This article examines the question of whether Chinese medicine should be recognized as a science or remain a traditional discipline, focusing on Thomas Kuhn’s paradigmatic theory and exploring the possibilities and implications of its integration with modern science.
Anyone interested in Eastern medicine has probably heard or thought about the question of whether Chinese medicine is a science. Traditional Chinese medicine has a long history and has played an important role in health care and disease treatment in China, Korea, Japan, and other East Asian countries for many years. However, to date, there is still no consensus on the scientific status of Chinese medicine. Along with the development of Western medicine, TCM has been subject to scientific validation from time to time, and in the process, the debate over its validity and scientificity has been ongoing. This raises the following questions. Is there a reason why TCM should be recognized as a science or why it is not?
Ultimately, the questions that need to be asked are “Science is a loose collection of theories,” is a less controversial answer, but the boundaries and structure of this collection are still a matter of debate among many philosophers of science. Why are physics, chemistry, and biology recognized as sciences, while astrology, the humanities, etc. are not? This is where we find the need to examine Chinese medicine, which is still on the border between science and non-science. Such an examination will allow us not only to discuss the scientific status of Chinese medicine, but also to reflect on the limitations and possibilities of modern science.
Here, I will present two views of TCM as a science from the perspective of Thomas Kuhn, who is a major figure in the history of philosophy of science. One is that a monistic model of Chinese medicine can be brought into modern science, and the other is that Chinese medicine can be included in the category of Eastern science.
First, Thomas Kuhn’s argument for science is as follows. There is a stage of normal science in which scientific inquiry is carried out within the existing paradigm. There is a phase of crisis, in which the accumulation of phenomena that cannot be explained by this paradigm leads to a distrust of normal science, followed by a phase of scientific revolution, in which a new paradigm is adopted. By paradigm, we mean a system of perception as a framework that fundamentally defines the views and thinking of people in an era. Thomas Kuhn’s argument is often referred to as paradigmatic theory. And when progressive, problem-solving inquiry is actively conducted within a paradigm, it is called true science. One of the issues addressed by paradigm theory is the comparison between different paradigms. The word incommensurability represents Thomas Kuhn’s claim that there are incommensurable points between paradigms, which means that they are ultimately incommensurable because they have different scientific objects, different meanings of the same terms, and different perspectives. And this is a point that is often made by advocates of Chinese medicine as a science, but I disagree. It can easily be said that it is constructed in a different paradigm, equivalent to Western medicine in the paradigm of science. That’s why some people use it as evidence that Chinese medicine is a science, but this is a misunderstanding of paradigm theory. This is because there can only be one paradigm of science. On the contrary, as mentioned above, I believe that TCM can be fused with the paradigms of science that already exist.
First, research within the internal system of TCM is subject to inductive verification and disprovability. For example, the statistical tests used in the study analyzing the vision-enhancing effects of TCM treatments in elementary school children are no different from those used in modern medicine. In fact, since medicine is applied to people, it is natural for it to be validated using more rigorous standards than science, which means that it is rare for Chinese medicine to be criticized based on scientific methodology. Still, it’s not the methodology that is considered unscientific. This is because abstract concepts such as yin, yang, and five elements and constitution, which are at the root of Chinese medicine’s theories, are not described in scientific language. However, Charles Robert Darwin’s theory of evolution gained the status of science without explaining the workings of genes, the mechanism of evolution. Looking at the example of Charles Robert Darwin, I think that there is no reason why Chinese medicine should not be a science if the core of Chinese medicine is a model of a phenomenon-centered, holistic perspective. In recent years, western medicine diagnoses and treatments have been used, and there is an increasing number of studies that verify the efficacy of Chinese medicine treatments from the perspective of western medicine. Also, although it may not be possible to describe the Yin-Yang Five Elements in scientific language, at least subordinate concepts such as meridians and qi are all within the scope of science.
On the other hand, the integrative approach of Western medicine and Chinese medicine is opening up new possibilities, especially in the treatment of chronic and complex diseases. For example, in the treatment of cancer, acupuncture and drug therapy are increasingly used as adjunctive therapies alongside direct treatments such as surgery and radiation therapy in Western medicine. This approach is helping to improve patients’ overall quality of life and reduce the side effects of treatment. This interdisciplinary model of care is a prime example of how Chinese medicine can be closely linked to modern science.
Another example is the placebo effect, which has no scientific basis but is taken for granted because psychological factors have been observed to influence the body’s response. From this, my first view is that abstract concepts in Chinese medicine can exist in the same status as placebos, allowing Chinese medicine to be integrated into modern science.
For the second view, I would like to return to Thomas Kuhn’s perspective: paradigm shifts, such as scientific revolutions, may be based on the criteria of explaining phenomena better and solving more problems. In other words, the paradigm of science changes according to social and historical context rather than objective and universal criteria. Now let’s take a look at how historical context plays a role in the philosophy of science.
Before the word “science” was coined, in ancient Greece, so-called scientists were engaged in the search for nature and truth based on their personal beliefs. Of course, for a time, these pursuits were part of the mix with art and philosophy, but I argue that the independence of science came about not because of any particular event, but because of its objectivity. How has objectivity changed over time? After all, it is common for a community’s framework of ideas, however flawed, to be modified, supplemented, and passed down through the generations. What is rather unique, however, is the paradigm shift that occurred in modern Europe, as the history of science tells us. The key question is whether it is circular to explain science in the light of the history of the period in which it was conceived and initiated. In other words, we need to be careful about the use of the word history of science, but we also need to examine whether the history of science in modern Europe can be seen as an absolute standard.
Joseph Needham, who is famous for his work on the history of science in China, argues for the superiority of Chinese science until the 16th century, before the modern era. In particular, the invention of math, astronomy, and the clock are examples of traditional Chinese science that were superior. However, it is undeniable and universally recognized that modern Europe emerged as the absolute powerhouse through the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution. Leaving aside the Needham puzzle of why China did not develop modern science, it is important to note that it is difficult to determine what is successful and what is not, both methodologically and in the current state. It is only possible to evaluate the past in the light of historical context. In that regard, I wonder if there is room for Chinese medicine to be included within the boundaries, and I reflect on the meaning of science in the East differently.
At a time when physics has been established as the absolute root of science, it seems difficult and even pointless to evaluate Chinese medicine, which is still on the border between science and non-science. In recent years, as the field of complex system science has expanded, studies have emerged that interpret elements in a holistic manner, unlike physics, which views elements in an individualistic manner. This is especially true in the fields of life sciences and ecology, where a holistic approach to understanding complex interactions is increasingly recognized as effective. This suggests that future advances in TCM may be achieved through integration with mainstream science. We look forward to the future of Chinese medicine as a new era of scientific philosophy.
