First, I think Sam is aware that the “Needham Question” was being asked decades before Needham and decades after – by Chinese who hadn’t necessarily heard of Needham and his incredible undertaking. This dates back at LEAST to the 1870s or so – partly in response to Japan’s rapid adoption of Western science and technology and consequent flow of Chinese students to Japan. It’s behind a lot of May Fourth writing and much subsequent scholarship and commentary. Don’t get me wrong – I have great admiration for Needham – but to call it the “Needham Question” seems to be an inappropriate attribution.
Second, I’d opine as Jonathan Dresner does that the Taoist philosophers are not anti-science. In Taoism there is arguably a greater concern with the observation of wholes and the apprehension of the workings of systems rather than atomisation and the analysis of constituent parts. In many cases the latter approaches toward apprehension of phenomena have yielded useful conclusions – but in many cases the former is what is required and is often lacking.
This isn’t an indictment of science per se – it’s a failure to understand the 1) appropriate consideration of context and complexity of interactions – and 2) an even more shocking failure to put observation before analysis. That’s not science at fault – that’s just the failings of some (okay, maybe a lot) of the practitioners.
Why does this tend to occur? For one, very few humans accept “wait and see” as an acceptable answer. They want proof of work done and will even go so far as to accept copied or flawed work as preferable to the insights (sometimes not) obtained by “wait and see.” For another thing, complex phenomena often require insights that reach across disciplines and economic classes – very few people even have the patience to deal with those outside their appointed sphere. Third, findings are often bound up with political agendas on the disposition of either rights or property. Far from scientists of various stamps adhering to the “rigors of scientific analysis” to determine a truth or outcome, you actually have the phenomenon where some of these people announce their agendas ahead of time and (SURPRISE!) have findings that confirm their pre-existing agendas. This last especially is a problem that afflicts ANYTHING having to do with the environmental sciences for the last 50 years and much trendy economic thought.
Note to Dresner – you make it sound as if Graeco-Roman science and philosophy somehow bizarrely died completely and withered away, but this made up a large portion of the Islamic library that we “re-“inherited – not Indian and Chinese scholarship. Otherwise we would not talk about “the Socratic method,” refer to Euclidean geometry and Zeno’s Paradox, or refer to a “Hippocratic Oath,” among many other things. Historical revisionism in the cause of advancing racial supremacy agendas is distasteful. The Indians in particular have adopted what in a bygone age was known as “the Russian joke” (and even sometimes admit in more candid moments that their ethnic group has done so): ‘Ah, yes, the atom bomb, it was inwented by Iwan the Terrible and stolen by greedy Western imperialists.’ I’ve heard the same asserted about Microsoft Windows, Java, Silicon Valley, the radio, and Leonardo daVinci – seriously – to date.

LikeLike

Actually, the reason modern science developed in the West is because the West practised capitalism.
In a capitalist society, there’s economic incentive to adopt new technologies which increase productivity. When one new technology is adopted after another, there is economic incentive to study the principles which underlie technologies.
People imagine that science is something which mysteriously develops. But they forget that scientific work is done by individual men, who respond to incentives. For instance, the Soviet Union, despite having some of the best-trained scientists in the world, nevertheless failed to make meaningful contribution to modern science. American high-school and college science education is poor, yet it remains the centre of scientific research.
People say that Chinese traditional disciplines are more holistic than Western traditional disciplines. This is sometimes true. But essentially, traditional Western disciplines are very similar to traditional Chinese disciplines. (This is obvious when you compare, for instance, Western astrology and divination with Chinese astrology and divination, Western theology with Confucian study of Classics, traditional Western medicine with traditional Chinese medicine, Western alchemy with Chinese alchemy, etc.)
Modern science is a total break from traditional disciplines. It’s not rooted in Greek sciences or Roman sciences. The methodology is entirely different. (For instance, Greek science is based on techniques like categorisation, analogy, deduction, etc., just like traditional Chinese disciplines, and even traditional Indian and Islamic disciplines. Modern science is based on induction and testing of hypotheses.)

