How did the Ming Dynasty’s medical theory produce innovations?

First of all, the subject of the question is really big. It is a big topic to refine it. It will take several years to study it in detail. Of course, I am not that capable to solve it in a few days. So I think this is a very crude answer. Let me share with you some of my current opinions (the reason for this is currently because I will continue to learn and grow, okay). The following is for reference only.

What I say below is based on this basic point of view: Chinese and Western medicine should not be treated and developed separately. The operating rules of the human body are mostly the same, and evolution will not be divided into Chinese and Western people due to different artificial research methods. Neither Chinese nor Western medicine has yet reached the level of "truth" itself. If it continues to develop, the understanding of the human body should lead to the same goal through different paths, which is a good thing. There are many things that Chinese medicine understands about the human body that Western medicine does not know, and Western medicine theories are also ahead of Chinese medicine. If you have paid attention to the most cutting-edge research on Chinese and Western medicine, you will find that some of the views of the two are gradually becoming similar and converging. The questioner said not to talk about the dispute between Chinese and Western medicine. But here, I have to talk. Why? Because your question is actually based on looking at traditional Chinese medicine with modern medicine as the coordinate system. Assuming that there is only traditional Chinese medicine in the world, no matter how it develops, it will not encounter the "dilemma" that the questioner mentioned is consistent with the conclusions of modern medicine. It is precisely because many current studies and theories of modern medicine are inconsistent with traditional Chinese medicine that a hypothetical question arises: What should I do if the conclusions are the same? The conclusion can only be the same. Because as mentioned before, there is only this same set of rules for the operation of the human body.

In addition, what you said in the question, "The perfection of modern medicine has caused traditional Chinese medicine to face a dilemma. That is, if innovation is strictly based on modern scientific methods, it will inevitably lead to the same results as modern medicine. Exactly the same conclusion, if the existing TCM theory is not innovated strictly in accordance with modern scientific methods, it will not be able to support sufficient scientific research." My point of view on this is:

1. "Dilemma" This is considered from the interests of the traditional Chinese medicine industry, which may be restricted by modern medicine, and is an interest dilemma (the interests here include the tendency of public opinion). As for this so-called interest dilemma, in addition to the conflict of interest of the "drug" giant, what you actually consider is that the public lacks professionalism, neither Chinese medicine nor Western medicine understands, but they stand on the commanding heights to point out talents. generated. Yes or no? Some people think that traditional Chinese medicine has reached the same conclusion as modern medicine, that is, traditional Chinese medicine is not good. This view is very biased and unscientific. Why can't traditional Chinese medicine reach the same conclusion as modern medicine? Modern medicine continues to draw many of the same conclusions as traditional Chinese medicine. Does this mean that modern medicine lags behind traditional Chinese medicine? Does anyone think that this is a dilemma caused by traditional Chinese medicine to modern medicine?

From an academic perspective, there is no "dilemma". It is very rigid and unrealistic to require traditional Chinese medicine to innovate according to the original ideas. In fact, research on traditional Chinese medicine and modern medicine have been exchanging knowledge and learning from each other. Many people just hope that the noise will be as lively as possible, or that one party must be completely defeated. From an academic perspective alone, I think we should not be constrained from making breakthroughs in order to highlight the so-called "characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine." "Characteristics" are not something that must be maintained through forceful performance. Of course, there are huge conflicts of interest. It’s easier said than done.

2. There are many research methods, and science is just a method of understanding. The world is very complex, and we do not and should not be limited to one way of cognition. This will greatly hinder the progress of understanding. Besides, science is progressing. The current scientific development is very good, but the unknown is far greater than the known. Non-scientific cognition ≠ backward cognition. In this regard, I believe that both scientific and non-scientific research can be carried out, and the research results should not be based on current "science". This is clear to professionals.

Finally, back to the question itself.

It is terrible for a subject to stagnate without innovation. In particular, medicine is extremely widely used, and traditional Chinese medicine is no exception (many people, including those in the traditional Chinese medicine industry, are very reverent to ancient times, and even think that the "Nei Jing" and "Treatise on Febrile Diseases" are the pinnacle. I don't quite agree with this, but I won't expand on it. is another topic).

The "modernization of traditional Chinese medicine" proposed by the topic is actually a question of how traditional Chinese medicine adapts to the times. Since you only limited the scope to theoretical innovation, I will skip the rest.

My understanding of medical theoretical innovation is a process of gradually getting closer to the truth. A view that is novel but without sufficient factual basis cannot be called innovation.

To see innovation, we have to look back at the theoretical evolution and breakthroughs from ancient times to the present. There are many schools of Chinese medicine and they are emerging in endlessly. Therefore, only the most important, outstanding, and systematic theories are selected as references for reviewing history.

(This is to be updated hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha)

After all, it is too tiring to sort out)

If the questioner has any doubts that I have not made clear, welcome to discuss.

Finally, I would like to say a few more words. When I first learned Chinese medicine, I was also an avid fan of Chinese medicine. At that time, I was even very resistant to Western medicine. It is a pity that Chinese medicine is in decline. In fact, the proportion of TCM doctors with high clinical level is really very low. Traditional Chinese medicine has always been a treasure in my heart. I often lament that I do not have enough ability to make it shine so that people all over the world can truly realize its excellence. But then I learned more and saw more, and I suddenly discovered that the truth-seeking spirit of many scientific researchers in Western medicine is the same as that of the ancients such as Sun Simiao and Zhang Zhongjing. It is because of my own narrow-mindedness and ignorance that I follow the trend of public opinion and view things as Chinese and Western. It also dawned on me that truth never dies. If one day the so-called "TCM" disappears and is lost, I won't be sad, because what dies is only an external form of expression, and the truth behind it will last forever. And I am very grateful to the real medical scientists from ancient and modern times at home and abroad, whether Chinese or Western, who purely pursue the truth. I also feel reassured, knowing that there will always be people who pursue the truth. As for that truth, it doesn't matter whether people call it Chinese medicine, Eastern medicine, Southern medicine, or Western medicine.