Uncertainty & Causality:
As was mentioned in class, the West tends to have this obsession with accuracy. This is evident in the way that it practices science and medicine- having always to prove, quantifiably, a theory, or a drug or method of achieving health before the rest of the community can stand behind it. This is why Eastern medicine exceeds the comfort levels of the West, because many things are "uncertain" in the way that they can not be proven by instruments of science. (Such as Qi- the entire basis of the medicine).
But is this level of certainty truly necessary? To most of us in this Physics class, the answer would be no. Knowing that there are thousands of years of empirical data displaying the cause and effect of applying Chinese medicine gives us enough piece of mind. We trust that a medicine that is so rooted in nature- which runs perfectly as it should, always- is important enough to practice and promote.
And it seems that the collective consciousness is morphing into understanding that these tired theories of old white science men is a limited way of considering our universe. Being a more globalized society than ever, we benefit from the influence of other cultures which have, for generations, practiced things like Santeria, or Native American or African rituals. Practices that exceed the level of precise, quantification, yet clearly have an effect on change.
So, to address the question of whether our universe is weird, I look at the definition of "weird" to guide my response.
weird
suggesting something supernatural; uncanny.
uncanny
strange and mysterious, especially in an unsettling way.
I would say, yes. Our universe is weird. And it seems like there is a growing population of people who are OK with that, and embrace it. As one of my favorite lecturers said, many of us still have a lot of work to do with mastering our own personal universe, before we can even start to think about the universe beyond our planet.
I think Uncertainty presents an interesting problem with Western science's obsession with proving its supposedly undeniable accuracy through medicine. There is so much about our universe, world, bodies etc that we don't understand yet and rather than acknowledge and relish in many unknowns, the West has a funny way of belittling what it can't yet explain. A small example of this is the concept of "junk DNA," the name once given to non-coding DNA whose function was not yet known. How arrogant to refer to the unknown as junk! I think this becomes particularly apparent with the West's treatment of indigenous knowledge. Cultures around the world have developed complicated world views and moral systems that inform incredible healing modalities which the West often cannot explain. We borrow treatments and techniques when convenient while dismissing the metaphysical aspects that make sense within the indigenous worldview but are not yet demonstrated through standard scientific processes.
ReplyDeleteThe last line you wrote really resonated! The the West so much of our focus is external, on controlling things outside of us and conquering the universe, and we lack the introspection and effort to controlling the universe inside of us!
ReplyDeleteI like your juxtaposition of the certainty felt in allopathic medicine vs the certainty we eastern med enthusiasts find. But we can also see where is the certainty? Is it a brainy cerebral certainty? or is there a certainty that can rest in the heart? Is one more valuable than another? Why do we trust certainty of the heart around finding someone to spend our lives with (a pretty big decision) but we (as a culture) don't trust it around healing- something like love, which is complex beyond our comprehension? Can we look to find certainty in both? I feel like we do it inherently with doctors to a degree: we want someone who comes highly recommended and with good credentials but at the same time who we vibe with and trust inherently. Is there a space for that in the practice of medicine? Hmmm. And your teacher with the quote sounds awesome. My personal universe must have a bunch of black holes b/c it feels pretty uncharted! ;)
ReplyDeleteYour post made me want to comment on some differences I see in regards to Western and Eastern medicine and medical research. I think a lot of the difference lies in the dimensions of these approaches and their foundations. Western medicine attempts to grow by statistically proving or disproving its hypotheses through a reductionist approach - by separating out small bits and dealing with each bit separately. Point A is 'proven', then Point B. It does this by narrowing the question or by simplifying a population. Maybe a couple of bits will be combined or considered together by statistically 'controlling' for variability - tossing some potential confounders into a model or looking for possible 'interaction'. But the Scientific Method is far from perfect. This approach could be likened to considering two notes in a symphony or one instrument in an orchestra - often a very limited view of a complex system - one that likely fails to take into account the magic of the music that is the whole. The Eastern medicine approach has a very long history based on a different paradigm of experience and knowledge. The person (the symphony) is considered rather than just their knee or blood sugar, for example. It seems to be a much more multidimensional system. Unfortunately, this multidimensionality makes it much more difficult to conduct research according to the 'scientific method' that satisfies the Western mind and medical/insurance establishment.
ReplyDeleteI am basically saying the same thing you were, but I am phrasing it a bit differently - what you are naming 'uncertainty' I would call multidimensionality. I too hope for a morphing and broadening of the (Western) scientific paradigm and its appreciation for other knowledge.
PS. I am having a little bit of account uncertainty. The above post should have been posted from this email address. Sorry for the confusion!
ReplyDelete