Problem description:

Please introduce the development history of system theory and other related theories in detail, as well as their present situation, especially in China and abroad (such as the United States). I study medicine myself, and I want to work in this field in the future. I hope you can give me some advice. Thank you! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Analysis:

Recently, China journal of traditional chinese medicine published some articles, many of which related to the content of TCM system theory, some expressed support, and some put forward suggestions and opinions. This is a good thing, which shows that the system theory of traditional Chinese medicine has been valued by everyone. On the other hand, it also shows that there are still some misunderstandings about the system theory of traditional Chinese medicine. Here, I would like to put forward my views on the following two points, hoping to further discuss with my colleagues.

Viewpoint 1: "System theory will always be a system theory and will not become one of the theories of Chinese medicine. We can only think that the holistic view of Chinese medicine is scientific and in line with the spirit of system theory, but we can't think that Chinese medicine is a system theory and system theory is Chinese medicine. " Quoted from Mr. Feng Guangkui's article "Put on the' modernization' hat properly-a ramble on the modernization of traditional Chinese medicine".

I think Chinese medicine is not a system theory, and system theory is not Chinese medicine, which is correct. Of course, it should be more accurate to say that Chinese medicine philosophy is a simple system theory represented by Yin-Yang and Five Elements. Just as reductionism is not western medicine, the philosophical methodology of constructivism is different from the theory itself, which should be a very simple truth. However, it is meaningless to confuse the two, or even change the topic and then use the topic to play.

The author also said: "There are many such macro-guidance speeches, all of which are' comprehensive, general and accurate', but they involve specific methods and means, and there are few practical and effective opinions." This sentence should be taken seriously. On the surface, the modernization of traditional Chinese medicine is more empty talk than practical work. As long as you look at the recent Chinese medicine newspaper, there are new terms such as information medicine, quantum medicine, complexity science, dual nature of humanity and nature, holistic medicine and systematic medicine. , dazzling, plus the previous phenomenological medicine and systematic medicine. In fact, from a deeper level, this naming chaos is not a bad thing. Sparks sparkle in collisions, and order emerges in chaos. On the surface, chaos represents internal ideological activities, but there is a kind of vitality behind it, which reflects the urgent requirement of modern Chinese medicine researchers to break through themselves and the shackles of previous research paradigms. Chaos is often a prelude to new reunification and a necessary stage of transition to a higher level. In the history of China, a hundred schools of thought contended during the transition from slave society to feudal society, and the May 4th liberation during the disintegration of feudal society were all manifested in superficial ideological confusion and arguments. Heartfelt thanks to China journal of traditional chinese medicine for providing us with this stage of free contention. I believe that after this chaotic and contending Warring States period, the modernization of traditional Chinese medicine will also enter a new stage of development. During this period, some people will fall behind, but more people will follow this trend, think and finally find their suitable position.

Let's talk about empty talk and hard work. Is the modernization of traditional Chinese medicine more empty talk and less practical work, so there is no tangible benefit? I don't think so. I think many articles published in China Traditional Chinese Medicine hit the nail on the head, face the reality and have a sharp pen. Sometimes I can't help but worry secretly after reading it, which is different from some empty talks and unrealistic empty words that report good news but not bad news.

However, when we really talk about taking the truth seriously, we have achieved nothing. Everyone says that it is impossible to study the theory of Chinese medicine by reducing western medicine, and Chinese medicine cannot be measured by the standards of western medicine. Are opposed to the westernization of Chinese medicine. But in reality, people who can't do it for many years are still walking, and people funded by genes, evidence-based and molecular biology are still walking their own way. If this continues, it will only delay precious time and waste countless money, which will not help the development of Chinese medicine.

So now the problem of TCM is not more empty talk, but less practical work.

Viewpoint 2: "Modern system theory is put forward and formed on the basis of analysis and reduction, and it is a dialectical denial of reductionism, not an abandonment of reductionism. The' system' faced by system theory is basically a white box, and the internal structure of the system is clear. The systematic view of traditional Chinese medicine was put forward around the 1980s. Based on the holistic view, it summarized the characteristics and laws of traditional Chinese medicine. The holistic view of TCM was formed under the profound influence of China's traditional culture and philosophy. Not analyzed and restored to the times. The whole or' system' it faced at first was basically a black box, and the internal structure of the system, especially the anatomical structure, was basically vague. "

This is Mr. Gao's point of view in the article "The systematic view of traditional Chinese medicine is different from modern system theory". In my opinion, this view is actually a very old one, but it is still very representative and has a great influence on the crowd. Perhaps the author wrote this article just to remind him, not to repeat the old tune as an objection, but I still want to analyze this point of view so as to realize the essence of the problem in the debate.

