Explanation
Based on “natural laws”, a scientific theory should be able to effectively explain “why” and “how” certain natural phenomena have happened, and even make predictions (Ruse, 1982). Compared to MWM theories which are usually obtained from cause-effect analysis and inductive/deductive reasoning, TCM theories (such as the meridian theory) seem to be no more than descriptions of phenomena (such as the distribution of acupoints), without explaining the “why” and the “how”. Additionally, meridian system is thought to have no conformity with modern physiology or anatomy, further weakening its “power” in explanation.
In view of this, I would argue that the meridian theory being more descriptive than logical should be attributed to the distinctive …show more content…
Scientists can search for positive evidence to confirm/verify a theory, or use negative evidence to refute/falsify it (Ruse, 1982). In reality, the verification of a theory usually takes many times of repetition. The more positive evidence can be found, the higher credibility it has. According to this principle, scientists prefer to use the results of RCTs to examine whether a therapeutic therapy is effective, and then decide whether the relevant theory is acceptable. For acupuncture, despite several decades of efforts, the conclusion on its efficacy drawn from RCTs is still “inconclusive” and even designing fruitful RCTs seems a quite difficult task. Therefore, the testability of acupuncture is questionable, which makes it lose the qualification to be regarded as a scientific
Based on “natural laws”, a scientific theory should be able to effectively explain “why” and “how” certain natural phenomena have happened, and even make predictions (Ruse, 1982). Compared to MWM theories which are usually obtained from cause-effect analysis and inductive/deductive reasoning, TCM theories (such as the meridian theory) seem to be no more than descriptions of phenomena (such as the distribution of acupoints), without explaining the “why” and the “how”. Additionally, meridian system is thought to have no conformity with modern physiology or anatomy, further weakening its “power” in explanation.
In view of this, I would argue that the meridian theory being more descriptive than logical should be attributed to the distinctive …show more content…
Scientists can search for positive evidence to confirm/verify a theory, or use negative evidence to refute/falsify it (Ruse, 1982). In reality, the verification of a theory usually takes many times of repetition. The more positive evidence can be found, the higher credibility it has. According to this principle, scientists prefer to use the results of RCTs to examine whether a therapeutic therapy is effective, and then decide whether the relevant theory is acceptable. For acupuncture, despite several decades of efforts, the conclusion on its efficacy drawn from RCTs is still “inconclusive” and even designing fruitful RCTs seems a quite difficult task. Therefore, the testability of acupuncture is questionable, which makes it lose the qualification to be regarded as a scientific