At 12:42 AM on July 13th, a high school classmate of mine who works at an aviation research institute sent me a paper titled “A Preliminary Exploration of New Aero-Engine Fault Diagnosis Technology Based on Traditional Chinese Medicine Diagnostic Governance Theory.” Seeing this title, I was genuinely startled — thinking to myself that TCM really is a universal panacea, applicable everywhere — and so I decided to study it carefully.
Given my solid background in science and engineering, the paper wasn’t particularly difficult, and since it was published in a second-tier scientific journal, the quality was unlikely to be exceptional. The authors’ intention was actually quite straightforward: they felt that the overall architectural models of existing aero-engine diagnostic technology were designed and controlled by foreigners, creating significant technical barriers. If China didn’t push forward in this area, it would inevitably suffer in the future. So they searched around and found that the philosophical thinking of TCM had considerable reference value. For instance, TCM’s “holistic concept” could map engine components and functions to corresponding TCM theoretical knowledge, thereby transplanting TCM’s theoretical model onto aero-engine fault diagnosis technology.
At a macro level, applying holistic thinking to examine aero-engine faults is quite meaningful. After all, foreign approaches tend to emphasize correlation rather than holism, and elevating TCM theory into a methodology applicable to the aviation field is inherently innovative. However, looking at the details of the paper, I believe that forcing engine modules onto TCM theory is clearly a stretch. An engine’s functional systems can hardly be confined to five, and interpreting their relationships solely through the generating-and-restraining cycles of the Five Elements feels mechanical. More importantly, TCM’s theoretical framework is far more complex than what the paper describes. The authors likely drew their theoretical references from undergraduate TCM textbooks — textbooks compiled half a century ago under difficult circumstances, which are now highly controversial and have seen significant theoretical development since. Grafting such superficial theory onto aero-engines inevitably comes across as thin.
What’s even more interesting is that the paper’s authors specifically responded to online criticism:
“People on WeChat and Weibo comment just by reading the title without looking at the content. Hawking also said extraterrestrial civilizations might exist — some people with a ‘frog-in-the-well’ mentality will surely not understand. For example, there’s a foreign research method called Prognostics and Health Management (PHM), which originally was a medical concept that gradually found application in industrial fields. TCM also has many valuable theories — why can’t they be applied to aero-engine health management? Furthermore, it’s not all of TCM theory; what we’re studying is the theory of ‘TCM diagnosis and treatment’ — it’s a methodology.”
I’d like to applaud the author. Comrade Fang Hongzheng didn’t yield to public pressure but instead maintained a scientific attitude — that’s truly moving. It shows that our country’s researchers possess not only a strong spirit of exploration but also the courage to uphold truth. In contrast, looking at other online articles and commentary, people seem to harbor strong prejudice against TCM, which clearly violates the scientific spirit of questioning. This practice of dismissing something outright without thinking, without experimentation, relying solely on intuition — it precisely reflects a deficiency in scientific literacy among the public. What’s worse, on ScienceNet, someone named Li Yaping published an article specifically mocking this paper, even invoking the specter of Cultural Revolution toxicity to argue for its absurdity. I studied Mr. Li’s blog and found him to be a staunch anti-TCM crusader, though not a particularly sophisticated one — a debate with him would likely not be very interesting.
Finally, I just want to say this: if you’re going to oppose TCM, please do so with a scientific attitude.
中文原文 / Chinese Original
7月13日凌晨12：42，我的一位在航空某研究所工作的高中同学发给我一篇名为《基于中医诊治理论的航空发动机故障诊断新技术初探》的论文，看到这个题目，我着实一惊，心想中医药果然是万金油，到哪都好使，于是就仔细研究了一下。
鉴于我有坚实的理工科背景，这篇文章难度并不是很大，而且该文发表在科技核心的杂志上，质量一般不会特别高。论文作者的意图其实很简单，他们觉得现有的航空发动机诊断技术的整体架构模型都是由外国人设计控制的，有比较强的技术壁垒，咱们中国在这方面如果不思进取一下以后肯定会吃很多亏。于是乎他们找来找去发现中医的哲学思想具有比较强的借鉴价值，比如中医的”整体观念”，发动机可以按照部位、功能与中医的相关理论知识相对应，从而把中医的理论模型映射到发动机故障的诊断技术上。
在宏观层面上讲，用整体的思维去审视发动机故障是很有意义的，毕竟国外可能更多的是讲相关性而不是整体性，而且将中医理论提升为一种方法论应用到航空领域中去本来就是一种创新。但是从文章细节内容中看，我认为把发动机的模块强加到中医理论上去明显有点生拉硬拽。发动机的功能系统毕竟不太可能局限于五个，并且他们之间的关系只用中医五行系统的生克来诠释未免显得机械。更重要的是，中医的理论体系远比文章论述的复杂，论文作者可能只是从中医本科教科书中寻找了相关的理论参考，毕竟教科书上的理论都是五十年前在”艰苦条件”下编写的，现在争议很大，发展的理论元素很多，论文作者们将如此肤浅的理论嫁接到航空发动机上去未免会有些单薄。
更有意思的是，论文作者专门就网上的评论解释到：
“现在微信、微博上的人直接看标题而不看里面的内容就评论，霍金还说过有外星文明的存在，有些人’坐井观天’肯定不理解。比如国外有一种叫故障预测与健康管理(PHM)的研究方法，起初就是一种医学概念，后来逐渐应用到了工业领域，我们中医一样有很多颇具价值的理论，为什么不能用于航空发动机健康管理？而且不是中医的全部理论，我们要研究的是’中医诊治’理论，是一种方法论。”
我要为作者点赞，房红征同志没有屈服于舆论的压力，而是坚持了科学的态度，非常令人感动，由此可以看出，我国的科研人员不仅具有很强的探索精神，而且具有坚持真理的勇气。而反观对照网上其他文章和言论，大家似乎对中医有很强的偏见，这明显违背了科学的质疑精神，这种不假思索，不经试验，只凭着自己直觉就去彻底否认一件事情的做法，恰恰反映了国人科学素养的不足，更有甚者，在科学网上，一位名叫李亚平的同志专门对此发表了文章，对此文冷嘲热讽，更是搬出了文革余毒的例子来论证文章的荒谬性。我研究了李亚平先生的博文，发现他是一名坚定的反中医斗士，只不过层次比较低，想必争论起来也不会太有意思。
最后，我只想说，请以科学的态度反中医。
任何一门学科，想从哲学中找到启示和指导都是可取的，中医作为中国古典哲学指导下的一门学科，现代科学想从中吸取经验无可厚非，出发点是积极的。航空研究所的作者没有理解中医五行的本质，跨学科的生搬硬套，以至读来感觉牵强附会。中医五行是中医取类比象思维的典型代表，但取类比象的本质不在象，而在意，言不尽意，圣人立象以近意，如果机械化的追求象反而离意远矣。想从两个复杂的学科之间找到相通点，路还是很远滴。另，本文的笔者立论比较客观，最后观点稍显暧昧。