LikeLike

Zoomzan – “In a capitalist society, there’s economic incentive to adopt new technologies which increase productivity.”
See the mid-1950s British comedy “The Man in the White Suit,” (Alec Guinness) for a dramatic example of how roles and perception ensure that innovation does not accrue to economic incentive universally.
Also missing from Zoomzan’s statement is any consideration of the time horizon, or of issues involving shared resources.
I think it might be far more accurate to say, therefore, that “in a capitalist society, there is incentive to adopt new technologies that increase short-term perceived profit” – with an acknowledgement that this adoption sometimes occurs at the expense of long-term profit, stewardship of shared resources, and even productivity.
Zoomzan continues by saying that “people forget that scientific work is done by individual men, who respond to incentives,” and then cites the (former) Soviet Union as a counter-example and the US as exemplar – the implication being that said incentives are economic. Incentives aren’t always economic (this is one of the conventional fallacies of what passes today for modern Western economic thought). Too, I think with some fairly superficial probing you could cite numerous examples of Soviet contributions to modern science (first satellite launch springs to mind, but there are probably better examples). Finally, it is the production of technologies in addition to corporate, national and individual applications of the profit motive that paradoxically threatens the US will cease being the “centre of scientific research” well within our lifetimes.
I think Zoomzan said something very interesting in comparing “Western traditional” with “Chinese traditional” disciplines. I’d argue that there may be cases where Zoomzan’s assertion of similarity has merit. However, I’d also argue (on theology) that the West has a comparatively “weak” exegetical tradition in comparison with Confucianism and a number of Middle Eastern and Asian religious traditions, and the “weakness” of this exegetical tradition extends to common practice. As for comparisons of traditional Western medicine with traditional Chinese medicine, I am initially disposed to reject a claim of similarity but given that Western medicine has evolved rather dramatically over the last 2000 years or so, perhaps Zoomzan could elucidate what is meant by “traditional Western medicine” (is this discussing medicine in the 1500s? the early 1800s? the 1900s? and are these somehow ‘living’ medical traditions as is TCM? or is this some kind of homeopathy?)
As for the claim that “modern science is a total break from traditional disciplines… not rooted in Greek sciences or Roman sciences…” this statement is ridiculously fallacious twice over and provably wrong. Induction was/is also a tool used in “traditional disciplines” and in Chinese philosophy. Conversely, Sam is right to assert that the tools of “categorisation, analogy, deduction, etc.” are significant in modern science. As for the testing of hypotheses I think Zoomzan can find the positing of hypotheses in Greek philosophy (the word is in fact of Greek origin). If Zoomzan is referring to the mathematical testing of hypotheses, this postdates many developments in modern science, including the development of the calculus – statistics and its applications have primarily emerged between the 19th century and the present – roughly coeval with rather than preceding most (other) modern science.
I’d also point out that although hypothesis testing is a useful tool, it offers very little protection against bad experimental formulation, inappropriate choice of experimental design, bad data gathering, bad data interpretation, and misinterpretation of analysis results. Protection against these usually requires something usually vaguely described as (somewhat holistic-sounding) “system knowledge” or the willingness and resources to acquire it, a willingness to actually observe, as well as the relevant statistical background – otherwise hypothesis testing can (and in fact often does) amount to GIGO. A great deal of experimental work is performed and interpreted by people who lack all three of these prerequisites, and a good deal of the remainder is performed and interpreted by engineers, social scientists and statisticians who lack the first two prerequisites. GIGO.

LikeLike

Concerning TCM and Western Medicine, I refer to the Greek Medicine of the four elements, such as in Hippocrates, Galen, Culpeper, Paracelsus, etc.
While it is true that Greek science does incorporate observation and induction, very few concepts in modern science develop organically from Greek science.
On the contrary, Greek science was very much compatible with traditional disciplines in China and other parts of the world. For instance, the theory of the four humours. Most forms of traditional medicine are variations on this theme (such as the three qualities in Indian medicine, the five phases in Chinese medicine, etc.) Actually, you would be astonished at their similarities, in the utmost details, such as pulse diagnosis, etc.
Actually, the original term for these pre-modern disciplines is natural philosophy. Which should shed some light their nature…but try wikipedia articles on the following terms: macrocosm, world soul, neo-platonism, Paracelsus…And then read “The Garden of Cyrus,” which is the best primary-source introduction to Renaissance thoughts (in my foolish opinion).
You see, until the end of the Renaissance – religion, spirituality, mysticism, science, and philosophy had no clear division. Much of what passes as Renaissance science was in fact mysticism and occultism. The same in the China, as you can observe from the number-mysticism of Shaoyong.
Yes, there are some connection between ancient disciplines and modern science – but this is expected, since people did not immediately switch from one to the other. Consider the fact that Newton was an enthusiastic alchemist. Actually, for most major fields of modern science, there were ancient equivalents – astrology/astronomy, numerology/mathematics, alchemy/chemistry, traditional medicine/modern medicine, etc.
Whether you believe in ancient disciplines is one thing, but hardly anyone would doubt that astrology forms a separate system from modern astronomy, and that modern astronomy is properly considered a complete break from astrology.
And then chemistry, of course, is a complete break from alchemy. There is even an exact date to which you can pinpoint the birth of modern chemistry – “The Sceptical Chymist” by Robert Boyle.
While modern chemistry did profit from ancient alchemical experiments, their underpinnings were entirely different. For instance, modern chemistry teaches the theory of atoms. Alchemy teaches Aristotelian qualities and Platonic mysticism. Chemistry is entirely secular. Alchemy is spiritual, mystical, and religious.
To explain my position on this would require a lot of background, so I won’t go further. If you want, I can recommend some books thereon…
Exegesis
Western theology had as comprehensive a system of exegesis as any other religious traditions. Actually, the philosophical underpinnings of Western theology and Confucian exegesis are the same – namely that some books are qualitatively different from others, being sacred. And that the exhaustive study of these books produce knowledge.
Concerning economic incentives – again, to explain my position would take too much time.
Suffice it to say, that I’m speaking from the perspective of Austrian economics, not Marxism, as Justsomeguy has suggested.
To have fruitful conversations on these things, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the workings of socialism and capitalism, of the free-market and bureaucracies, etc. I would recommend any book by Mises, but most of all his “Bureaucracy.”

