The (Non)Development of Science in China
History
| April 10, 2008
| Tim
Rodney Stark, explaining, in his history of he middle ages, For the Glory of God (p. 150-151) why many scholars believe science never arose in China -- despite their intellectuals having the precise outlook described today, in the West, as "enlightened" (italics in original, my underline added):
Only thee years before his coauthor Alfred North Whitehead proposed that Christianity provided the psychological basis for the pursuit of science, Bertrand Russell found the lack of Chinese science rather baffling. From the perspective of this militant atheism, China should have had science long before Europe. As he explained "Although Chinese civilization has hitherto been deficient in science, it never contained anything hostile to science, and therefore the spread of scientific knowledge encounters no such obstacles as the Church put in its way in Europe."
But despite Russell's confidence that since it was not afflicted the Church, China would soon far surpass Western science, he failed to see that it was precisely religious obstacles that had prevented Chinese science. Although through the centuries the common people of China have worshiped Gods, each of a small scope and often rather lacking in character, the intellectuals have prided themselves on following "Godless" religions, wherein the supernatural is conceived of as an essence for principle governing life, but which is impersonal, remote, and definitely not a being. The Tao is an example of an essence; yin and yang represent a principle. Just as small Gods do not create a universe, neither do impersonal essences or principles -- indeed, they seem unable to do anything. Thus as conceived by Chinese philosophers, the universe simply is and always was. There is no reason to suppose that it functions according to rational laws, or that it could be comprehended in physical rather than mystical terms. Consequently, though the millenia Chinese intellectuals pursued "enlightenment," not explanations.
This is precisely the conclusion reached by Marxist historian Joseph Needham, who devoted most of this career and many volumes to the history of Chinese technology. Having exhausted attempts to discover a materialist explanation, Needham concluded that that failure of the Chinese to develop science was due to their religion, to the inability of Chinese intellectual to believe in the existence of laws of nature, because "the conception of a divine celestial lawgiver imposing ordinances on non-human Nature never developed." Needham continued: "It was not that there was no order in Nature for the Chinese, but rather that is was not an order ordained by a rational personal being, and hence there was no conviction that rational personal beings would be able to spell out in their lesser earthly languages the divine code of laws which he had decreed aforetime. The Taoists, indeed would have scorned such an idea as being too naive for the subtlety and complexity of the universe as they intuited it." Exactly.
Several years ago my friend Graeme Lang dismissed the notion that the influence of Confucianism and Taoism on Chinese intellectuals was the reason that science failed to develop in China; his grounds were that all culture is flexible, and that "if scholars in China had wanted to do science, philosophy alone would not have been a serious impediment." Perhaps. But Lang missed the more basic question: why didn't Chinese scholars want to do science? And, with Whitehead and Needham (and many others), I agree that it didn't occur to the Chinese that science was possible. Fundamental theological and philosophical assumptions determine whether anyone will attempt to do science.
Interestingly enough, the conviction that "the universe is and always was" was precisely the dominant worldview among scientists around the dawn of the 20th century; and led Einstein to almost reject the theory of relativity because it implied the universe, horrifyingly, had a beginning. Thankfully, the result could be experimentally verified (and there were a few dissenters who thought the idea made sense and pursued it). If it weren't for those tools and dissenters, the prevailing philosophy of those in the intellectual and academic community would have rejected the idea.
That begs, of course, the question of how the tools and processes developed. And that brings us back, again, to the early middle ages of Christian Europe.
This seems a little questionable. Early societies seem awash in personal gods of various kinds, no?
I remember reading about how ancient Egypt had some decent mathematicians, but they handed down their knowledge as a pronouncement "do it this way, you will see that it is so." (pardon the lack of reference here. I'm hurrying)
The Greeks, on the other hand, were the first to develop proofs, possibly because they had a democracy.
I find the notion that some form of democracy either present or in a nation's history, was a more likely contributor to the rise of science in the west. The ability to question authority and old doctrines is dangerous and some advancements may require the proper political environment.