First of all, it is inaccurate, at least incomplete, to say that modern system theory was put forward and formed on the basis of analysis and reduction, and there is no mention of the difference between system and reduction. In fact, the system theory is put forward to solve a lot of practical problems that reductionism can't solve, which opens up a completely different perspective from reductionism and uses a completely different method from "analysis, demonstration and experiment", although "system theory does not exclude reduction"

To say that the system faced by system theory is a "white box" means that the internal structure has been clear after full analysis and reduction. I think the author's so-called "system theory" has changed from the "system theory" of philosophical methodology to the concrete "system" of human body system. Although the turning point is obscure, I shouldn't misunderstand the author's meaning.

I have always stressed that concrete science, as a science under the guidance of philosophical methodology and system theory, is a concept of two different categories. Philosophically speaking, system methodology is applicable to the study of all systems, including those we are not aware of at present. It is not said that the system faced by system theory must be a "white box". Professor Zhu Shan said: The purpose of system theory research is neither white box nor black box, but "crystal box", which requires both white box research and black box research, and a lot of transcendental knowledge. Don't set the white box method against the black box method. In system theory, they should be unified and promote each other. It is unreasonable to think that the research of system theory and method can only be carried out after the "white box" is completed.

On the scientific level, from the specific "system" of human body system, due to the accumulation of "reduction analysis" of western medicine for hundreds of years, the understanding of human body structure has entered the level of "genes and molecules", and "the internal structure of the system is clear", which basically meets the requirements of "white box". Therefore, introducing system theory into medicine now requires a lot of research, not white-box research.

Let's talk about the "systematic view of traditional Chinese medicine" first. The author said that "the era has not been analyzed and restored". As I said, system theory and reductionism represent two different perspectives of understanding things. Before studying system theory, we must go through the era of analysis and reduction. The analysis in reductionism is covered by the hierarchical view of system theory. When we take the whole person as the system research object, every specific organ is its subsystem and the next level. When we take an organ as the system research object, the whole person becomes the upper system of the organ, and the cell is its subsystem. By analogy, the blind analysis in reductionism becomes different levels from the perspective of system theory, and the reduction method is integrated, but it is completely different from simple reduction.

Engels said, "Without analysis, there is no synthesis". It is wrong to say that Chinese medicine has no analysis at all, just as western medicine cannot have no synthesis. It can only be said that due to the limitation of historical conditions, the analysis level of traditional Chinese medicine is still relatively low, and anatomy is still at a relatively primitive level. White box research is insufficient, but because Chinese medicine has adopted relatively advanced methodology, it has developed a black box research that is completely different from that of western medicine. Coupled with careful observation, the ancients discovered many systematic laws existing in the whole level of human beings, which provided us with a successful example of systematic method to construct medical theory. Black box research is the advantage of traditional Chinese medicine.

Don't set the whole of Chinese medicine against the restoration of western medicine, and the black box of Chinese medicine against the white box of western medicine, because whether it is a black box or a white box, the whole is still restored, and Chinese medicine and western medicine are only facing the same system, studying the changes of specific human systems, especially the changing laws of health and diseases, rather than the system of Chinese medicine with Chinese medicine, and western medicine is the system of western medicine. There is an ancient poem called "Looking across the ridge, the distance is different". Chinese medicine sees the "ridge" and western medicine sees the "peak", but they both describe the same mountain, just from different perspectives. Don't treat them as two mountains. Of course, the difference between Chinese medicine and western medicine is much more complicated than this, just a simple analogy.

The system of human body has become a white box under the research of western medicine, and there is no problem of restoring Chinese medicine. The key is how to unify the knowledge of western medicine with the overall comprehensive knowledge of Chinese medicine, and how to integrate the white box research of western medicine with the black box research of Chinese medicine in practice and theory. To complete this unification, should we integrate the knowledge of western medicine analysis or analyze and study the overall theory of Chinese medicine? I'm afraid it's not that simple. Theories are always close to the truth, especially the two coexisting theories, which are not perfect, but still come down to the origin of the theory-the study of human system changes. Even if we go back to the study of human body system changes, simply "looking horizontally" or "looking horizontally" can't solve the contradiction between "ridge" and "peak". To truly understand the true face of the human body, we must introduce a new perspective, that is, the perspective of system theory.

Engels once said in Dialectics of Nature: "Empirical natural science has accumulated such a huge amount of empirical knowledge materials that it is almost inevitable to sort out these materials systematically and according to the internal relations of materials in every research field." More than a hundred years have passed, and now medicine is still moving along the track of analysis, and the accumulation of analytical knowledge is several times higher than that in Engels' era. However, the synthesis of drugs has not yet been realized. Can Chinese medicine, which once created a comprehensive medical model in history, shoulder this heavy responsibility in the new historical period? If the "white box" of western medicine and the "black box" of traditional Chinese medicine can be perfectly unified, and finally achieve the result of "crystal box", that is the goal to be achieved by systematic medicine, and it will also be the moment when the theory of traditional Chinese medicine is nirvana.