Is there any science in ancient China?
However, since the 199s, whether there was science in ancient China has become more and more a problem ── because many scholars strongly advocated that there was science in ancient China. Therefore, the "yes" and "no" factions argue for their own advantages, which has expanded the depth and breadth of thinking on this issue.
After the publication of Tianxue Zhenyuan in the early 199s, it was gradually regarded as a useful weapon by the "Wu" school, and it was waved to the "You" school from time to time ── because this book used a lot of historical materials and analysis to prove that there was no astronomy in the modern sense in ancient China, which was considered to objectively provide evidence for the "Wu" school from a discipline, and also provided new argumentation ideas.
On the other hand, the argument of the "You" school "has many brilliant ideas":
For example, first change the definition of science, define science as something that existed in ancient China (at least they think it existed), and then assert that there was science in ancient China. Everyone knows that as long as it is properly defined, the conclusion can of course have whatever it wants, but it has actually changed the topic and the debate is meaningless.
For another example, because the "Nothing" school usually thinks that the source of modern science is in ancient Greece, the "You" school tries to prove that there is no science in ancient western countries, for example, there is no source of science in ancient Greece, so either ancient China and the west are half as bad as each other, and everyone has no science; Or allow the use of extremely broad definitions-so that everyone has science.
The definition of science that people who are willing to adopt in China are often infinitely broad. For example, it sounds reasonable to define "scientific spirit" as simple "seeking truth from facts", but this "scientific spirit" has certainly existed in all nationalities and civilizations in the world for tens of thousands of years-even in gorillas, and this "scientific spirit" can also exist. If it is proved that China had such a "scientific spirit" in ancient times, how much glory can it add to us? Therefore, adopting such a broad and boundless definition can only vulgarize the concept of "science", but it is difficult to lead to meaningful results.
Some people have asked: If there was a source of science in ancient Greece, how can it be explained that until Galileo's time, scientific discoveries were basically slow, at least not in the form of rapid growth or exponential growth, but experienced a long Middle Ages? This question seems to be very eloquent, and it seems that a stick can smother each other. In fact, it is just an empty trick that has no effect. There is an idiom in China, "Dead wood meets spring" ── a dead tree that looks dead in the long winter, grows with new green every spring, and the shade is covered in midsummer. How can you deny that it is still the original tree just because it does not appear new green in the winter? The development and evolution of things need external conditions. In the Middle Ages, Europe suffered great changes, and ancient Greek science lost the conditions for its continued development. It was not until after the Renaissance that it was dead. Another example is that the source of the Yangtze River is in the west, but it takes a long way to flow into the sea from the east. How can you ask it to enter the sea as soon as it comes down?
It is of obvious practical significance to debate whether there is science in ancient China.
From the standpoint of some "You" people, on the one hand, it proves that science in ancient China can "improve national self-confidence"-many of them always intentionally or unintentionally link academic research with non-academic factors such as patriotism, trying to make themselves in a favorable position in the debate. On the other hand, proving that China had science in ancient times can also expand their research fields or make some of their activities more academic. Because many of them have eternal enthusiasm for the Zhouyi, Yin and Yang, Five Elements, Eight Diagrams, astrology, alchemy and geomantic omen, they are eager to vindicate these "oriental wisdom" and let these things enter the science hall. They believe that "thirty years in Hedong, thirty years in Hexi" and the like "the wind and water have turned around"-they believe that the era when Europe and the United States led the coquettish in science and technology will soon pass, and "it's China's turn". And what does China rely on to lead coquettish after "China's turn"? They think it depends on the Zhouyi, Yin and Yang, Five Elements, Eight Diagrams, astrology, alchemy and geomantic omen. Therefore, they hope that it will be easier to "correct the name" of these magic methods by demonstrating that China had science in ancient times.
finally, let's go back to the Zhouyi. The Zhouyi system was originally a digital mysticism system which was continuously constructed by China scholars. Of course, there are some ancient people's philosophical views, ethical views and even natural views in this system, which did have a great influence in ancient China, but it has nothing to do with science in the modern sense. This is an obvious thing, just as Flowers Collection and The West Chamber have nothing to do with modern science.
Some people always like to talk about the relationship between Zhouyi and binary mathematics, taking it as an important evidence that Zhouyi is related to science, while others try to prove that binary mathematics was not inspired by Zhouyi. In my opinion, these arguments are of little significance. As an ancient digital mysticism system, The Book of Changes has something in line with the binary system, which does not make it have the value of "science" or even make it associated with science. Just as people find curves that conform to certain mathematical laws on the shell of Nautilus (there are many examples in nature), it does not mean that Nautilus is "scientific", let alone that those mathematical knowledge was inspired by Nautilus.
As for why China's science is backward (in fact, it may never be advanced, but technology was advanced), it can't be attributed to one or two ancient books-in fact, no one has done so. I think Richard Baum of the University of California in the United States has some reference value. He thinks that there are five factors in culture that cause China's "scientific lag": first, the formalism of epistemology in traditional philosophy; Second, the narrow empiricism in methodology in traditional philosophy; Third, the dogmatic scientism prevailing in modern China; Fourth, feudal bureaucracy in political culture; Five, the compulsory ethics in behavior style. His theory does not only focus on ancient times, which is his more brilliant place. On the surface, "dogmatic scientism" has lifted science to the supreme position (such practices as stubbornly attaching Zhouyi to science are affected by this), but in fact it is harmful to science.