|
|
大熊部落 发表于 2014-9-4 16:47 ![]()
中医确实是个吵架的好话题，所以我从来不在中医的论坛留言，在我看来绝大部分支持或反对中医的人都是错的 ...
这些话题适合争吵不适合论证。
譬如说“哲学已死”这个观点，这个“死”就比较模糊和含混，不好定义，不同的人那里有不同的定义，而且很难达成一致。
再比如“说‘哲学已死’的人根本不懂哲学”这个观点，这个“懂”也不好定义，怎么样算“懂”？这句话也不是我说的，是霍金说的，霍金也不懂或者对“哲学”的理解有偏差？他在 The Grand Design 的第一节里这么写的。
WE EACH EXIST FOR BUT A SHORT TIME, and in that time explore but a small part of the
whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. Living in this
vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have
always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find
ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come
from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about
these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time.
Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept
up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers
of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. The purpose of this book is to give the
answers that are suggested by recent discoveries and theoretical advances. They lead us to a new
picture of the universe and our place in it that is very different from the traditional one, and
different even from the picture we might have painted just a decade or two ago. Still, the first
sketches of the new concept can be traced back almost a century.
According to the traditional conception of the universe, objects move on well-defined paths and
have definite histories. We can specify their precise position at each moment in time. Although
that account is successful enough for everyday purposes, it was found in the 1920s that this
“classical” picture could not account for the seemingly bizarre behavior observed on the atomic
and subatomic scales of existence. Instead it was necessary to adopt a different framework, called
quantum physics. Quantum theories have turned out to be remarkably accurate at predicting events
on those scales, while also reproducing the predictions of the old classical theories when applied to
the macroscopic world of daily life. But quantum and classical physics are based on very different
conceptions of physical reality.
当然，我这儿又犯了诉诸权威或者名人的逻辑错误了。
中医其实也很难定义。您要弄的“食疗”、“针灸”在我看来跟现代医学没啥关系，至少我理解不了。食物吃下去，都是被消化为小分子物质而后为人体吸收。针灸的话，穴位啥的其实压根儿不存在（但是，跟鬼神一样，人们似乎又证明不了它真的不存在，科学只能证明一个东西存在，不能证明一个东西不存在。），我觉得都是古人臆想出来的。“颈肩腰膝酸痛（软组织损伤）”在我看来，压根儿不是病，多锻炼锻炼就好了。
现代医学的成就除了疫苗、抗生素之类的，另外就是发现绝大多数疾病都是可以自愈的。
{:5_227:}
这些东西，其实谁也不能说服谁，只不过是通过自说自话，互相了解下，最后各自按照自己原来的路子走。人会相信自己愿意相信的东西。
{:5_227:}
最后，我本人是抱着娱乐的心态看待这个世界的。这还是受了Linus Torvalds的影响，他在自传Just for Fun 的 THE MEANING OF LIFE 相关章节里写到，人生的意义就是这三点：Survival. Your place in the social order. And entertainment.
上面的一些话语，和 survival、social order 无关，跟 entertainment 有关。
|
|
发表于 2014-9-3 21:06:00
如果真有的话，期待大熊兄相关系统的研究成果面世。不过在医学科研中，“可重复性”是很重要的，如果古书上记载的现象、疗效，在现代无法重复的话，实践数据不能上升到理论高度，也不能指导实践，那有什么意义？
我对针灸治疗软伤的感悟是从自己的伤病中得出的，正所谓“三折肱为良医”，这是我可能比其他人医术高一点点的最重要原因。
楼主
一次相当于跑100米，短时间内5次相当于500米：这个怕是不能简单地叠加噢，就算持“一次相当于跑100米”的观点的人也不会这么算。
中医能治而西医不能治的病，我想不出来；中医不能治而西医能治的病，比如已经被消灭的天花；西医治不了而好些中医号称能治，比如某些癌症、高血压等等，这也是中医遭抨击最多的地方，甚至被扣上骗子的帽子。