分享：點解要用粵文?

【我哋需要一場粵語新文化運動】 (輔仁媒體, 2014 年 3 月 4 日) [Click]

呢一篇短短既文章討論左好多題材，以下係佢主要既幾個論點：

• 因為以下各種原因，我地唔應該歧視白話文（即粵文）：

• 歷史論證: 白話文有好悠久既歷史(五四運動時已有人推行白話文)。我哋宜家以北方官話用為「書面語」，實係基於當時政治發展所影響。

• 語言學論證I: 係語言學既角度（如文法、用詞）分析，係睇唔出白話文同一般大路語文(如英語、德語）有咩分別。

• 實用主義論證:用白話文，可以令粵語用者更準確地表達自己。唔俾人用自己語言去表達自己，唔多唔少係違反自然。
• 語言學論證II:因為語言一般既文法同用字都係約定俗成，所以話白話文「冇自己既字」而棄用白話文既論證唔成立。

(相片來源: learningtree.files.wordpress.com)

其實呢篇文章本來主要係想鼓勵香港發展一場粵語新文化運動，但係對我來講最有趣係佢用語言學既論據黎支持佢個論點。有呢啲咁實在既證據支持，我哋仲有咩原因去話粵語「只係一種dialect, 唔係language」?　

（引述語言學家 Max Weinreich，佢有一句，"a language is a dialect with an army and navy." 粵語冇一個有實力既「代表國」，受到抹平其實唔係好出奇。不過，可以見得語言同俗語/方言既分別係好隨意，好arbitrary。)

除左可以話發展粵文「非常之唔經濟·、好多餘」同埋「有違大中華思想」之外，我實在唔係好諗到有咩其他好少少既原因去反對發展粵文。況且，以上兩個原因都冇咩說服力。

呢篇文章既論證同idea 都幾值得研究，特此分享下。

How Real is Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)?

The question of "what exists?" (or "what is real?") is a recurring hot topic in philosophy. Admittedly, at first glance this question may sound like one of those impractical brain-teasers that philosophy is often accused for producing (consider: how is necessary knowledge knowable only a posteriori possible? I've yet to be convinced of the usefulness of this inquiry). While I do find some philosophical questions to be almost ridiculously detached from practice and common sense, I am generally persuaded that questions concerning existence or reality have important implications for how general research should proceed. 

Here are a short list of questions of this type, which reveal their links with other disciplines: 

• Do moral values exist?
• Do numbers exist?
• Does the four-dimensional space-time (sub. for any other theoretical entities in well-confirmed scientific theories) exist? 
• Does the mind (or the soul) exist? ...

And of course, there is the familiar and perennial "Does God exist?" debate.

In these questions, I'm generally treating "Does x exist?" and "Is x real?" to be asking the same questions, which I don't think is particularly problematic for now. My query this time is about the realism of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM): does chi (氣) exist? Is "internal heat" (熱氣) real? Are there really meridians and collaterals (經脈, 絡脈) running through our body? 

Are meridians real? Why can't we find corresponding physical structures then?
(Photo courtesy from www.healing-with-eft.com)

I was first introduced to this general problem when I came across Richard Dawkins' The Enemies of Reason (2007) documentary series, which challenged superstitious practices that lacked good scientific evidence (Youtube link here). Although the documentary did not look specifically into acupuncture or other practices in TCM, its attack on suspicious "alternative medicine" practices really struck me, since in Hong Kong (where I was raised) I was taught and grown accustomed to the belief that TCM had genuine therapeutic effects and is as legitimate a medical enterprise as orthodox western medicine. I was told that one should only have moderate amount of fries (or generally any deep-fried food) and lychee because it contributes to "internal heat" (熱氣), a phenomenon which manifests itself in acne, bad breath and smellier gas.

Lychee: the fruit that TCM suggests as causally responsible for the phenomenon of "internal heat".
(Photo courtesy: vpwallpapers.com) 

Interestingly, I was brought up with the belief that the globally inferior status of TCM to orthodox western medicine was due to political reasons or poor marketing, rather than skepticism over its ineffectiveness. After watching the documentary and looking at a few papers and articles raising doubts or citing the lack of statistical significance for TCM (Novella, S,,2012; Yeh, L. et al., 2007; Shang, A. I., et al., 2007, Quackwatch, 2011), I felt (at least slightly) swayed to the side of the skeptic. 