Also, China did seem to have systemitized medicine. What they didn't develop is reductionism.
Perhaps that could be linked to a lack of clear definitions? China seemed to view itself as a sort of central radiating influence and Sun Yat Sen was supposedly one of the first proponents of modern Chinese nationalism. Eastern beliefs seem to focus on a lack of individual distinctions. Some yin in yang, lack of individualization, undefined borders. No formal logic, Unlike even some pagan Greek cultures. Even Draco had a public, written law code. If I had to guess, I'd point to that imprecision sooner than I'd point to the specific lack of a personal God.
But I could be wrong.
I suppose I can see where lack of a personal god might lead to lack of law.
Early societies seem awash in personal gods of various kinds, no?
Not in my understanding. Based on several things I've stumbled across, I'm a believer in "original monotheism" -- that when you look back far enough in most cultures, you find a Judaism-like belief in an original nameless single good God ruling over a hierarchy of spiritual entities, and sometimes a system of animal sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. (The Chinese, for example.)
It seems to me that the "god-evolution" idea was created post-Darwinism to fit spiritual anthropology into a Darwinian mold. When all you hold is a hammer, there's this tendency to try tot treat all the world as a nail.
I remember reading about how ancient Egypt had some decent mathematicians...
Could be. I have heard "Pythagoras'" theorem was supposedly found in the city of Ur.
I suppose I can see where lack of a personal god might lead to lack of law.
I don't think anyone's arguing non-theism led to a lack of law. Where-ever human beings want power (and/or stability) you find a desire for law. There's just no particular reason to believe the universe as a whole would be governed by something similar.
I don't think anyone's arguing non-theism led to a lack of law. Where-ever human beings want power (and/or stability) you find a desire for law. There's just no particular reason to believe the universe as a whole would be governed by something similar.
I was imprecise about what I meant by law, sorry. I meant rule of law (as opposed to rule by law.)
I can understand how a reduction in power distance might help nurture a culture that questions authority based on set rules, say.
But Taoists were certainly interested in the patterns which governed nature. I don't see any belief, as the OP article asserts, that they felt impotent in understanding these patterns. The I Ching seems a testament to the Chinese belief that patterns were understandable.
The Tao Te Ching seems at least a possible testament to the notion that the universe had a beginning. (And there was at least one Taoist emperor, so the beliefs were at least sometimes honored by the elite.) Did this result in science temporarily, with science later vanishing as other ideas gained prominence? Is Taoism part of what you refer to as 'an original monotheism?'
Thus as conceived by Chinese philosophers, the universe simply is and always was
Even among Taoists? By 'Chinese Philosophers' does he mean Confucians or Mandarins?
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
....
Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great.
...
The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.
Tao Te Ching
Certainly, you seem to have a valid point, when quoting the document. But you have to understand how a document itself is understood by those who looked to it, or applied it.
For example, here's a Taoist exposition on cosmology:
Taoism teaches that nature itself is cyclical: there is no starting point, and no ending point. It's just like a circle. This is what creates the paradox in logic: you can answer question after question until you find yourself back to your original question. That's because you've gone around the circle and found yourself back to the beginning.
On the other hand, articles like this or this, talk about a beginning. But they also hint at reversing the process: when you have cycles, things can appear from a beginning, expand, and go back into the primordial first form.
The Book of Change also makes use of the absolute universal law of periodicity that is, the ebb and flow of nature. This principle is an observed fact in daily life through the common occurrence of night and day, life and death, and sleep and waking. This law is referred to in the I-Ching as the law of cycles and the laws of growth and decay. All things must grow and decay, the change of cycles cannot be avoided. The rise and fall of civilizations, people, worlds, and universes is a part of this cycle. [source]
That seems to mesh with what I vaguely remember learning about Taoism.
The I-Ching as it is called today is usually known as the Chou I. The name Chou I refers to the Book of Change when it was studied in the Chou dynasty. Chou means universality, thus the book deals with ultimate reality that is infinite and eternal from which our phenomenal world manifests.... Another meaning associated with Chou is universal cycle referring to the eternal cycle of changes of a universe with no beginning or end.
