Is TCM credible?

Whether Chinese medicine can be trusted is actually difficult to answer, and it needs to be explained in different situations.

From a scientific point of view, Chinese medicine does not belong to science, because the theory of Chinese medicine is not obtained through scientific methods, but this does not mean that science denies Chinese medicine. In other words, denying the scientific nature of TCM is actually anti-scientific. Let's take a closer look at this conclusion:

First of all, Chinese medicine is scientifically unknown. Traditional Chinese medicine is a summary of experience, and many theories are summary of experience. Scientific theory draws clear conclusions through absolute logic, or science can prove that these experiences are right or wrong. For example, some plants, such as Panax notoginseng, can stop bleeding, while some plants can accelerate the healing of wounds after combined processing. Whether these experiences are correct or not cannot give an absolute logical reason. Traditional Chinese medicine only tells you through practice that it is useful, but it is not science. What science should do is to find out the biological principles or prove these experiences wrong.

Of course, the experience mentioned above is almost certain to be correct to a great extent, but some experiences are not necessarily correct. Even in such a rigorous discipline as medicine, there are still a few experiences in real Chinese medicine that can prove wrong. The reason why Chinese medicine is so smelly is not because it is not good, but because these experiences are very useful, so people will use it in the name of Chinese medicine to say that it is not Chinese medicine and sell fakes that are not Chinese medicine.

Therefore, Chinese medicine is experience and unscientific, but unscientific things may not be easy to use. In this respect, what science should do is to study the deep-seated principles of these experiences in the theory and practice of traditional Chinese medicine and prove or falsify them. This is what science should do, instead of opposing Chinese medicine in other fields, such as western medicine, or from the perspective of Chinese medicine.

Whether an experience is correct needs to be proved. If you don't know whether it's right or not, you must object. This is the scientific spirit. In fact, the words science and spirit are a very interesting combination. Science is a rule, and there is no emotion. You have to add emotions, which is very problematic. Therefore, it is good for scientists to have spirit, but it is not good for science to have spirit.

To put it further, it is not the problem of Chinese medicine itself that Chinese medicine has been played badly by swindlers. Some people package things in the name of Chinese medicine, but if scientists can't even see this clearly, you are also the object of being played with, and you don't even have basic logic. Just like a bad guy says 1+ 1 equals 2, you should oppose 1+65433 because you oppose this bad guy. In addition, many people say that China culture comes down in one continuous line. In fact, reality is much more tortuous than this. The change of dynasties and the evil deeds of some cultural criminals. In fact, medicine in China is intermittent, and there is no absolute norm. Doctors are uneven in level. After the song dynasty, it may even go backwards. China's history is uneven. Think about Hua tuo. If there were no disputes in the Three Kingdoms period, what would be left? If this generation can inherit practice and reflection, even if it really can't produce the idea of finding deep laws from a scientific point of view, it won't be like this.

The present situation of Chinese medicine is that no one has studied it, and Chinese medicine has almost only become a tool for health preservation, and in this respect, it can indeed be packaged freely.

Finally, a scientific question. Does God exist? Does denying the existence of God belong to science? In fact, God also has a scientific saying, which is called the first promoter. For example, whether the big bang conjecture is true, what caused the big bang, and whether there is the first promoter in this universe are actually unknown. The attitude of science towards the unknown is to study, that is, neither affirm nor deny. If there is only affirmation and negation of everything, science itself will not exist.

Does God exist? Yes, this is an unknown question. Both theists and atheists are pseudoscience. This is essentially an attitude towards the unknown, just as we used to pretend to be scientific agnostics, but opposed Einstein's theory of relativity.

Yes, atheists are pseudoscience! ! ! The scientific attitude towards the unknown is to study, not to affirm or deny it easily before finding a conclusion.