Here are some general problems that arise for the realism of TCM: 

(1) If the entities and the structures (e.g. chi, meridians, etc.) postulated by the general theory that is TCM are real, why is it still so difficult to express these structures in the terms available in biology and physiology? Defenders of TCM may argue that this is a problem that isn't specific to TCM, since many branches of science are to some extent incommensurable (Cf. neuroscience and cognitive science face their own challenges in linking neurons and concepts). But what can we say about incommensurability then? 

• (A) Both TCM and the natural sciences are right. Reality, in this case, is perspectival or relative (?)
• (B) TCM is wrong - assuming that there is a single objective reality. 
• (C) TCM is right - and assuming that there is a single objective reality, the natural sciences have gotten something awfully wrong. 
• (D) There is nothing importantly wrong with TCM or the natural sciences. More research work has to be conducted to find out about how the theories translate into each other. 

(2) Although TCM has a long history of development, researchers have found it difficult to come up with enough statistical significance to show that TCM is really effective. While this may be explained away with the holistic nature of TCM and the difficulty in excluding the placebo effect (Yeung), the lack of statistically significant results raises doubts as to whether the entities postulated are really there.   

(3) If TCM is a true theory, should it not be able to pass empirical tests just like any other successful theory? (The "test of time" is often cited as an argument for TCM, but this should not matter; if it is true, then it should pass empirical tests anyhow)

The names may look familiar, but the same names refer to very different things in TCM than in the natural sciences or western medicine. It is also difficult to parse the individual causal relations between organs and energies. (Photo courtesy: drdonfa.ca)

Admittedly, all of this is a gross simplification of the controversy, but the point is that TCM does come with features which attract genuine skepticism about its reality. I acknowledge that a short blog piece can go nowhere to covering a topic of such breadth and controversy, but I think it's still worth highlighting that there is a live debate here. It is humbling to know how things that I thought I was reasonably familiar with can be so easily doubted into non-existence (it hasn't yet, by the way - the jury is still out). 

While we can wait for more empirical studies to come out to confirm (or disconfirm) the effectiveness of TCM, here are a few questions that we can think about: 

• IF TCM is effective but only effective in virtue of the psychological (placebo) effect, is it then established that the entities and structures in TCM do not exist? (... what is the criteria for determining reality?)
• IF TCM is effective in virtue of real causal interactions with its postulated entities (e.g. chi), then is biology and medicine as we know it seriously inadequate? OR... can we just step back and say that there is no single objective description of reality as presented by the natural sciences? (this of course depends on whether principles in TCM are fundamentally contradictory with the natural sciences)
• Should we care about existence at all? Does it only matter whether theories are useful, and not whether they are true? 

Caveats

• The dichotomy between TCM and the natural sciences is grossly simplified here. It would be interesting and illuminating to look at more details between their respective claims. 
• There are different interpretations of TCM principles and structures, even within TCM itself. This may change the debate if particular interpretations are fully compatible with natural science. 
• The references are terrible here, since they aren't supposed to be proper academic references. But they do provide interesting further reading if you follow the links. 

Paradigm Shift

If I hadn't been organising the layout of my blog today, I probably wouldn't have come to re-read and ponder upon the entries that I have written some years ago. Although it wasn't entirely unexpected, I was initially rather shocked by some of the things that I have written before, which reflected the views that I had held (see here): 

(1) I argued that Hong Kong's functional constituencies serve a function that is comparable to the UK House of Lords, viz. supplying expertise to a piece of legislation. 

(2) By arguing against a radical reform of Hong Kong's political system, I was inclining towards the general pro-establishment view that we shouldn't be dogmatically rushing into universal suffrage.

(3) I clearly thought political stability was more important than securing universal suffrage as a political goal, as I thought the sort of political instability generated by legislative delays would ultimately damage Hong Kong's economy.

No doubt my beliefs today are different, if not completely contradicting my old views:

Functional constituencies, instead of facilitating a business environment that is favourable to a laissez-faire economy, seem more to me as obstacles hindering the implementation of fair welfare measures. Alternatively,  functional constituencies appear to me as "pockets of power" responsible for the phenomena indicative of market failure, economic inequality and alleged government-business collusions. Instead of seeing universal suffrage as a radical constitutional overhaul that we should remain sceptical about, I now see it as a necessary political solution to the economic, social and welfare woes now observed in Hong Kong. I no longer see "pleasing Beijing" even as a purely realpolitik policy to secure economic benefits and political stability for Hong Kong.

This sort of change in perspective, or a paradigm shift (though I'm not sure Thomas Kuhn would approve my use of the phrase) may have been triggered by the emergence of new evidence, more rigorous contemplation , or simply as a result of some remarkable personal experience.

