Academic literature on the topic '氣學'

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.修煉氣功大有益於人的健康。但對於氣功那些令人震撼的效應，還沒有提出一套比較完整的氣功科學理論來加以解釋。然而，無法用當代已接受的科學理論來說明的現象不應一概斥之為迷信。當我們說“氣功科學”時，我們並不是說氣功已經是一門科學，而是說要以科學的態度、方法、手段和精神來對待氣功，研究氣功，努力開創一個科學探索的新領域。在這一探索中，還要注意從氣功的理論、世界觀和方法論出發來設計氣功科學實驗，而不是以常規科學的方式為萬能的或唯一正確的研究方式。Many people have noticed that practicing qigong is beneficial to human health. However, how does it work is not quite clear. Especially, there is no way to use the contemporarily accepted scientific theories to explain some strikingly impressive effects and phenomena that qigong practitioners have brought out. But we should not take all of them as superstitious simply because they cannot be brought to light by currently accepted scientific theories. Instead, we should seriously explore qigong science.When we speak "qigong science", we do not mean qigong is already a science. Rather, we mean that we ought to study qigong through scientific methods and in scientific attitude and spirit in order to open a new area for scientific inquiry. The basic spirit of science is honesty: truth is truth, and false is false. Science is not static. It is always developing. In scientific investigations of qigong, we must take notice to the special characteristics of qigong: its own theories, worldviews as well as methodologies. In designing scientific experiments on qigong, we should not take currently common scientific designing procedures and rules as absolute and universal standards. Rather, we should adapt them in ways of suiting the peculiar features of qigong practice so that useful information and results can be brought about.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 46 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese氣功涉及許多中國人的生活。千千萬萬的人習練著各種類型的氣功，以求強身健體。氣功還成為一些人的基本生活方式，同他們的道德素質和精神境界結合在了一起。最後，氣功還常常同人體特異功能結下不解之緣，內氣外氣，撲朔迷離，難以分辨。遺憾的是，儘管氣功和人體特異功能可謂當代中國社會的一大熱門，但真正嚴肅、認真和高質量的哲學探討實屬鳳毛麟角，難以看到。DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 14 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese錢學森教授和陳倍（音譯）教授，都是氣功研究方面令人尊敬的領袖，他們最近發表了一些看法：國家科學技術委員會認可了1987年5月3日中國人體科學協會的成立。自從1979 年四川省發現一名叫唐雨（音譯）的男孩擁有“用耳朵閱讀”的能力已經有八年之久了。這段時期，充滿了障礙和彎路，對於我們那些參加組建這個專心於人體科學的協會的人來說真的是很困難。“用耳朵閱讀”的能力在超心理學上指一種psi能力。在中國，它被稱為“特異功能”（非凡的能力）。DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 17 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.近二十年來有關氣功的論爭有一個明顯的特點，即科學佔據了整個論爭的中心地位。懷疑論者用科學作為準則來對氣功的命題提出質疑，指斥外氣為迷信和騙術。氣功的支持者們則試圖通過科學實驗來證明外氣的存在和功效，卻又常常被指斥為偽科學。科學在當今的統治地位似乎已將問題定義為這麼一個兩難困境：要麼氣功為科學所證明，這就意味著它被歸結為常規科學所熟悉的解釋框架之中；要麼它不被科學所證明，於是它被指斥為迷信或偽科學。本文論證，對整個問題首先應當採取一個“康德式”的提問，即不是問氣功是否“科學”，而是問“氣功科學如何才是可能的”？本文的具體方法，是首先列舉氣功懷疑論者的主委論據，試析其如何將氣功變得不可科學地證明，然從列舉幾條氣功支持者們的主要理由，試析其如何使氣功變得幾乎不可證為。本文初步的結論是，氣功要成為科學，我們需要在七個方面保持適當的張力。The effectiveness of qigong (cultivation and application of qi-vital energy) is typically divided into two categories, the maintenance and improvement of the practitioner's own health and overall well being ("internal qi"), and the exertion of qi to affect external objects ("external qi"). Internal qi is less controversial partly because its effects are easier to be explained within the parameters of modern science, whereas external qi is much more controversial as its claims defray some deeply cherished common sense beliefs and well-received scientific laws. Skeptics take science as a measure to question qigong claims, accusing qigong, especially external qi, to be occult and superstition. Some advocators of qigong tried to conduct scientific experiments to prove the existence and effects of qi. In the public domain science has virtually become legislator for the legitimacy of qigong. But the encounters between qigong masters and scientists have been an unhappy marriage. Qigong claims were often denied by scientists as impossible right off the hand. Most scientists were unwilling to step into this field for the fear of being ridiculed by their colleagues. The dominant position of science in today's world seems to have defined the problem in such a way that, either qigong effects are scientifically proven, in that case it often means that they are reduced into normal frameworks of the accepted scientific practices and explanations, or that it is rejected on the bases of being scientifically unjustified, and therefore be treated no more than superstitions. In either case, qigong is rejected as a special science.Given the nature of the issue, it is necessary to take a Kantian approach by asking "How is qigong science possible?" The paper analyzes four major skeptical arguments against qigong, and three claims from qigong advocators, and draws a conclusion that only by keeping some essential tensions can qigong become science.The first skeptic argument is that, because some apparent qigong results could be duplicated by playing tricks, the qigong "masters" were therefore simply deceiving the public. This argument entails a logical confusion. Just like the fact that some may steal money does not prove all money come