Two responses from skimming the essay. 1) I didn’t see much about culture in the comparison. Certainly the Chinese, and other Asian cultures of the time, were aware of things like gun power before Europeans. But when I think of things like science and how it relates/is interpreted by society I get the impression much depends on the application of the technology. 2) Relates to culture but is more about what lens we apply in viewing the progress. Many think Chinese Medicine is voodoo and BS and that view was I think largely pushed by a narrow vision from a European perspective. I think any fair assessment would say eastern medicine is not really inferior to western medicine—both have strengths and weaknesses. I would say both derive from science and a scientific method.
I suspect both these aspects, the underlying culture and the type of lens that culture imposes if one is not careful may have played a role in casting your question and the answers you tentatively find.
There’s not one thing that’s well defined as Western medicine both homeopathy and chemotherapy are “Western” medicine. They are even both modern Western medicine and not something premodern like acupuncture.
Premodern Western medicine like that which was based on Aristotle’s four humors also existed in the past but now seems nearly completely eliminated.
Thomas Kuhn suggests that to be a science, a field has to make progress. What progress do you think Chinese medicine has made in the last 100 years?
It’s true that I didn’t give culture as much attention as it could have gotten. It’s a very large topic.
It’d help me understand your comment if you could offer some more concrete examples of your points, e.g.
What are the different lenses one can apply when viewing progress? Which different conclusions do they lead to?
Do you have examples of what you’d consider fair assessments of Eastern medicine? I am among those who are highly doubtful of Chinese medicine. Can you say more about the scientific method you think was used to derive it?
I’m open to my cultural background imposing a lens, but curious if you can point at what kind of lens/distortion you think I might be vulnerable to here.
Two responses from skimming the essay. 1) I didn’t see much about culture in the comparison. Certainly the Chinese, and other Asian cultures of the time, were aware of things like gun power before Europeans. But when I think of things like science and how it relates/is interpreted by society I get the impression much depends on the application of the technology. 2) Relates to culture but is more about what lens we apply in viewing the progress. Many think Chinese Medicine is voodoo and BS and that view was I think largely pushed by a narrow vision from a European perspective. I think any fair assessment would say eastern medicine is not really inferior to western medicine—both have strengths and weaknesses. I would say both derive from science and a scientific method.
I suspect both these aspects, the underlying culture and the type of lens that culture imposes if one is not careful may have played a role in casting your question and the answers you tentatively find.
There’s not one thing that’s well defined as Western medicine both homeopathy and chemotherapy are “Western” medicine. They are even both modern Western medicine and not something premodern like acupuncture.
Premodern Western medicine like that which was based on Aristotle’s four humors also existed in the past but now seems nearly completely eliminated.
Thomas Kuhn suggests that to be a science, a field has to make progress. What progress do you think Chinese medicine has made in the last 100 years?
It’s true that I didn’t give culture as much attention as it could have gotten. It’s a very large topic.
It’d help me understand your comment if you could offer some more concrete examples of your points, e.g.
What are the different lenses one can apply when viewing progress? Which different conclusions do they lead to?
Do you have examples of what you’d consider fair assessments of Eastern medicine? I am among those who are highly doubtful of Chinese medicine. Can you say more about the scientific method you think was used to derive it?
I’m open to my cultural background imposing a lens, but curious if you can point at what kind of lens/distortion you think I might be vulnerable to here.