If I were asked to give a reason for my "paradigm shift", I would say that the new events and evidence that has arisen require me to give a better explanation, and accordingly new claims and judgments (along with it a whole new paradigm) come along with these explanations. This reason for my "paradigm shift" is only acceptable on the condition that my old views had been based on reason; had it been simply based on personal taste, I would be accused of being irrational and inconsistent. In this case, maybe I shouldn't have been so shocked after all.  

On Democracy in Hong Kong

Hong Kong is one unique place where you can find such a high degree of economic freedom at the same where a commonman does not possess the political right to vote for the Head of Government. Both the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation has ranked Hong Kong as the world’s freest economy for a consecutive 15 years, and on the accounts of GDP per capita Hong Kong is certainly one of the most prosperous and well-developed cities in the world. Yet, does it make any sense that people should enjoy economic prosperity and freedom while being in possession of no genuine political rights?

Firstly, it is probably a good idea to clarify to what extent residents of Hong Kong are deprived of their political rights. Hong Kong’s unicameral legislature, the Legislative Council, is made up of 30 elected members and 30 “functional constituencies” (“elected” by trade and labour unions in Hong Kong). Hong Kong’s Head of Government, the Chief Executive (who is Donald Tsang atm), is elected by a group of electors of about 400 people of which the government in China grasps many by the balls.

Obviously, compared to other notable democracies like the USA and the UK, Hong Kong residents have little influence in politics: Americans get to vote for their Presidents once every four years, on top of Congressional elections which happen once every two years; Britons cast a vote once every four to five years (depending on when the incumbent Prime Minister wishes to call general election) for a MP (Member of Parliament) belonging to a party, and the leader of the party holding 50% of the seats in the House of Commons becomes the Prime Minister.

However, it is far from ideal to use (according to many leading “Democrats” in HK) the USA or the UK model in its exact form for Hong Kong. The reason for USA’s frequent elections is because of the Founding Fathers’ intent to create a system of checks and balances in a federal system (where individual states pool their sovereignty to the federal government instead of a central government giving power to local governments), so that no alliance of interests could take control of the whole system of government in a country so diverse and large. As a region where efficiency is held in such high priority, greater checks and balances would only serve to magnify the legislative inefficiencies of the current system. Being small and having a relatively homogeneous society, what Hong Kong needs is a flexible government, rather than one which has to work with its hands tied together. Just see how Hong Kong people would react if it takes two decades to pass healthcare reform.

In my opinion, UK’s system of government is more appropriate for Hong Kong’s application, but similarly to U.S.’s system, it is neither perfect nor exactly the best fit for Hong Kong. UK has a bicameral legislature, which means that it has two separate Houses in Parliament. Like Hong Kong, not all of the UK Parliament is elected; the Upper chamber, the House of Lords, is made up of appointees called Peers/Lords, and as a collective the House of Lords has the legislative power to delay bills up to 12 months. Hong Kong’s “functional constituencies” can be pretty much seen in the same light. Even though “functional constituencies” are not elected, they have a function of providing expertise to a piece of law, and ensure that some laws are not passed merely to win the votes of the public. Policies like tax hikes, building airports and laying down railway tracks are often unpopular measures which have to be pushed forward for the benefit of all. As Plato argued, a ship can only sail properly when it is guided by a captain, and not by its whole crew. Democracy shouldn’t be blindly pursued as a social objective; rather, it should be considered as a means to improve the welfare of society.

I am not arguing that Hong Kong has the perfect political system, or that it is sufficiently democratic. I agree that “functional constituencies”, despite their contributions, need to be reformed and reduced in power; the electors voting for the Chief Executive need to be increased in both numbers and diversity, and people should be allowed more say in determining who are the electors. Lastly, the entire system should be made more accountable and democratic through devices like referendums and focus groups.

It must also be understood that Hong Kong isn’t as democratic as many liberals would like it to be because of its relationship with the PRC (People’s Republic of China). Hong Kong’s current position as an economic powerhouse and an international financial centre is both being safeguarded and upheld by the PRC’s own international economic presence. Whilst every effort should be made to resist conceding on Hong Kong’s present political freedom, pushing the boundaries too far by demanding radical constitutional reforms will only result in severe and lasting destruction to Hong Kong’s present economic success. Laissez-faire and huge financial transactions don’t mean jackshit when you are under unstable politics. Politicians/political activists should be wise enough to realise this.