This blog post examines whether Korean medicine can be included as part of science or should remain an independent traditional medicine from the perspective of the philosophy of science.
Anyone interested in Eastern medicine has likely heard or pondered the question of whether Korean medicine is scientific. Korean medicine is a traditional medical system with a long history, having played a significant role in managing health and treating diseases for centuries across various East Asian countries like China, Korea, and Japan. However, to this day, there remains no unified consensus on the scientific status of Korean medicine. Alongside the development of Western medicine, Korean medicine has often been subject to scientific scrutiny. Throughout this process, debates surrounding its efficacy and scientific nature have persisted. This leads us back to the fundamental question: Is there a reason Korean medicine should be recognized as scientific? Or, conversely, what are the reasons it is not considered scientific?
Ultimately, the fundamental question we must examine is this: What exactly is science? The answer that “science is a loose cluster of theories” is largely uncontested. However, the boundaries and structure of this cluster, as discussed by numerous philosophers of science, remain a subject of considerable debate. Why are physics, chemistry, and biology recognized as science, while astrology and the humanities are not? Herein lies the necessity to examine traditional Korean medicine (Han medicine), which remains situated on the boundary between science and non-science. Through such examination, we can move beyond merely debating the scientific status of Han medicine and further reflect on the limitations and potential of modern science itself.
Here, I present two perspectives on the scientific nature of Korean medicine from the viewpoint of Thomas Kuhn, who occupies a significant place in the history of the philosophy of science. One is that Korean medicine’s holistic model can be integrated into modern science, and the other is that Korean medicine can be included within the category of Eastern science.
First, Thomas Kuhn’s argument explaining science is as follows. Science has a phase of normal science, where scientific inquiry occurs within an existing paradigm. As phenomena impossible to explain within this paradigm accumulate, a crisis phase emerges where distrust in normal science arises, leading to a scientific revolution phase where a new paradigm replaces the old. Here, a paradigm refers to the framework of understanding that fundamentally defines the views and thinking of people in a given era. This argument by Thomas Kuhn is also referred to as the paradigm theory. True science occurs when progressive, problem-solving inquiry actively proceeds within a paradigm. One of the points addressed by paradigm theory is the comparison between different paradigms. The term “incommensurability” represents Thomas Kuhn’s argument on this point. That is, there are points of incommensurability between paradigms; in other words, because the scientific objects, the meanings of the same terms, and the perspectives differ, comparison is ultimately impossible. This is a point frequently cited by those advocating that Korean medicine is scientific, but I disagree. It is easy to claim that Korean medicine can be constructed as a different paradigm, equal to Western medicine within the paradigm of science. Therefore, while some use traditional Korean medicine as evidence for science, this is a misconception of paradigm theory. Only one paradigm of science can exist at a time. In contrast, as mentioned earlier, I contend that traditional Korean medicine can be integrated with the existing paradigm of science.
First, research within the internal system of traditional Korean medicine exhibits inductive verification and falsifiability. For example, the statistical verification used in a study analyzing the vision-enhancing effects of Korean medical treatment on elementary school students is no different from techniques used in modern medicine. In fact, because medicine is applied to humans, it is natural that it uses stricter verification standards than science. That is, it is rare for Korean medicine to be criticized based on scientific methodology. However, the aspect that still leads some to consider Korean medicine unscientific is not a problem of methodology. It stems from the fact that abstract concepts forming the basis of Korean medical theory, such as Yin-Yang and the Five Elements, or constitutional types, are not described in scientific language. Yet, there was a precedent where Charles Robert Darwin’s theory of evolution gained scientific status without explaining the mechanism of evolution, namely the action of genes. Observing Charles Robert Darwin’s case, I believe that when the core of Korean medicine is viewed as a model centered on phenomena and a holistic perspective, there is no reason it cannot be considered scientific. Recently, methods combining Western medical diagnosis with Korean medical treatment are being used, and research verifying the efficacy of Korean medical treatments from a Western medical perspective is also increasing. Furthermore, while describing Yin-Yang and the Five Elements in scientific language may be impossible, at least the subordinate concepts like meridians and qi-blood are all within the scope of science.
Meanwhile, an integrated approach combining Western and Korean medicine is opening new possibilities, particularly in treating chronic and complex diseases. For instance, during cancer treatment, cases are increasing where direct Western medical therapies like surgery and radiation therapy are used alongside complementary Korean medical therapies such as acupuncture and herbal medicine. This approach contributes to improving the patient’s overall quality of life and reducing side effects during treatment. This integrated treatment model serves as a prime example demonstrating how closely Korean medicine can be linked to modern science.
Another example is the placebo effect. Although it lacks scientific evidence, it has been accepted as a matter of course because psychological factors have been observed to influence bodily responses. From this, the abstract concepts of Korean medicine exist on the same level as the placebo effect, leading to my first viewpoint: Korean medicine can be integrated into modern science.
Before presenting my second viewpoint, returning to Thomas Kuhn’s perspective, paradigm shifts like scientific revolutions can be justified by criteria such as better explaining phenomena and solving more problems. However, ultimately, they require consensus within the scientific community. In other words, scientific paradigms change according to social and historical contexts rather than adhering to objective, universal standards. Now, we will examine how historical context operates within the philosophy of science.
Before the word “science” existed, around ancient Greece, individuals known as scientists pursued inquiries into nature and truth based on their personal beliefs. Naturally, such inquiry was long intertwined with art and philosophy. I contend that science achieved its independence not through any special catalyst, but because it possessed objectivity. So how did this objectivity change according to historical context? Ultimately, it was common for the conceptual framework of any community to endure, being modified and supplemented even when flawed. What is truly exceptional, however, is the paradigm shift in modern Europe, as science historians recount. The key question here is whether explaining science in light of the historical currents where it was first seriously discussed and developed constitutes a circular argument. That is, while we must be cautious about using the term “history of science,” we also need to examine whether the history of science in modern Europe can be viewed as an absolute standard.
Joseph Needham, renowned for his research on the history of Chinese science, argues for the superiority of Chinese science up to the 16th century, before the modern era. In particular, mathematics, astronomy, and the invention of clocks are representative examples of China’s superior traditional science. However, it is undeniable and a universal recognition that modern Europe emerged as the absolute dominant power through the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. Setting aside the question of why China failed to develop modern science—the so-called Needham puzzle—it is important to recognize that distinguishing successful science from unsuccessful science is difficult to judge methodologically from our current vantage point. We can only evaluate past events in light of their historical context. In this regard, I wonder if traditional Korean medicine (Han medicine) might also be included within this boundary, prompting me to reconsider the meaning of Eastern science.
At this time when physics has established itself as the absolute root of science, evaluating traditional Korean medicine, which still straddles the boundary between science and non-science, is both difficult and, in a way, seems meaningless. Recently, as the domain of complex systems science has broadened, research interpreting elements holistically has emerged, unlike physics which views them individualistically. This is particularly gaining attention in the fields of life sciences and ecology, where the recognition is spreading that a holistic approach is effective in understanding complex interactions. This suggests that, in the future, the development of Korean medicine could be achieved through integration with mainstream science. I conclude this piece with the hope that Korean medicine may become the catalyst for opening a new era of scientific philosophy.
