Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34188362›Full record

ArticleScience & education2021

The Universality of Science and Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Philosophical Survey.

Íñigo Ongay de Felipe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science & education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Íñigo Ongay de FelipeFaculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9501-3995

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper represents a philosophical appraisal of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) from the point of view of the philosophy of science. As it is generally the case with other versions of Traditional Medicine, rather than a coherent research program Traditional Chinese Medicine constitutes an array of various techniques and practices coupled with a diversity of very different speculative doctrines regarding the physiological structure of certain body parts as well as the purported etiology of disease and malfunction. This chapter starts off by describing some of the theoretical assumptions on which TCM relies with the aim of casting light on whether they, alongside the clinical techniques TCM encompasses, can significantly be considered as a scientific theory comparable with that of conventional medicine. In so doing the chapter examines a plurality of demarcation criteria between science and non-science coming from various existing philosophical frameworks old and new. While, as will be shown, a wealth of research based on RCTs (randomized control trials) points out that TCM´s degree of effectiveness is low, that is not the point this paper intends to make. Instead of such an empirical criticism, the author sustains a comparably stronger epistemic contention, namely: even if the clinical results of TCM fared better than they actually do, that observation alone would not be a good reason to consider this branch of traditional medicine as a scientifically respectable endeavor.

Identifiers

PMID34188362
PMCPMC8226147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.