from stealing, duplication by playing tricks does not prove all paranormal phenomena should be rejected as such. Precautions should be taken to prevent frauds, but certain trust and respect must be observed for qigong to be science. If the argument were accepted as a valid disproof of qigong claims, it could reject all the claims, whether paranormal or normal. In this area, the principle of "assuming innocence until proven guilty" must also be applied.The second skeptic argument is that qigong claims violate well-established scientific laws and common sense beliefs, and are therefore simply impossible. The argument is based on the popular, though nai've, belief that common sense beliefs and well-established scientific laws are plain truth, and, instead of subjecting to further evaluations, they become standards themselves for measuring possibilities and impossibilities.The third argument is that qigong results could be explained by or reduced to normal physical or psychological phenomena, and they are therefore actually not unusual. While this approach can separate some merely apparent paranormal phenomena from genuine ones, it should be taken within certain limit. When reductionism is used as a regulative principle, it becomes "a constraint upon the acceptability of theories in the special science with the curious consequence that the more the special sciences succeed, the more they ought to disappear" (Fodor). Even when physical measures are detected in qi emitting environment, the measurements themselves tell us little about the real content of qi, just like the vibration of air tells us little about the meaning of a spoken sentence.The fourth argument from the skeptics is that qigong claims are not conclusive because they lack rigorous scientific justification. While this is a very legitimate concern, scientific standards and procedures themselves need to be examined. Laboratory experimentation maybe the worst way for testing qigong claims, since the prime variable in qigong is mental states, and they occur most likely in natural conditions. Mental states are also more difficult to re-create than physical states, especially if the function of these states depends on what Jung calls collective consciousness.Qigong advocators have three major claims that apparently make qigong unfalsifiable. The first is that experimenters' mental states may exert influence on the outcome. While this argument may be misused to explain away any failure, it does not make scientific study of qigong impossible. It requires the scientist to abandon their "objective" by-stander position, and adopt a positive attitude toward the experiment, or even become qigong practitioners themselves, but it does not demand self-deception. We can still empirically confirm or disconfirm a claim by asking whether the outcome is more likely to happen with the participation of sincere believers and diligent practitioners.Qigong advocators also claim that, when some qigong treatments were not effective, it is because the recipient did not believe that it had actually worked. Direct verification of this claim involves proof of counterfactual conditional statements. As no one can undo his mental activity, the claim remains a hypothesis. A more disturbing claim for the scientists is that even if the physiological test results turn out to be bad, the patient should still remain positive that she has been cured. To a scientist this sounds like a typical self-deception. Yet claims like these may well be actually profound. The metaphysical principle behind the claim is that words and thoughts do not merely describe or reflect facts; they are actions that affect facts. One's own words can be an action of affirmation. Even ordinary counterfactual claims cannot be proven by undoing what has been clone. If statistical data shows that in a critical amount of similar cases, the likelihood of the positive effect significantly increases with a positive attitude, and otherwise decreases, it would equally be plausible to make such claims.A third disturbing claim from qigong advocators is that qi is autonomous -- it makes its own choice about what problems to fix first. The difficulty for scientists to accept this claim is that it opens the door for any failure, in any kind of tests. This claim again involves counterfactual condition, and appears to be empirically unfalsifiable. Yet it is still acceptable if we find the practice or treatment is in significant amount of other cases effective. Scientists have long taken for granted that scientific facts must be publicly observable by ordinary perception. It seldom occurs to them that they may need to cultivate themselves to open the "third eye" and become a "competent judge." The claim can be justified in proportion to the amount of testimony from those judges. This hypothesis requires a radical shift in epistemology, but not abandonment of empirical justification.The discussion leads to the following tentative