Even so, let's just assume that Stark's (and thus my) view on this was in error. You still have to read the rest of the Tao Te Ching, including sentences like these:
Empty yourself of everything.
Let the mind become still.
The ten thousand things rise and fall while the Self watches their return.
They grow and flourish and then return to the source.
Returning to the source is stillness, which is the way of nature.
The passage then goes on to speak of how nature is unchanging -- but it doesn't appear the author is saying that there are laws of nature which are unchanging, more that the cycle of things arising and returning to the Tao is unchanging.
And indeed, emptying your mind is hardly a prelude to science -- though it is the highest goal of many religious trends which are arising around us.
The author at taoism.net tells us Taoism and logic are at odds:
But logic thrives on linearality. Everything must have a starting point and a distinct ending point. There must be a this, and there must be a distinct that. Since nature is circular instead of linear, there is the illusion that you're going in a strait line with your logic because on an infinitesimal level (which is our relative size to the universe we're conceptualizing), a circle looks like a strait line. But then we find ourselves where we started and we say, "that doesn't make sense!"
This inevitable conclusion to every logical question is what Taoist writing thrives on. If you read the Tao Te Ching or Chuang Tzu for the first time, I'm sure you'll exclaim, "that doesn't make any sense!" But that is their whole point of writing it! How else can a Taoist describe the universe? We already know that it's futile. We'll just find ourselves back where we started. So instead of going in a strait line, we go in circles.
Of course it won't make sense to the conscious brain, because the entire reason for Taoist writing is to transcend the conscious brain and go deeper. You see, the conscious brain is only a recent (and in fact relatively unsophisticated) development in evolution. There is a whole other, highly unexplored, part of the biology that developed right from the beginning, just by the very nature of its inseparability from the universe around it. It is by this that beings operated before the development of the conscious brain, and it is this which Taoists are trying to tap into.
That sounds to me precisely like the point Stark has made above.
And indeed, emptying your mind is hardly a prelude to science -- though it is the highest goal of many religious trends which are arising around us.
I had the opportunity to talk to Master Henry Chang of Great Light Tao (an offshoot/reformation of I Kuan Tao) this weekend . He said that the phrase 'empty your mind' here refers to calmness and indicated that that was an essentially universal understanding of those with a thorough knowledge of Tao. I could see that interpretation as being helpful, even though it's not as helpful as a true double blind study.
Though I can't confirm how well the above represents ancient Taoist beliefs.
While I haven't read Needham myself, I did find the following interesting note
"Needham found Taoism particularly responsible for originating scientific attitudes and opinions"
link
The Taoists were alchemists and experimentalists, as opposed to, for instance, Platonists, who seemed to rely on thought experiments.
I had the opportunity to talk to Master Henry Chang of Great Light Tao...
One wonderful thing, Ryan, is that nobody can accuse you of not trying to go right to the/a source!
He said that the phrase 'empty your mind' here refers to calmness...
That may be -- perhaps even historically, or perhaps just in certain modern interpretations. I would still say that the pursuit of "calmness", while perhaps useful in some moments, wouldn't have the same effect -- at least as far as I can imagine -- say, as trying to discover the hidden laws of the universe established by a sentient creator.
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. (Prov 25:2)
The main reason I selected the quote, though, was the notion that everything returns to its source, implying cycles -- a notion which many argue have impeded science where it has been adopted.
What were some of the science-hindering metaphysical concepts found in Chinese philosophy and religion? First of all, the concept of eternal cycles was most certainly present.... Jaki illustrates the consequences of the Chinese view of time as lacking of sense of succession, weakening their view of cause and effect.... Jaki goes on to quote Granet's comment that cause and effect did not matter to the Chinese... With the Chinese having such a conception of time, a true modern science would never have spontaneously arise among them--or any other civilization believing in eternal cycles so firmly... [source]
I can't comment definitively, but I've heard the argument before. (Applied to the Greeks as well.) There's an humorous quote shortly thereafter, about Needham suggesting the Chinese would have been better had they dropped the I Ching into the sea.
