This study undertakes a systematic logical reconstruction and critical assessment of Íñigo Ongay de Felipe’s arguments regarding the scientific status of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). De Felipe (2021), proceeding from a multi-criterion philosophy of science perspective, proposes that even under the hypothetical assumption that TCM possesses stronger empirical evidence, TCM as an overall theoretical system still lacks scientific status. This conclusion possesses considerable intuitive appeal in contemporary academic contexts and is thus often regarded as self-evident. Rather than taking whether TCM is scientific as its direct object of discussion, this study analyzes and reconstructs the logical structure upon which de Felipe’s aforementioned conclusion depends. This study demonstrates that de Felipe’s attempt to deny TCM’s scientific status on the grounds that TCM is incompatible with the modern scientific paradigm presupposes the very conclusion he purports to establish. Furthermore, de Felipe’s asymmetrical treatment of Western medicine (WM) and TCM exposes his implicit favoritism toward contemporary mainstream science. The deeper problem lies in the fact that the author equates scientificity with conformity to existing scientific theory, falling into a historically narrow perspective that overlooks the fallibility and plurality of scientific knowledge. This study’s conclusion does not constitute a defense of TCM’s scientificity; rather, it advocates that even if the judgment that TCM lacks scientific status is ultimately upheld, the manner in which this judgment is established must still withstand rigorous logical and methodological scrutiny. Clarifying this argumentative path not only contributes to deepening the philosophical rigor of TCM-related discussions, but also carries broader implications for contemporary questions of scientific demarcation and their application in science education.
