Is TCM pseudoscience? Is it correct to falsify?

Recently, Mr. Fang said that Chinese medicine is pseudoscience, which caused a voice of doubt throughout the country. He always said that this and that were pseudoscience. Why didn't everyone come forward, only when he said Chinese medicine? In a word, everyone believes that Chinese medicine is a cultural treasure for thousands of years, and nothing can become pseudoscience. And Fang said everything, but he couldn't produce any decent evidence. In fact, this is his usual style. What he said about pseudoscience has never been a well-founded explanation, but he just scolded it with the attitude of scientific authority. He often said: "The academic circles are still arguing and uncertain about the boundary between science and pseudoscience, but XXX must be pseudoscience." Since the standard is uncertain, how can he be sure that XXX is pseudoscience? So when he evaluates science and pseudoscience, he always uses a non-scientific method. China people have always believed in authority, not science. At first, his authority was greater than the person he designated as a pseudo-scientist, so everyone believed him. Now he is not as authoritative as Chinese medicine, so everyone doesn't believe him, and he has never been very close to science. So how should he evaluate pseudoscience to convince everyone? Either he comes up with detailed evidence, for example, he says that XX proves that the four-color theorem is pseudoscience, so please ask him to explain it in detail and prove what is wrong before it can be convincing, otherwise he will scold himself for a while and feel that he has never seen the other party's proof. How can it be convincing? Or he will put forward a set of standards, what is science and what is pseudoscience? He dare not take it out, because once it is taken out, he can't say who is pseudoscience at will. As long as there is no standard, everything is easy. When others question him, he can easily change his own standard. We can't help asking, is this the way to treat science? Sounds a bit like a fortune teller's trick. It's confusing. I don't know what to say Whatever your fate, he may be right. Evaluating pseudoscience is to provide a standard for others to question and improve its effectiveness. The west is much better than us in this respect. 1975 192 scientists, including 19 nobel prize winners, declared that astrology was pseudoscience. To this end, they have written quite a few articles to prove it, established many standards, and overturned many standards with each other. This is the attitude towards science. The following is a random quote from an article: "These objections do not mean that astrology is pseudoscience. First of all, its origin has nothing to do with the status of science. Chemistry originated from alchemy, and medicine began from alchemy. Like astrology, alchemy is full of witchcraft. Historians also found that the research of many great scientists was influenced by mysterious factors, including Newton and Einstein. Therefore, we cannot criticize astrology just because it originated from witchcraft. " "Finally, it is difficult to mark a theory as unscientific due to the lack of physical foundation. For example, when Wei Gena's continental drift theory was established, people didn't know its dynamics. Through statistical methods, the link between smoking and cancer has been established, and the detailed factors causing cancer have not yet been discovered. " "Now, we can put forward the following demarcation principles: if and only if a self-proclaimed theory or discipline is pseudoscience: (1) Compared with other alternative theories, it has made slow progress and faced many problems to be solved in a long time; However, (2) its followers hardly try to develop a theory to solve these problems. They have no intention to evaluate the theory in connection with other theories, and they are also selective when considering confirmation and denial. " . . After reading this article, I finally have a certain understanding of the boundary between science and pseudoscience. I'm not saying that all the above standards are correct here, but whether we can be as well-founded as the West when evaluating pseudoscience, put forward standards and be willing to accept criticism from others. According to Paul, it seems impossible for Fang to suggest that Chinese medicine is one of the classic arguments of pseudoscience that "modern medicine has not found meridians". It should be noted that this article was written in the 1970s, and it can't be aimed at the party. So we try to use this theory to test Chinese medicine: sadly, we find that for a long time, Chinese medicine has made slow progress compared with western medicine, but Chinese medicine experts seem to be not very keen on solving these problems. At present, the progress of Chinese medicine is mainly in pharmaceutical methods, and the theoretical progress is very slow. For example, there is no conjecture about the principle of acupuncture or a plan to prove the existence of meridians. However, the statistical effect of Chinese herbal medicine seems to be not much. The doctor of traditional Chinese medicine in the university mainly studies pharmacology (in fact, it mainly focuses on chemistry and biology). In addition, Chinese medicine often preaches the secret recipe handed down from ancestors, which shows that it is not interested in studying new things. I don't know much about modern Chinese medicine I hope that some graduates or teachers from the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine can explain the main research direction now. So according to Paul's standard of astrology (he was unlikely to target Chinese medicine at that time, so this standard was objective for Chinese medicine), it seems that Chinese medicine is probably pseudoscience. I believe in Chinese medicine, and I have been cured by Chinese medicine, but this does not mean that Chinese medicine is science, just like you were counted by a fortune teller once, but not every time. To sum up: I have come to the following conclusion: 1. Mr. Fang's original intention of cracking down on pseudoscience should be supported, but his method is sloppy and unscientific. 2。 According to Paul's standards, TCM is more likely to be pseudoscience. But Paul's standard itself is not necessarily correct, so I hope everyone will put forward new standards. My feeling is that some parts of TCM are pseudoscience, especially theoretical parts, but other parts, such as herbs, should belong to the scientific category if they are studied by scientific methods. I sincerely hope that Mr. Fang can use scientific and rational methods to evaluate science and pseudoscience responsibly in future battles. I also hope that China people's scientific literacy, scientific thinking and resolution can make great progress. I saw the original text of Paul's article in Advanced Reader of Science and Humanities edited by Ren Dingcheng. If you want to read it, you can go to the bookstore and read it online. I didn't search.