than the stupid villain.)
Changed wording a bit on interaction between Chinese and Western medicine. First major contact between China and the West happened in 1600, but the germ theory and biological study really didn't start having an impact on medicine until the mid-19th century. We really didn't start understanding how most drugs worked until the 1960's, and you really can't say that drugs were "designed" until the 1980's.
One of the interesting things is that China adopted Western medicine about the same time that the West did. What most Chinese define as Western medicine is surgery and that really didn't become common until the Napoleonic Wars, and only stopped being suicidal in the late 19th century. Anesthetic and disinfection was first used in the West around 1850-1860 and that this point China was on the verge of sending out its first medical students. Also one thing to keep in mind is that surgeons and doctors hated each other and were totally different fields of medicine at the start of the 19th century.
It would be interesting to try to look at historical Chinese treatments and historical Western treatments and try to compare outcomes. My sense is that Western treatments really didn't start to be superior to Chinese ones until really late in the 19th century. For some things its not clear that Western medicine is superior. Sure you want surgery if you have appendicitis, but what if you just have a headache, come down with the flu, or have bad stomach cramps. User:Roadrunner
Roadrunner, I appreciate the time you are taking to work ont his article, and the information you are contributing. However, I am concerned that you keep glossing over a very important point: Practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine are making specific scientific claims that they have never backed up, and which still have no scientific support.
We need to separate discussions of scientific phenomenon (confirmed existence of gravity, putative existence of Qi) from discussions of how people understand science. Chinese or not, the existence of gravity is demonstratable and undeniable; Chinese or not, the existence of unicorns, of eleves and of Qi, are purely speculative.
Whether or not people of any ethnicity "eschew" science is not relevant. Gravotu has been proven to be real; Qi has not, and belief in Qi has all the hallmarks of magical thinking
and none of the elements of science. When an encyclopedia discusses any claims about scientific phenomenon, by Asians or non-Asians, we are obligated to analyze such claims from a critical, NPOV perspective.
It seems to me that some of your rewrites on this article are in effect removing much of this analysis.
Roadrunner 07:50, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
RK 21:04, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
I've made significant changes:
TomSwiss 21:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Way too repetitive! The antagonism of TCM and Western in the West compared to the situation in Mainland China is explained and asserted numerous times. Kent Wang 02:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)