2 Western medicine emphasizes local understanding, while Chinese medicine focuses on holistic understanding.

Since the gradual rise of modern industry in the West in the 16th century, Western medicine, leveraging advanced tools provided by modern industry, quickly shifted its focus from macroscopic to microscopic study. In 1665, Englishman Robert Hooke was the first to observe plant cells using a microscope, proposing the concept of plant cells. Later, Dutchman Antonie van Leeuwenhoek used a microscope with 270x magnification to observe human bone cells and skeletal muscle cells for the first time, creating detailed images. In the early 19th century, German philosopher Immanuel Kant pointed out that all organisms are composed of cells. By the late 1830s, German biologists Schleiden and Schwann discovered the cell nucleus and described the basic structure of cells. They believed that although the external forms of organisms vary greatly, their internal structures are unified—comprising cells. In the mid-19th century, building on the research findings of these scholars, another renowned German pathologist, Rudolf Virchow, embarked on pioneering research in “cell pathology,” setting a new milestone in medical research. He argued that living organisms are societies composed of cells, and that the body is a federation of cells, stating: “Every animal is the sum of many living units, and each living unit exhibits all the characteristics of life.” Disease was viewed as the result of changes occurring in a group of cells within the body—a synthesis of microscopic alterations. This perspective opened new horizons for Western medicine’s focus on microscopic understanding. German bacteriologist Robert Koch famously observed: “After Virchow’s brilliant research opened new avenues for inquiry, people’s thinking turned to the localization of disease and the causes of disease—and it became clear that this perspective played a decisive role in our treatment practices.” Virchow’s theories, from the 19th century through the 20th century, consistently shaped the direction of Western medical research. Microscopic understanding of disease remained the mainstream of Western medical epistemology, permeating every branch of Western medical theory—such as anatomy, physiology, embryology, biochemistry, pathology…—and strongly influencing clinical practice across all Western medical specialties.

Traditional Chinese medicine, however, has never benefited from the support of modern industry and has thus been forced to move slowly along the path of traditional logical reasoning. Throughout history, no single passage in Chinese medical texts has escaped the influence of logical reasoning. The “Six External Pathogens” and “Seven Emotional Disturbances” theories proposed in “Inner Canon,” as well as Chen Wuzhe’s “Three Causes Theory,” were not the products of experimental research, so they could only address disease causation from a macroscopic perspective. The “Nineteen Principles of Disease Mechanism” in “Suwen” are widely recognized as foundational guidelines for Chinese medicine, but because they are based on macroscopic understanding, they lack precise localization, specification, and quantification. While these principles can guide Chinese medical practice, as conditions become more complex and variable, doctors’ interpretations may diverge. Liu Hejian’s “Nineteen Principles of Disease Mechanism” focused exclusively on “fire,” and he subsequently developed numerous new perspectives on “fire” symptoms; Zhang Zihua, on the other hand, found new grounds for attacking evil influences. Some have said that this theory merely offers vague directions for diagnosis. In recent years, researchers have reorganized “Nineteen Principles of Disease Mechanism” and proposed more systematic classifications, yet even these efforts still limit the scope to macroscopic understanding, leaving the microscopic changes in disease onset and progression largely unknown. The causes, mechanisms, therapeutic approaches, and prescriptions of Chinese medicine all fall under the category of macroscopic understanding, with conclusions often derived from logical reasoning.

(2) Western medicine emphasizes local understanding, while Chinese medicine focuses on holistic understanding.

As early as the 4th century BCE, the great Greek anatomist Aristotle (384–322 BCE) began to pay close attention to the local structures of the human body and the localized changes in disease. In the 2nd century CE, Galen established a series of experimental methods for physiology and anatomy, shifting Western medicine’s focus from the whole to the parts. However, throughout the long centuries that followed, Western medicine—like all superstructures—remained shackled by religious beliefs, and understanding of localized lesions stagnated. Instead, extensive theoretical discussions and doctrines gradually dominated Western medical knowledge. Starting in the 16th century, as Western medicine’s economic foundation shifted toward modern industry, advanced production tools significantly enhanced Western medicine’s ability to observe the microscopic world, while local understanding also grew stronger, gradually freeing Western medicine from the constraints of religious beliefs.

