Imagine a medical system that categorizes diseases as hot/cold/wet/dry.
This doesn’t deeply describe the structure of a disease. But if a patient is described as “wet”, then it’s likely some orifice is producing lots of fluid, and a box of tissues might be handy. If a patient is described as “hot”, then maybe they have some sort of rash or inflammation that would make a cold pack useful.
It is, at best, a very lossy compression of the superficial symptoms. But it still carries non-zero information. There are some medications that a modern doctor might commonly use on “wet” patients, but only rarely used on “dry” patients or visa versa.
It is at least more useful information than someones star sign, in a medical context.
Old alchemical air/water/fire/earth systems are also like this. “air-ish” substances tend to have a lower density.
These sort of systems are a rough attempt at a principle component analysis on the superficial characteristics.
And the Five Factor model of personality is another example of such a system.
If 90% of the conditions you ever have to treat are fever, hypothermia, runny noses, and dehydration, then I imagine hot/cold/wet/dry will get you pretty far.
(Runny nose? Here, take some drying herbs, and try not to sneeze on other people. Feverish? Bathe in cool water and take these cooling herbs. Losing water due to dysentery? Drink clean water with salt. Fell in the icy lake? Here, have a thermal support puppy.)
Relevant to whether the hot/cold/wet/dry system is a good or a bad idea, from our perspective, is that doctors don’t currently use people’s star signs for diagnosis. Bogus ontologies can be identified by how they promise to usefully replace more detailed levels of description—i.e., provide a useful abstraction that carves reality at the joints—and yet don’t actually do this, from the standpoint of the cultures they’re being sold to.
Imagine a medical system that categorizes diseases as hot/cold/wet/dry.
This doesn’t deeply describe the structure of a disease. But if a patient is described as “wet”, then it’s likely some orifice is producing lots of fluid, and a box of tissues might be handy. If a patient is described as “hot”, then maybe they have some sort of rash or inflammation that would make a cold pack useful.
It is, at best, a very lossy compression of the superficial symptoms. But it still carries non-zero information. There are some medications that a modern doctor might commonly use on “wet” patients, but only rarely used on “dry” patients or visa versa.
It is at least more useful information than someones star sign, in a medical context.
Old alchemical air/water/fire/earth systems are also like this. “air-ish” substances tend to have a lower density.
These sort of systems are a rough attempt at a principle component analysis on the superficial characteristics.
And the Five Factor model of personality is another example of such a system.
If 90% of the conditions you ever have to treat are fever, hypothermia, runny noses, and dehydration, then I imagine hot/cold/wet/dry will get you pretty far.
(Runny nose? Here, take some drying herbs, and try not to sneeze on other people. Feverish? Bathe in cool water and take these cooling herbs. Losing water due to dysentery? Drink clean water with salt. Fell in the icy lake? Here, have a thermal support puppy.)
Relevant to whether the hot/cold/wet/dry system is a good or a bad idea, from our perspective, is that doctors don’t currently use people’s star signs for diagnosis. Bogus ontologies can be identified by how they promise to usefully replace more detailed levels of description—i.e., provide a useful abstraction that carves reality at the joints—and yet don’t actually do this, from the standpoint of the cultures they’re being sold to.