conclusions：Qigong science is possible only if we keep essential tensions between seven pairs of extremes: (1) a tension between blindly trusting any alleged qigong masters and dismissing qigong claims as fraud before investigating the cases; (2) a tension between dogmatically sticking to currently accepted common sense and scientific beliefs and naïve credulity; (3) a tension between reducing something unfamiliar to familiar frameworks forcefully, rejecting whatever that cannot be reduced, and casually adding new categories of variables and new hypothesis into scientific theories; (4) a tension between conceiving experimenters as totally outside observers and demanding uncritical blind believers; (5) a tension between taking language as descriptions and as actions; (6) a tension between requesting public observability for everything and taking whatever an alleged qigong master says without checking with other masters; and (7) a tension between truth and value, and understand that the legitimacy of qigong is not derived from science alone.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 28 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.宋代政治、經濟、科技、哲學、風尚等諸多因素促進了醫藥學的發達與繁榮。《聖濟經》猶如宋代醫藥學百花園中一朵瑰麗的奇葩，為後人從醫理到實踐提供了寶貴的資料。《聖濟經》（10卷，分42 篇，注重理論）同《政和聖濟總錄》（亦稱《聖濟總錄》，醫學百科，200 卷，分66 門，闡述病因、病理及醫治藥方）都是由宋徽宗趙佶(1082-1135) 親自主持編纂的醫學大作。《聖濟經》除了確立儒家的綱常倫理之外，更在本體宇宙論的氣論框架下構建了道家身心平和的基本醫學原理。《聖濟經》所體現的醫學倫理思想，如“陰陽合而夫婦正”、“五行有殊相”、 “氣者生之元也”、“子之在母”、 “去邪輔正，以平為期”等，突出表現了儒道相容的陰陽觀、五行觀、整體觀和辯證觀，同時展現了宋代獨特的政治生態和文化特徵。According to Chinese medical history, the Shengjijing (Canon of Sagely Benefaction) was commissioned by Emperor Huizong (1100-1125) of the Song Dynasty. It is usually compared with another great project of the time, the Shengji zonglu (Medical Encyclopedia: Classic of Sagely Benefaction). The emperor wrote prefaces for two large formulary compilations. The Canon of Sagely Benefaction, which comprises 10 chapters of medical theories, was published in 1118, and the Medical Encyclopedia: A Sagely Benefaction, which comprises 200 chapters of formularies, was published in 1122.This paper focuses on the ethical dimensions illustrated by the Canon of Sagely Benefaction. It explores fundamental Chinese concepts such as qi energy, yin and yang, the five phases and their mutual transformation as implemented in the medical text. The author argues that these key concepts are well incorporated into medical practice and function as a guide for both physical health and moral cultivation. Such combinations of the medical with the ethical and the physical with the spiritual can be considered a fusion of the Daoist and Confucian traditions, a popular practice during the Song period.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 114 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese“生命倫理學為何變得如此無聊？”這是美國的一位老牌生命倫理學家Albert Jonsen 在美國《醫學與哲學期刊》2000 年最後一期中的論文標題。在Jonsen 看來，美國的生命倫理學已經讓人不勝其煩，她的思想已無新意，問題和論証總是美國式的（domesticated ），而且太多的東西都轉不出美國的風水之外（too much at home in accustomed places）（頁691 ）。Jonsen似乎懷念生命倫理學的先驅人物Paul Ramsey和Joseph Fletcher 在20 世紀60 年代包打天下 ，與當時的家長主義醫學大戰幾個回合的英雄時代。他們的充沛的思想激蕩，敏銳的政治感覺和無尚的道德勇氣在當今的生命倫理學中已屬昨日黃花，盛景不再（頁692）。如何克服當今美國生命倫理學的無聊呢？ Jonsen 開出了一服包含兩味葯劑的處方。其一，走出自己的專業（倫理學）行當，更多地瀏覽一下其他學科的情況－－不僅包括生物學，醫學和法學，還包括社會學，人類學，經濟學，歷史學等社會科學。其二是走出國門，到其他文化中去觀賞一番。Jonsen認為，只有在外國生活過一段的人才能認識到祖國的重要特徵（頁696 ）。只有通過與別人的比較才能看清美國生命倫理學的價值承諾，榮辱得失和根木所在（頁698 ）。DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 14 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

碩士<br>國立臺灣師範大學<br>數學系<br>98<br>The Korean Silhak 實學 (practical learning) scholar Choe Han-gi崔漢綺(1803-1877) is a special scholar among all Silhak scholars near the end of Choson Kingdom朝鮮王朝 (1392-1896). 　　This paper aims to introduce and analyze his works in the whole life, such as the Ki Study 氣學, one of his most important writings, and to reveal his thoughts about “ki” 氣. I also do research on his two other books about ki, which are his early creations in 1836. One is the Shin Gitong神氣通, and the other is the Chuchuknok推測錄. 　　As for Choe’s mathematical thought, I choose to analyze his mathematical text Seupsanjinfa習算津筏. This is the only one text among his manybooks that is related to mathematics. In this paper, I argue that his mathematical thought is developed from the aspect of his philosophical thought. All the texts mentioned in my dissertation are in the Collected Works of Myongnamnu明南樓全集, which were joined together and published in 1971. 　　Moreover, I also introduce Choe’s scientific thought through his related creations. Tracing his scientific thought, I find that it is deeply influenced by Western science and technology. During the Ming dynasty in China, the Jesuits had brought both Christianity and Western science to China. Through the Chinese translations of scientific works and interpretations of Christianity, the knowledge was spread into Choson Korea in a short time. I also try to show how Choe Han-gi transformed the knowledge into his own and used it to create his new theory of ki.