From the 16th century onward, as Western medicine underwent a transformation driven by modern industry, advanced production tools not only increased Western medicine’s ability to observe the microscopic world but also strengthened local understanding, allowing Western medicine to move beyond the realm of purely macroscopic observation. The local understanding of Western medicine became the primary focus of Western medical diagnosis and treatment.

Chinese medicine, starting with “Inner Canon,” established a relatively complete holistic view, emphasizing the unity of the human body through the concepts of yin and yang and the principles of mutual generation and restraint. It held that the various tissues and organs that make up the human body are structurally inseparable and functionally coordinated. As stated in “Lingshu,” “Humans and Heaven and Earth are interconnected, and they correspond to the sun and the moon”; “Suwen,” in “The Great Discussion on the Five Constants,” states: “First, one must understand the seasonal energy, and one should not harm Heaven.” These statements underscored that when understanding and treating disease, we should not only focus on the unity between all parts of the body but also on the unity between humans and their surrounding environment. Of course, while “Inner Canon” emphasized holistic views and the principle of harmony between heaven and humanity, it also contained some discussions on local anatomy—for example, “Lingshu,” in “The Water Channels,” states: “For those who are eight feet tall, their skin and flesh are here; their external forms can be measured and traced, and their bodies can be dissected and examined. The firmness or softness of their organs, the size of their viscera, the amount of food consumed, the length of their pulses, the clarity or turbidity of their blood, the quantity of qi… all can be measured with precision.” However, after the Han Dynasty, China entered a long period of feudal society. Confucian and Mohist teachings emphasized that “one’s body and hair come from one’s parents, and should not be damaged,” and that “baring one’s chest and bare abdomen is considered impolite.” These views severely impacted how people explored localized disease. Although there were medical scholars like Wang Qingren who dared to innovate and seek to explore localized lesions, due to the fact that Chinese medicine had never had the conditions for modern industry, this spirit of local exploration ultimately failed to develop further. Only the holistic view of the whole body and the theory of harmony between heaven and humanity—where logical reasoning was the primary research method—could be vigorously developed. Indeed, the “holistic view” advocated in “Inner Canon,” through continuous enrichment and development by medical scholars over the centuries, became not only more thorough in its reasoning but also more complete in its system. Some local concepts in Chinese medical history were lost amidst the vast ocean of holistic teachings.

(3) Western medicine emphasizes pathogenic causes, while Chinese medicine focuses on the body’s response to disease.

Before the 18th century, there was no fundamental difference in the understanding of disease causation between Chinese and Western medicine; both relied on speculative reasoning to explain disease causes. Ancient Greek medicine posited four causes of disease—the four elements of air, fire, water, and earth—which were largely consistent with the Five Elements theory of Chinese medicine. Western medicine attributed the cause of puerperal fever to “changes in the universe—Earth—atmosphere,” aligning closely with the Chinese view of “harmony between heaven and humanity.” However, after Western medicine was blessed with the benefits of modern industry, this perspective began to shift. In 1847, Austrian doctor Semmelweis first noticed that fever in the postpartum period was caused by infection with putrefactive substances. Although his insights were suppressed by religious beliefs at the time, Semmelweis himself was even expelled from the hospital and later died from mental illness. Around the same time, the famous French scientist Louis Pasteur discovered that milk and wine souring was caused by microorganisms. Soon after, British surgeon Joseph Lister suggested that inflammation in wounds was caused by bacterial infections. He was the first to spray surgical rooms with carbolic acid and sterilize surgical instruments by boiling, laying the groundwork for disinfection, sterilization, and preservation. In the history of pathogen recognition, it is particularly worth praising German doctor Robert Koch (1843–1910), who made groundbreaking contributions to the development of pathogenology. He was known as the founder of pathogenic microbiology. He first created solid culture media, developed bacterial staining techniques, and established infection models in laboratory animals, laying the groundwork for the development of modern pathogenic microbiology. Thanks to Koch’s creative work, Western medicine in the latter half of the 19th century established a strong understanding of pathogenic microorganisms. With the support of industrial technology, over the next century, as immunology flourished, Western medicine’s understanding of pathogenic causes deepened, forming a complete academic system that moved from practice to theory, becoming the fundamental standard for understanding disease causes and pathologies.

