Since the theory of the Elements was not well understood, since the early 17th century, it has been regarded upon as a Daoist philosophy by western science, and TCM as a superstition. But because TCM is also helping very young children and animals, I cannot believe this. They are by no means influenced by philosophy or superstition. So I could not accept this point of view, especially since I had two important arguments which made me curious:
- Firstly, the Theory of the Elements is, in my opinion, far too mathematical to be a belief.
- Secondly, according to me, Western science was not, and certainly not before Einstein, able to assess this doctrine on its scientific merits.
Regarding the first one, the reader probably already has an impression and may probably agree with me. For convenience, I will restrict myself to the second one:
With the astronomers Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), the impressive development of western physics in general and astronomy in particular commenced. For the Chinese scholars who, because of the intensive trade relations with Europe, were well aware of what was happening in the west, this was a bitter pill to swallow. All they could do was recognizing Western superiority in the field of physics. And because the two most basic Chinese science models - CCM and ASM – are utterly incompatible with the most basic model, the CAM, of Western science – I will elaborate on that later - the old Theory of the Elements soon was doomed to oblivion.
Since that time, both East and West, consider the doctrine to be the basis of a daoist philosophy. So this opinion dates back four hundred years, but still continues to exist.
However, during the last century a lot has changed in western physics. Modern quantum mechanics with its uncertainty principle is incompatible with western CAM, and Einstein's relativity theories could only be modified - it was the salvation of western physics - with twists and gimmicks. *
"This might create room for a rehabilitation of the eastern science models, CCM and ASM," I thought, wondering how science models arise and why they are so determinative in natural science. This led me to explore the backgrounds of scientific models.
Read more: 1.2 Background of fundamental basic science models