LikeLike

Justsomeguy,
You’re misunderstanding my post. I was mainly responding to Comment’s view that Greek science organically developed into modern science.
I didn’t list my arguments for capitalism as the necessary condition for modern science. It would take too long. I would, however, recommend a general survey of Austrian economics.

LikeLike

Justsomeguy,
Haha, so it seems that more people know about the Austrian school than I have thought.
Sometimes, simpler is better, though. The Austrian explains the real world far better than other schools, for my untutored mind, at least.

LikeLike

Zoomzan claims, “For instance, the Soviet Union, despite having some of the best-trained scientists in the world, nevertheless failed to make meaningful contribution to modern science.”
This is pure, unadulterated bullshit and deserves to be smacked out of the ballpark.
Meaningful Soviet Contributions to Modern Science – a short, very incomplete list
Mathematics –
Andrey Nikolayevich Kolmogorov – mathematics, probability, statistics, harmonic theory. Concepts still used today in statistics and industrial engineering.
S. L. Sobolev – mathematician – made essential contributions to theoretical mathematics and numerical methods.
Important later Soviet period mathematicians include L.M. Gerfand, A. Ia. Khinchin, S.N. Bernshtein, N.N. Bogoliubov, L.V. Kantorovich, L.S. Pontriagin, L.R. Shafarevich, and I. M. Vinogradov.
Aerospace Engineering –
Sergei Korolov (1907-1966) – rocket designer, headed the Soviet space program, including the Sputnik and Vostok programs, which saw the world’s first satellite launched, and the first man in orbit.
Biomedicine-
Vladimir Petrovich Demikhov (1916-1998) – pioneer in organ transplants in animals – developed the first artificial heart in 1937, performed the first world’s first heart-lung transplant in 1946, and the first liver transplant in 1948.
Physics-
Sakharov (later famous for his protests against violations of civil rights), Tamm suggested the Tokamak toroidal model for controlled fusion, which was widely accepted internationally as a basis for continuing experimentation.
N. G. Basov and A. M. Prokhorov, who together with the American physicist C. H. Townes, received the Nobel Prize for research leading to the development of lasers and masers in 1964.
Chemistry
P. A. Cherenkov began his work under the Supervision of S. I. Vavilov on the action of radiation on liquids. This led to his discovery of the Cherenkov effect, for which in 1958 he received the Nobel Prize (along With I. M. Frank and Tamm).

LikeLike

Commment,
Democritus’s atomic theory is metaphysics, not natural science. In fact, it parallels the Indian Vaisesika school of atomism.
You see, in India, China, and the West, the original philosophers were also poets and mystics, such as Parmenides and Empedocles.(A good light reading is Peter Kingsley’s “In the Dark Places of Wisdom.”)
Later, systematic philosophy developed. In both the West and India, but especially India, systematic philosophy was an attempt to explain all worldly and unworldly phenomena. The practitioner first divides all phenomena into many categories. Thereafter, he describes the relations amongst the categories.
This is quite clear if you study the six schools of Indian philosophy, as well as Buddhist philosophy. Mediaeval Chinese philosophy and Greek and Roman philosophies are similar, but less systematic.
Russian contribution to science
Given the size of Russia, some scientific output should result, even in the worst of circumstances. Some scientific output also came from Maoist China.
Renaissance science
The old textbooks like to trace modern science back into the Renaissance, and then further back into Greek and Roman philosophies. They do this by picking out what fit, but discarding what didn’t.
The fact is, Greeks and Romans were like any other ancient people. They believed in oracles, prophecies, divination, magic, etc. In fact, the most prominent philosophers were the Neo-Platonists, whose ideas almost became the state religion of Rome. The Neo-Platons, of course, were very mystical and spiritual. Their ideas were quite different from both modern religion and modern science.
In the Renaissance, people discarded Aristotle in favour of Plato. Most educated men were Platonists. And most of what they studied, they studied in Platonist framework. Therefore, sometimes people refer to the Neo-Platonist science.
To get a good grasp of these things, it’s not enough to rely on bits of information pulled from one place or another. It’s important to read the primary sources, so to know how people back then actually thought about things.
In any case, my conclusions are based on my own research. You may believe whatever you like.

