【作者】 赵伟；

【导师】 万小龙；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 科学技术哲学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 自近代西学东渐以来,我国传统的中医药学的合法性地位就屡屡受到冲击,“废医论”此消彼长。在经过多次中医废存之争后,从学理上论证中医存在的“合法性”和合理性至关重要。我认为,评价中医合理性的前提是必须对中医药的本性有较为全面而准确的理解,这也是将来如何进一步挖掘、保护和发展中医药学的关键所在。中医本性研究很复杂,我们试图以一种新的视角尝试给中医本性一个更全面的解释,为制定科学合理的振兴中医政策提供认识论和方法论支撑。本文在全面梳理国内外学者对于中医研究的基础上,指出当前学者对于中医本性的研究视角的偏差。当前对于中医的研究,应该系统的利用现代科学哲学资源,全面的揭示中医的科学本性。通过对于中医基本理论的特点和哲学基础的研究,我们认为中医学理论有很好的可理解性,但也具有弱的可靠性。造成这一现象的根本原因在于贯穿中医理论形成与发展始终的类比思维方法,我们需要辩证地看待类比思维在中医理论形成、发展过程中发挥的作用,发挥其合理性一面,加强其可靠性。纵观国内科学技术哲学界对于中医本性的研究主要集中于三个视角,即逻辑、社会历史和文化。关于逻辑视角对于中医本性的研究主要是借助经典科学哲学的研究成果,经典科学哲学认为科学的本性就是科学理论的本性,它们关注的科学的理论成果,依据物理科学,主张建立一种现代物理科学语言式的人工语言。在经典科学哲学看来,在科学中,理论与其它相比具有无上的地位。经典科学哲学坚持理论优位的思想,认为通过对理论的逻辑结构的分析论证及经验证实来确定理论的科学性。有的学者强调中医学理论缺乏逻辑的严谨性、明晰性和经验的可检验性。社会历史视角对于中医本性研究主要是借助非经典科学哲学的理论来分析中医。集中于科学知识社会学和科学实践哲学从实践视角对于中医本性的新阐释,其强调中医的治疗实效和“地方性”,还有学者从文化立场,强调中医药治病的文化性。这三个研究视角依据不同的科学哲学理论,而实际上它们各自的理论指出的是不同的科学内涵。逻辑视角视科学为科学理论,因此科学的本性就是科学理论的本性,社会历史视角视科学为科学活动(或实践)；而文化视有视科学为整个人类文化的一个子类。对于中医的研究需要我们系统的应用三个视角的科学哲学资源,从三个层次全面说明中医本性。原因在于,就整个医学或者科学的发展而言,有的是理论,有的是实践,有的是文化,而医学具有三个方面的特性,是理论、实践和文化三位一体的。本人认为,科学哲学理论经过上百年的发展,其积累的理论与方法到了可以将中医学理论作系统分析的时候了。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the western learning was carried over from the west to China, the legitimacy status of the Traditional Chinses Medicine (TCM) was often under attack. After several time’s dispute about the abolishment and reserve of TCM, it’s important to argument the validity and the rationality of the TCM from the scientific principle’s perspective. In my opiniom, the premise of a reasonable assessment of the TCM is that we must have a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the nature of TCM, that is the keypoint about how to excavate、protect and develop TCM in the future. To this end, we need to carry out the metascience study of the TCM, to promoto the study of the philosophy and culture of the TCM, to provide a new perspective for the study of the nature of TCM, this can provide the epistemology and methodology support to establish the scientific and rational policy to re-energize the TCM. On the basis of a overall carding of the domestic and foreign scholars’study on the TCM, we point out that there was deviation on the study of the nature of TCM. We should utilize the resources of modern philosophy systematicly to reveal the nature of the TCM roundly.By the researches on the characteristics of the basic theory of the TCM and its philosophy base, we believe that theory of TCM is much understandable, but it is weakly reliable. The fundamental reason for this is the TCM’s analogical thinking, which runs through the formation and development of TCM, We need a dialectical view to the role what the analogical thinking played in the TCM, and we should play its rational side, to enhance its reliability.Currently, the domestic study on the nature of TCM is focused on three perspectives, namely, logic, social history and culture. According to the logic perspevtive, the nature of science is the nature of the scientific theory, they concerned about the theory results of science, based on physical science, advocated to establish artificial linguistic like the modern physical science’s language. On the view of the classical philosophy of science, the scientific theories are more supreme than any other things in science. The classical philosophy of science adheres to theory-dominated philosophy of science, which confirm the scientificity of theory through the analysis of the logic structure of theory and the experiences confirm. Some scholars have emphasized that the TCM’s theory is lack of the rigor of logic, clarity, and testability of experience.As to the social history perspective’s TCM research is mainly in virtue of non-classical theory of philosophy of science. Focused on the sociology of scientific knowledge and the philosophy of scientific practices, which interpret the nature of TCM from the practical perspective, and which emphasizes the effectiveness of the treatment of TCM and its "lacal"; as well as some scholars emphasizes the cultute nature of TCM’s treatment from the perspective of culture.The three research perspective bases on different theory of philosophy of science, and in fact their own theory point out the different intension of science.On logic perspective, the sicience been taken as scientific theory, so the nature of science is the nature of scientific theories; according to the social history perspective, the science is been regarded as scientific acticities (or practices); and from the perspective of culture, the science be treated as a sub-class of the whole human culture. But looking at the development of the whole medicine or the development of the whole science, some are theories, some are practices, some are cultures, and medicine is Trinitarian. On the researches, we should utilize the three perspective’s resouces of philosophy of science; and should descript the nature of TCM fully from the three levels.I believe, after hundred years’development, the theory of the philosophy of science could systematically analysize the theory of TCM on the basis of its accumulating theories and methods.更多还原