"unscientific" is not belittling, but it is not arrogant. "Science" is neither a compliment nor a compliment. As soon as anything is put on the coat of "science", it is very sacred, and many people think it is absolutely correct, which has been tested and repeatedly proved by authoritative people. Don't you know there is a very big misunderstanding here? "At present, the guiding ideology of human science can only be confined to the material world for its development and research. When something is recognized, we should study it and take such a path. " Therefore, science can only be defined in a narrow sense, and it is a curse that binds people's minds. It unilaterally emphasizes the existence of material, but ignores the spiritual needs, resulting in all kinds of strange phenomena. Acupuncture has been proved abroad, and it has also received the attention of domestic authorities. A few years ago, many people in the west regarded Chinese medicine as a "witch doctor", but now it is always accepted, while some people in China say that Chinese medicine is a "pseudoscience". Religion is not science, and people who believe in it are much more than science. Philosophy is not a science, and it is much more useful than science in explaining the world and comforting the soul. Art is not a science, and it is much more effective than science in expressing emotions and cultivating sentiment. Witchcraft is not a science, and it is much more effective than science in satisfying psychological needs and special emotional needs.

Why should treatment be "scientific"? Is it necessary to treat a disease "scientifically" because it is "derived from science"? Folk remedies, people's experience, even so-called witch doctors and witchcraft are all good things as long as they can cure the disease. If necessary, you can label them as science, culture, art and even philosophy.

At present, many people want to redefine Chinese medicine with pseudoscience. Do you know that Chinese medicine has been popular in the motherland for five or six thousand years? I don't know how many generations of famous doctors summed it up, and how many patients were tested and cured before I got to today.

At present, people's diseases are waiting for various methods to be cured. Especially cancer, AIDS and other intractable diseases, science has jumped out to try, at least not yet. Do you still eat now, and you won't try if you can't cure yourself?

There has never been science in this world. Isn't human life inseparable from science? Not alive? Do you really live in the dark? Religion, philosophy, art and even witchcraft, which is not prior to science? What is not science that still flourishes after it comes into being? If nothing else, at least it shows that people's inner world is too rich and emotional sky is too complex, and no spiritual and cultural products can be monopolized. Not religion, not philosophy, not art, not witchcraft, not science.

In this world, only a few people will always have and believe in science, and this world will probably never have only science and no other knowledge. Science may never dominate the world. Science cannot say that its explanation is the final solution and the only positive solution just because it can explain some phenomena more correctly or by some means.

For a long time, philosophers of science have made detailed comparisons. On the formation of the universe, the deepening of celestial bodies, the origin of life and the origin of consciousness, the so-called scientific explanation is no different from religion or even myths and legends. There is even a rule that the more difficult it is, the more doubtful it is, and the more scientific the explanation is like myths and legends.

Chinese medicine should fight for "science" Obviously, the bottle of "science" simply can't cover the bottle of "Chinese medicine"! What is "unscientific" afraid of? If it's not science, it must be wrong? If it's not science, it must be bad? If it's not science, it must be worthless? If it is not science, it must be inferior? If it's not science, you can't talk hard? ..... each has its own standards, each has its own evaluation, and each has its own existence!

The "competition" of Chinese medicine should not focus on which is more scientific than western medicine, or whether it is scientific, but on the curative effect of medical treatment. Should Chinese medicine take the "combination of Chinese and western medicine" and western medicine mention "combination of Chinese and western medicine"? The expression of "integration of traditional Chinese and western medicine" itself means that Chinese medicine is inferior to others. Why bother! Western medicine regards people as things, while Chinese medicine regards people as people; Western medicine does its duty to cure people's diseases, while Chinese medicine does its duty to save lives. The reputation of the patient is the real trophy.

Don't argue about which is more in line with China's national conditions, Chinese medicine or western medicine. Although there is no "German doctor" in Germany and "British doctor" in Britain, this does not mean that western medicine is "omnipotent". All national medical methods, medical skills and medical skills are either eliminated or recruited. No matter how scientific western medicine is, it will never monopolize human medical treatment, medicine and medical skills. Because medical treatment, medicine and medical skills are always tied to national culture, philosophy and tradition. Just like skin and blood are always with bones, who can want human skin without human blood, or human blood without human bones?

Chinese medicine should not drill the coat of "random grouping, double-blind control and repeatability" of western medicine. There are hundreds of people, all kinds of people, one person and one world, 10 thousand people and 10 thousand bodies, as well as the infinite complexity of spirit and the infinite richness of emotions. It is impossible for a person to repeat himself in a different place. How can thousands of people be the same in a different place? The same disease has been suffered twice in the same person, and it is not entirely a disease. Different people get it at different times, even if the cause is similar, how can it be exactly the same?

Chinese medicine is unscientific. Why is it more than 5,000 years old? When Huangdi Neijing came out, he never imagined that people now would criticize it as pseudoscience. He just wants people to treat their diseases by understanding nature and surrounding substances. When Hua Tuo used "Ma Fei San" to anesthetize patients for surgery, he never imagined that after a few years, a group of people would forget their ancestors and attack Chinese medicine. You know this technology is leading in the world, which is 1600 years earlier than the west.

It can be seen that whether "repeatability" itself is scientific is precisely a question. Don't "repeat" everything, only what can be repeated can be repeated, and what can't be repeated can't be repeated. Unfortunately, medicine, whether it is traditional Chinese medicine or western medicine, has never faced before, and there will never be in the future. Now there is only one "person" with the exquisite structure of the universe.

What are the terms "scientific" and "unscientific"? What if it is science? So what if it's not science? One of the biggest signs of the scientific era is that science cannot be unique, science cannot replace everything, and science cannot become the biggest religion. Science cannot rely solely on faith. Some things may not be done well by believing in science, and some things may not be done well by not believing in science.