LikeLike

How did Democritus develop his theory of the atom? Basically by sitting around and thinking about it. That is metaphysics, not physics. Later on, a particle similar to what Democritus described was discovered through chemistry, so they decided to give it the same name. That doesn’t mean that the modern atom is in any way related to Democritus’s atom. Indeed, they are very much not related. “Atom” means “something that can’t be divided any further” and guess what we’ve done with the atom 😉
Likewise, compare the definition of “matter” in a physics textbook and Plato’s definition of matter. Totally different concepts.
The list goes on and on. Now, it just so happens that during the Renaissance and subsequent Enlightenment many thinkers admired the Greeks so they tended to name their discoveries to bring them in line with Greek thought, but think of the names more as homages as opposed to an actual chain of intellectual development.

LikeLike

Another demonstration of the victory of advocacy over accuracy. Zoomzan and justsomeguy are making claims that are ahistorical and non-factual (Zoomzan’s claims about the Renaissance and the lack of scientific contributions from the Soviet Union ought to send up a great big warning flag about the validity of any of the other claims he makes). In addition they’ve shown repeatedly they’re more interested in ‘reductio ad absurdum’ argumentation than considering the merits of the points I’ve raised. Furthermore in their responses they have demonstrated that they haven’t understood what I’ve written. Reading for content is clearly a lost art here.
For example, I said “it is extremely unlikely (Zoomzan) could have read writings by either Democritus or Leucippus (or indeed, anyone else early Greek atomic concepts might have been attributed to…)” and Zoomzan interprets this as a challenge to his Greek and Latin (“I do read Greek and Roman primary sources”). This is what is known as jumping to conclusions -something Zoomzan has done a great deal of. Think about it.
In another example, I said, “…what is ascribed to the ancient Greeks consequently dovetails in several critical ways with initial understandings of the recognized atomic particle…” Justsomeguy then replies, “That doesn’t mean that the modern atom is in any way related to Democritus’s atom… ‘Atom’ means “something that can’t be divided any further” and guess what we’ve done with the atom ;)” In my statement am I discussing “the modern atom?” No, I was discussing “initial understandings of the recognized atomic particle” (that’s the direct quote) – think John Dalton – not what those initial understandings have evolved into over the last two centuries courtesy of Rutherford and others. But, justsomeguy wanted to score points so he 1) misrepresented my statement, and 2) made use of that misrepresentation to try and poke fun. Either that or like Zoomzan he can’t read for content to save his life, or perhaps he actually believes that the apprehension of “the modern atom” sprang fullblown from one extremely overworked and exceptionally brilliant scientist all at once.
I won’t point out any further just how wrong these guys are, but between their half-understanding of the history of Western science (they’ve seen some parts, but they can’t see the forest for the trees – and furthermore are making truly inaccurate generalizations from what they have seen), and their demonstrated inability or unwillingness to understand what I’ve actually said, this discussion is pretty much FUBAR.
Sam, I wish you worked harder at moderating your blog. Not only was this argument just another demonstration of advocacy trumping accuracy, but of boorishness repeatedly trumping courtesy – and the opportunity to address the nominal topic more directly was pretty much blown because of it.

LikeLike

As you have probably noticed, I generally take a Taoist position on comment moderation: do nothing; or, do little. There have been exceptions to this, of course: nationalist claims tend to get my goat (I need to learn to let go…) I am happy that you all come here and discuss these issues and I learn from the exchange. Thanks.

LikeLike

Zoomzan and justsomeguy are adherents of “greater fart” academia.
Greater Fart Academia – A Cautionary Anal-ogy
Academia has large numbers of people who are assholes. These assholes spend their time blowing farts. Some are louder, some are quieter. They all smell foul. If anyone should try to bring a light into the room, the assholes will fart so as to try to extinguish the flame. If someone should try to counter the smell with deodorant or a little perfume, these assholes will expel even more farts to assert their dominance. They fight among themselves, farting ever more loudly and nastily in the conviction that the loudest and smelliest fart will be victorious – and in modern academia, this is often the case.
Like most people, I’ve got better things to do than to waste my energy and time dealing with assholes who aspire to nothing more than to wallow in the miasma of their own farts.

LikeLike

Huzzah!
Anti-intellectualism for some, and little flags for others.
Vote Kang!

LikeLike

bury confucius
confucius: dead for 2000 years.
china: dead culture.
century of shame
sick man of asia.

LikeLike