In Chinese medicine, the understanding of disease causes always proceeded through the principles of “right qi resides within, and evil cannot invade,” and “when evil gathers, qi must be deficient.” The causes of disease were seen as either “deficiency of right qi” or “excess of evil qi,” with the former being far more important; the latter merely served as a condition for disease onset. Therefore, Chinese medicine consistently promoted the “theory of deficiency of right qi as the cause of disease,” and in treatment, “strengthening the right qi and consolidating the root” became the overarching principle for treating many diseases. “Suwen,” in “The Great Discussion on Yin and Yang,” states: “Yin and Yang are the way of heaven and earth, the backbone of all things, the parents of change, the origin of life and death, the abode of spirit and wisdom. When treating disease, one must seek the root.” Here, “root” refers to regulating yin and yang—regulating the body’s responsiveness. After “Inner Canon,” Zhang Zhongjing, Chao Yuanfang, Chen Wuzhe, and others offered numerous discussions on disease causes. Although they proposed theories such as “six external pathogens,” “seven emotional disturbances,” “food and drink damage,” and “overwork and excessive rest,” especially Chen Wuzhe’s “three causes” theory, none of these ideas ventured beyond the framework of “Inner Canon’s” reasoning. Chinese medicine’s understanding of disease causes remained unchanged, focusing solely on the body’s responsiveness while neglecting further exploration of true pathogens. Although there were instances in the history of Chinese medicine where cowpox vaccines were first used, and Wu Youke’s theory of “pathogenic qi” was proposed, these efforts were ultimately hindered by the lack of a strong industrial foundation.

<!-- translated-chunk:4/261 -->

Task output rules: Translate this markdown block from Chinese to English. Preserve markdown markers, links, and formatting. Keep headings and list structure unchanged. Return only the translated block.

Input: Use these innovative activities and perspectives with limitless vitality, which, due to not being promptly incorporated into experimental research, have thus been left to fade away in the vast sea of logical reasoning. Records of brewing and drinking can be traced back to ancient classics such as the "Zhou Li" and the "Nei Jing," dating back nearly two thousand years; yet no one ever imagined using these substances for surgical disinfection. Instead, people merely used the flammability and fluidity of alcohol to draw conclusions through logical reasoning: "If alcohol is combustible, then its nature resembles fire; if alcohol flows, then its form resembles water." This clearly reveals the one-sidedness of reasoning based on experimental research. The Wenbing School of Medicine, which developed during the Ming and Qing dynasties, made extremely important corrections and additions to the concept of etiology in the "Shanghan Lun" regarding exogenous heat diseases; however, since it still relied on old methods of logical reasoning and lacked the necessary conditions for experimental research, its findings were limited to the erroneous conclusion that "wind-cold" was "wind-heat," and that "magnolia, cinnamon, and ginseng" were simply "sangyin." Modern medical scholars Wang Qingren, Tang Zonghai, and Zhang Xichun sought to revolutionize traditional Chinese medicine theory, but because they still lacked sufficient experimental research conditions, their contributions to understanding pathogenic mechanisms were minimal.

III. The complementary nature of Chinese and Western medicine is both a necessity for each field’s development and an inevitable outcome of historical progress