Though I can't confirm how well the above represents ancient Taoist beliefs.
That's always the trick, isn't it? There's nothing wrong with taking some contemporary faith as it stands today, but there's a separate question as to how much the "popular" contemporary understanding had to do with anything historical.
While I haven't read Needham myself, I did find the following interesting note...
Also interestingly, the writer goes on to question Needham's treatment of Taoism, implying at times it was more of "a mood" (p. 11) than a distinct system, and calling the idea that the Taoists (in contrast with Confucians) especially studied nature a "veritable cliche" (p. 12)
The Taoists were alchemists and experimentalists, as opposed to, for instance, Platonists, who seemed to rely on thought experiments.
Stark is very careful in his definition of "science" to exclude things like technological discoveries, alchemy and astronomy which were present in all societies around the world, but failed to produce science.
Science is not merely technology. A society does not have science because it can build sailing ships, build sailing ships, smelt iron, or eat off porcelain dishes. [Or knew of a smallpox vaccine, I might add.] Science is a method utilized in organized efforts to formulate explanations of nature, always subject to modification through systematic observations....
But the earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam, of imperial China, let alone those achieved in prehistoric times, do not constitute science but are better described as lore, skills, wisdom, techniques, craft, technologies, engineering, learning or simply knowledge. Thus, for example, even without telescopes the ancients excelled in astronomical observations. But until these were linked to testable theories, these observations remained merely "facts." (Stark, Glory of God, pp 124-126)
He particularly disses the Greeks thereafter, but some of the points could also be applied to ancient Chinese: Yin and Yang explained everything from magnetism to gravity to disease, but the theory itself was no more testable than Aristotle's conjecture objects were moved by their own desires.
An illustration exists on page 121 of the very text you have cited. Though the Chinese observed that clothes from an infected person could transmit the infection to another
What seems to be missing is the idea of living particles. It is essential to recall that Chinese natural philosophy and science were perennially averse to the idea of particles at all. Atomism must have been introduced many times, as by Buddhist monastic philosophers from India, but it never gained a footing. Chinese thought invariable faithful to a prototypic wave theory, the rises and falls of yin and yang, with a conviction of the reality of action at a distance in a continuous medium.
My point here isn't that they had wrong ideas. The Europeans also started out with some pretty wrong ideas courtesy of Aristotle, who was held in the highest esteem. But Stark usefully chronicles how Europeans came to question, test, and ultimately reject Aristotle (and others) where other societies apparently (as illustrated above) could not often make the same leap.
Part of this involved the conviction that since God put things into place, the details of how he did so were entirely debatable. In a sense, their religion was actually neutral towards most competing explanations, and thus people could come with competing explanations and test them.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Reverse Hypocrisy |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Compassionate Libertarians? »
|
This seems a little questionable. Early societies seem awash in personal gods of various kinds, no?
I remember reading about how ancient Egypt had some decent mathematicians, but they handed down their knowledge as a pronouncement "do it this way, you will see that it is so." (pardon the lack of reference here. I'm hurrying)
The Greeks, on the other hand, were the first to develop proofs, possibly because they had a democracy.
I find the notion that some form of democracy either present or in a nation's history, was a more likely contributor to the rise of science in the west. The ability to question authority and old doctrines is dangerous and some advancements may require the proper political environment.
Also, China did seem to have systemitized medicine. What they didn't develop is reductionism.
Perhaps that could be linked to a lack of clear definitions? China seemed to view itself as a sort of central radiating influence and Sun Yat Sen was supposedly one of the first proponents of modern Chinese nationalism. Eastern beliefs seem to focus on a lack of individual distinctions. Some yin in yang, lack of individualization, undefined borders. No formal logic, Unlike even some pagan Greek cultures. Even Draco had a public, written law code. If I had to guess, I'd point to that imprecision sooner than I'd point to the specific lack of a personal God.
But I could be wrong.
Posted by: Ryan W. on April 10, 2008 10:09 PM