The Universality of Science and Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Philosophical Survey

Autor/in	de Felipe, Iñigo Ongay
Titel	The Universality of Science and Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Philosophical Survey
Quelle	In: Science & Education, 30 (2021) 6, S.1353-1370 (18 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (de Felipe, Iñigo Ongay)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0926-7220
DOI	10.1007/s11191-021-00249-4
Schlagwörter	Philosophy; Sciences; Educational Philosophy; Medicine; Asian Culture; Evidence; Theories; Randomized Controlled Trials; Evaluation Criteria; Program Effectiveness; Epistemology; Credibility; Physiology; Human Body + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Philosophie; Science; Wissenschaft; Bildungsphilosophie; Erziehungsphilosophie; Medizin; Evidenz; Theory; Theorie; Erkenntnistheorie; Glaubwürdigkeit; Physiologie; Menschlicher Körper
Abstract	This paper represents a philosophical appraisal of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) from the point of view of the philosophy of science. As it is generally the case with other versions of Traditional Medicine, rather than a coherent research program Traditional Chinese Medicine constitutes an array of various techniques and practices coupled with a diversity of very different speculative doctrines regarding the physiological structure of certain body parts as well as the purported etiology of disease and malfunction. This chapter starts off by describing some of the theoretical assumptions on which TCM relies with the aim of casting light on whether they, alongside the clinical techniques TCM encompasses, can significantly be considered as a scientific theory comparable with that of conventional medicine. In so doing the chapter examines a plurality of demarcation criteria between science and non-science coming from various existing philosophical frameworks old and new. While, as will be shown, a wealth of research based on RCTs (randomized control trials) points out that TCM's degree of effectiveness is low, that is not the point this paper intends to make. Instead of such an empirical criticism, the author sustains a comparably stronger epistemic contention, namely: even if the clinical results of TCM fared better than they actually do, that observation alone would not be a good reason to consider this branch of traditional medicine as a scientifically respectable endeavor. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01