This article discusses the lack of scientific disprovability of the theoretical foundations of Chinese medicine, the Yin Yang Five Elements and meridian theory, and whether Chinese medicine based on these theories meets the standards of modern science or is unscientific.
The dictionary definition of science is “systematic knowledge aimed at the discovery of universal truths or laws.” In a broad sense, it refers to academia, and in a narrow sense, the natural sciences. However, what the criteria for these universal truths or laws are, and what methods can be considered scientific, has been debated by many scientists and philosophers. Karl Popper’s antiproofism, in particular, has revolutionized the philosophy of science. Although many more theories have emerged in the philosophy of science, it is still considered valid as a criterion for distinguishing between science and non-science.
It is a theory advocated by Karl Popper that states that in order for a theory to be “scientific,” it must have empirically disprovable statements, which gives it rationality by deductive rather than inductive reasoning. In addition, the theory must make predictions, and the predictions must actually be correct, i.e., it must be “speculative and refutable.” Therefore, if it cannot be proven, cannot predict events that are incompatible with the theory, or if the predictions are wrong, it is not science.
Before we discuss Chinese medicine, let’s take a quick look at what it is. The traditional Eastern medicine practiced in Korea is called Oriental medicine, which is a recent name change. In the past, it was not very different in basic ideas and theories from traditional Chinese medicine, but after the rise of Sasang medicine in the late Joseon Dynasty, it was categorized separately. Therefore, when we refer to TCM in this article, we are referring to Oriental medicine as a whole. So, what theories is Chinese medicine based on? The two original texts that can be considered the bible of Chinese medicine are the Yellow Emperor’s Classic and the Shang Han Theory, written during the Han Dynasty. The Yellow Emperor’s Classic of Medicine introduces the theory of yin, yang, and five elements and meridians, while the Classic of Shang Han is an empirically based medical book that documents the process of disease and the resulting changes in human physiology. Korean medicine also follows the Sasang system of medicine, a theory that categorizes people’s constitutions and applies different treatments to different constitutions. The treatments used in TCM include herbal medicine, acupuncture, moxibustion, and cupping.
First, let’s take a look at the theoretical background of TCM. The most fundamental is the Eastern theory of yin and yang, which states that all phenomena in the universe are manifested in pairs of opposing but complementary yin and yang, and that the five energies of gold, water, fire, throat, and earth operate according to this yin-yang principle. But does the proposition “the universe is organized and governed by the principles of yin and yang and the five elements” have an empirical counterpart, i.e., an incompatible event, that can disprove it? Not really. Like Adler’s psychology, which Popper criticized in his book Speculations and Refutations, the yin-yang theory can be made to fit everything. For example, we know from experiments, research, and observation that the common cold is caused by a viral infection due to a lowered immune system. However, from a Chinese medicine perspective, it’s because the yin-yang energy is disrupted. It’s important to note that this invisible “qi” has not been confirmed by experimental methods. A theory that cannot be disproved is not scientific. For example, from a thermal energy perspective, there is no such thing as “yin qi” in the world, only heat, which can only be called “yang qi”. Since the Yin-Yang Five Elements theory cannot make specific predictions, anything else can be added to the theory to avoid confusion.
Next, let’s take a look at the treatment methods of Chinese medicine. There are two main types of treatment: acupuncture, which is based on the theory of meridians, and herbalism, which is the practice of preparing Chinese herbs. First, let’s take a look at the theoretical background of acupuncture, the meridian theory, which is completely fictional. The meridians it refers to are not even found by modern, ultra-precise, state-of-the-art anatomical methods. It’s not that the ancients had wisdom and extraordinary means that far exceeded ours. Rather, they were imaginative theories to compensate for the lack of anatomical knowledge in the past. In other words, the meridian theory has been thoroughly debunked.
Of course, proponents of acupuncture claim that modern research is still being conducted on its efficacy and that it does work. I agree with this. There are even studies that show that pain relief is not a placebo effect, but a real physiological principle. Research on the efficacy of acupuncture has shown that it works not because it helps circulate qi by piercing acupuncture points, as TCM claims, but because of modern medical principles such as stimulating localized areas to activate the release of neurotransmitters. However, TCM practitioners still use acupuncture points to release “acupoints” and facilitate the flow of “meridians”. Here’s an example. There was a cattle plague, and both Group A and Group B killed and burned their livestock. However, Group A killed their livestock to prevent the spread of the disease, while Group B killed their livestock to sacrifice to an angry heaven. As a result, both groups succeeded in controlling the disease, but are their actions the same? If the propositions (yin-yang theory, meridian theory) that are put forward in the process of deducing a hypothesis to solve the problem (cure the disease) are already unscientific, even if the acupuncture method produces good results, it is not science.
I recognize that Chinese medicine has its own system and that its treatments can be effective. However, there are a few points to be made about the effort to put TCM in the category of science. Even if studies show that acupuncture relieves pain or that some herbal medicines are “scientific,” that doesn’t give Chinese medicine scientific rationality. The basic principles of Chinese medicine are still based on the Yin Yang Five Elements theory, which is still speculative and unrefutable, and the meridian theory, which has already been debunked by modern anatomy. Even if the effects of some Chinese herbs can be analyzed pharmaceutically and biologically, and the pain-relieving effects of acupuncture can be demonstrated physiologically, this is done within the paradigm of modern medicine, that is, within the conceptual knowledge system of modern medicine, not within the conceptual knowledge system of Chinese medicine. It is a kind of “cheating” to prove a conceptual system by changing the core of that conceptual system. My conclusion is that as long as TCM is based on the theory of yin and yang, it is a cult, and if it breaks down its foundation, it is no longer TCM, but modern medicine.
