From: gk31@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gag-Lae  Kim)
Subject: Re: Is it in the Genes?
Reply-To: gk31@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gag-Lae  Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:59:39 GMT

In article <MDAY.92Oct8162723@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu> mday@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu (Mark Day) writes:
>   gk31@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gag-Lae  Kim) writes:
>
>   I suppose then that you do not consider eastern medicine to be "real
>   science."  The difference of eastern and western medicine lies in the
>   difference of eastern and western philosophy.  Eastern medicine
>   focuses on preventive medicine while western medicine is far from
>   being preventive in comparison to its counterpart.  And of course,
>   the advances of western medicine in their own way is a well known
>   fact.  Two cultures approached medicine quite differently, and it is a
>   shame that one is more dominantly accepted than the other.  Why do you
>   think this happened?  Because westerners didn't think eastern medicine
>   to be "scientific" enough.  Two different culturally-dependent
>   scientists can view the counterpart's science as not scientific
>   enough, or destruction of nature.  What I am trying to say is this:
>   western science and its great discoveries are not independent of its
>   culture.  In fact, those discoveries and its culture are inseparable
>   entity. So how can science be culturally independent? How can 
>   you rate the degree of objectivity? 
>
>I find this analysis rather shallow, unfortunately.  I think that
>western medical practitioners have found little in "eastern medicine"
>that is effective in western practice.  Acupuncture does produce

	Exactly.  But why do you think this is true?  I think it's
because there are fundamental differences of approacing medicinal
science between these two cultures, not that one is less effective
than the other.
	I won't comment on your beginning sentense.  But you can be a
bit more polite than that.  Make a good arguement, then you don't need
further support by that kind of sentense.  If you have anything
personal to say, then reply.  I am more than willing to reason.

>anaesthesia, but in most cases it is not an attractive alternative to
>conventional anaesthesia.  The Chinese use acupuncture for arthritis,
>but no-one in the West seems to be able to get it to work.  I think

	I don't think this is true.  If you want facts sited from some
published work, then skip this paragraph.  But what I heard was
chinese acupuncture's method of anaesthesia is quite powerful, without
producing side-effects or death (readers would be surprised how many
deaths occur due to inappropriate use of anaesthesia during operations
which is obviously not talked about openly).

>the conclusion at this point is roughly that apart from anaesthesia by
>acupuncture, there are no objectively effective practices in Eastern
>medicine.  This is not so different from Western medicine: there are
>surprisingly few treatments that produce a definite improvement almost
>all of the time.  Before the advent of ether anaesthesia, antibiotics,
>and vaccination, Western medicine mostly consisted of trying to make
>the patient comfortable and being preventive (that's what you do when
>you can't actually do very much else).
>
>I don't think it matters much whether you "believe" in Western or
>Eastern medicine with the effective treatments: you can produce
>anaesthesia in skeptics with ether or with needles.  But you do have
>to believe in your doctor's medical methods for a placebo to work.

	I do understand what you are saying, but you have not answered
my question.  You went on with comparing east and west medicine in
regards to anaesthesia, but you didn't mention anything about whether
science can be independent of culture.  I am not very good at reading
between the lines, so do tell me with some sort of support.  I could
not find any conclusive idea of science being culturally independent
from your article.

	Kurtis Kim
	gk31@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu

Xref: sparky soc.culture.asian.american:9552 soc.culture.europe:8892 soc.culture.usa:7735