杂感自译｜科学与中医
教育
教育培训
2025-01-03 07:57
北京
![]()
科学与中医
Science and Traditional Chinese Medicine
[1] 一百余年前，自西医传入大清王朝后，作为原本是国医的中医，便逐渐受到了前所未有的冲击；最大的问题是：中医是否科学？[1] More than a hundred years ago, after Western Medicine (WM) was introduced during the Qing Dynasty (1644 -1911), the position of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) as the national medicine was unprecedentedly shaken. The major question posed was: Is TCM scientific? [2] 现代意义上的“科学”一词由日本传入，是英文的译语，其词源为拉丁语文，意为“学科”“知识”“学问”“学术”“某门科学” 等。刚传入中国时，该词被译为“格致” 等，取《大学》中的“格物致知”，即以格物而获得的知识。“五四”新文化运动时，又将其与“德先生”（Democracy）并称为“赛先生”(Science)。之后，“科学”一词也便取代其他翻译。[2] “Science” in its modern sense was translated into Chinese via Japanese as ke xue (科学). Etymologically, the English word originated from Latin, meaning “subject”, “knowledge”, “learning”, “academic”, “discipline” and so on. Initially, it was translated as ge zhi (格致), taking the two characters from The Learning and denoting obtaining knowledge by way of differentiation. In the May Fourth New Culture Movement, it was called “Mr. Sai” (the first syllable of “science” in Chinese), together with “Mr. De” (the first syllable of “democracy” in Chinese). Gradually, ke xue replaced other translations.[3] 胡适说：“有一个名词在国内几乎做到了无上尊严的地位；无论懂与不懂的人，无论守旧和维新的人，都不敢公然对他表示轻视或戏侮的态度。那个名词就是‘科学’…… 科学在近代中国达到了‘几乎全国一致的崇信’，凡是不符合‘科学’的东西，都要遭到批判、唾弃。”可见“科学”在当时中国社会的地位。[3] Hu Shi said, “There is a word that has been extremely extolled. No one – conservatives or reformers, whether they understand its meaning or not – dares to publicly despise or humiliate this word “science”, which has been so exalted as to be worshiped by almost everyone. Everything deemed not to be scientific would be criticized and cast aside. “Science” had surely gained its noble status in modern China’s history". [4] 那么，到底什么是“科学”？《辞海》解释——“反映自然、社会、思维等客观规律的分科知识体系”; 美国《科学杂志》定义——“反映现实世界各种现象的客观规律的知识体系”。概况起来，其基本特性为：1. 客观性, 即是不以人的主观意志为转移，独立于神学、宗教、政治及文化等范畴的现实，与假说相区别；2. 系统性，即是一整套收集证据的法则和对于事实和逻辑作出证明的体系；3.可重复性，即在相同条件下可反复出现的事实；4. 方法的非个人性，即任何人使用同样的方法，都可出现同样的结果。 [4] So, what exactly is “science”? According to the Word-Ocean, it means “A knowledge system of disciplines reflecting the laws of nature, society and thinking”. The academic journal Science summarizes its basic features: a. Objective – it reveals the reality that is completely independent of theology, religion, politics and culture, distinguishing it from hypotheses; b. Systematic – a set of rules to collect evidence and a body capable of proving facts and logic; c. Repeatable – facts that can be reproduced continually under the same conditions; c. Non-personal – anyone can achieve the same result using the same method. [5] 若以此为标准，中医颇为吻合前两项：如经络现象是客观存在的，学术界曾就此提出过神经学说、神经体液调节机能说、肌肤–内脏–皮质机能说等，甚至利用放射性元素可以在显微镜下加以观测；而中医理论中的阴阳、五行、经络、脏腑、气血等系统，非常之精密，令人赞叹。但是，中医学的“象思维”类型、“人医学”性质和“个性化诊断”，则很难以西方现代科学的原则、方法、指标来比照与衡量。[5] By this standard, TCM is very much consistent with the first two criteria: the objectivity of meridians has been proved by theories of neurology, and neurohumoral regulation of functions, even the skin-visceral-cortical function in the West can be observed under a microscope. And the theories of yin yang, wang xing, channels, zhang fu, qi xue are highly systematic and sophisticated, amazing westerners deeply. However, TCM's imaginative thinking pattern, human-oriented nature and personalized diagnoses are hardly compatible with the principles, methodologies and norms of Western science. [6] 其实，关于“科学”的理解与界定也是人为的，与具体的发展背景有关。即使在西式的现代科技体系中，到目前为止也没建立起一种包罗万象的统一模式，如著名科学家霍金所讲：“不太可能建立一个单一地协调完善描述宇宙的理论。”显然，单一的科学认知模式已经不能适用于当今丰富的科学实践活动，因而需要“科学多元论”。[6] In fact, the definition of “science” also raises issues of man’s understanding relative to particular cultural backgrounds. Even in the modern Western system of science and technology, a comprehensive pattern has not been established yet. As the well-known scientist Hawking said, “It is impossible to set up a single theory to unify and perfect various descriptions about the universe hypothetically”. Obviously, a single unified model of scientific cognition is no longer suitable in today’s abundant scientific practice; scientific pluralism is needed. [7] 例如，对于感冒后咳嗽，中医可能诊断为痰热症，以寒凉药加以清内热，一周后症状消失；而西医则认为患者有痰是继发性细菌感染，通常会用一个疗程的抗菌素杀菌，祛痰剂消痰。中医师通过整体观察整体症状，诊断出患者体内失衡的本质；西医师根据细胞生物学方法，消灭入侵的微生物抗原体、排除引起肺部不适的淤痰。哪个更“科学”？其实这不是患者关心的问题；患者更关心的是疗效。[7] Take a cough as an example, after a cold TCM may diagnose it as phlebitis through overall observation to detect the nature of the imbalance, use a cold herb to remove the heat, and the symptom will disappear after a week. WM on the other hand, based on the method of cellular biology, tries to eliminate the invading microbial antigens and sputum generating the lung discomfort, may treat the patient’s secondary bacterial infection which has caused the sputum; after applying antibacterial sterilization within a course of treatment, the infection of phlegm will cease. Which one is more scientific? This may not be the question concerned by patients, who always regard curative effect as their priority. [8] 若以“科学方法”而论，中医走了一条与西医不同的科学之路。在收集信息上，西医主要运用的是仪器检测和实验方法，中医靠的是整体观察和意念领悟；在思维方法上，西医侧重统计、比较、分析，中医倚重的则是取象比类和辩证综合。[8] As far as scientific methods are concerned, WM and TCM are quite different. In collecting information, for example, the former mainly makes use of instrumental tests and experiments, the latter by and large relies on overall observation and general comprehension. In terms of ways of thinking, the former focuses on statistics, comparison and analysis, while the latter believes in analogy and synthesis. [9] 或许，就科学体系而言，西医属于“西方科学”，而中医属于“东方科学”。[9] Systematically speaking, they may be differentiated in this way: WM belongs to “Western science”, TCM to “Oriental science”. ■林巍，博士，杭州师范大学外国语学院翻译研究所特聘教授，本刊编委。
![]()
