2000 David F. Austin"I'm a practical kinda guy/gal. What I want are theories that work. What more could one want from a theory than practically useful predictions? Anything else is a waste of time and money." It's hard not to have some sympathy with the underlying sentiment here. Given all the pain and difficulty with which life is full, and given our limited resources for dealing with them, some impatience with the 'merely theoretical' is to be expected. But a moment's reflection shows that a predictively successful theory that does not explain what it predicts will be far less useful than one that also explains, since the latter will also have a wider future application. Suppose, however, that a theory gave precise and accurate guidance throughout its domain of application. Wouldn't that also guarantee that it was a good explanation? It's not hard (and can be a lot of fun) to cook up screwy theories that match observed outcomes exactly, if one can work backwards from a good theory. But it can also be done without cheating in this way. Let's consider the possibility of super-acupuncture.
Chinese acupuncture is a very old and widely implemented medical theory that postulates the existence of Qi energy in the universe and seeks to explain human maladies as Qi imbalances. It is these imbalances that the insertion of needles into (or the burning of herbs near) the skin (moxibustion) are supposed to correct by restoring proper patterns of energy flow. This description might lead you to think of the ways in which we redirect the flow of water by building or removing dams, shifting river banks, and constructing other systems of gates and channels; or, if you are more electrically inclined, to think of electrical current flow in circuits - a closer analogy to the functioning of the human nervous system. According to standard texts on acupuncture, however, Qi energy is not like any other kind of energy and is itself undetectable. The flow patterns in health and disease can, it is also said, be inferred indirectly, and the texts offer elaborate maps of flow patterns.
There is no question that the practice of acupuncture is useful in inducing some sorts of anesthesia. There is also no evidence that its success has anything to do with Qi energy, and there is excellent reason to think that there is no such energy. The maps of Qi flow lines do overlap with some of the paths of nerve fibers in our bodies, but so would any map with enough lines on it. (Imagine wrapping yourself in rubber-sheet graph paper.) What acupuncturists have managed to do, through a great deal of trial and error, is to find some points for needle insertion that have pain-relieving or -preventing effects. But this is not based on an understanding of neuroanatomy.
Imagine, however, that we give acupunctural research more time and many more subjects, so that researchers can conduct many more trials and learn from their numerous errors - which, unfortunately for the subjects in this case, won't be hard to spot. Given enough trial and error, it is conceivable that a system of needle insertions could be developed that did as much as it possibly could for a human being - without ever having to study the details of human nervous function. Would such Super-acupuncture be scientific because all of its predictions are true and it is very useful (in its intended domain)? It seems not, because it would still fail utterly to explain why needle insertion ever works to relieve pain or block other nerve functions. And its practical utility would be severely limited by this failure. A good theory of human nerve function would have much greater theoretical interest and practical utility. It would help us to deal with any malfunction of the nervous system.
2000 David F. AustinGo to next section on Sex and Saucers: UFOlogy and Sexology
