Criticism of Needhams Views on Scientific Revolution in China - Essay Example

Name: Institution: Course: Tutor: Date Topic: Criticism of Needham’s views on scientific revolution in china Introduction Chinese civilization in scientific innovations and discoveries that addressed needs of human and nature in the old age has generated debate as to why it is not recognized as the first home of scientific revolution. This essay draws comparison of reactions to Joseph Needham’s book which depicts China to be rich in organizational structure and scientific insights (Sivin 1982, p.105). According to Needham, post renaissance scientific revolution accredited to West during the time of Galileo is imperialistic in attitude and does not advocate for cosmopolitan approach. This statement forms the epicenter of criticism and has invoked various reactions by historians of science. To explain one question raised by Nathin Sivin as to why many formulated hypotheses on nature, technological advancement and its implications arise meteorically in the West only during the time of Galileo (Needham 1981, p.105). Step by step analysis and discussion of inhibition factors and cosmopolitan approach will be applied to refute or justify the assumption by Needham that West had imperialistic attitude. In addition, correlations will be assessed between civilizations in the West up to the end of Eurasia against Chinese civilization. Major points that justify Chinese early scientific revolution. Needham’s book raises arguments to justify china’s renaissance in scientific revolution, one of them is that pioneers in the field of history in science faced difficulties as a lonely lot during their generation (Needham 1981). There is further claim that Oriental studies schools never wanted to associate themselves with the study history of technology, medicine and science since they were mainly composed of philologists, linguists, and humanists. Like wise, Needham blames absence of catalogued information on advances in Chinese medicine and technology methodically in a series that can be compared step by step with other achievements in the old world, especially cultures of India, Europe, Persia and Islam (Needham 1981). According to the above limitation, Needham asserts that this contributed to civilization indebtedness in China. In addition, inhibitory or facilitation factors may also have contributed to lack of intercourse. From this conception it is justifiable to say that Chinese life-elixir spread through Arabs, followed by Byzantines and then to Latins or franks during the era of Roger Bacon (Needham 1981). It is argued that this then laid platform for modern chemical medicine discoveries. Another inhibitory factor was lack of interest during that period by departments of history in science in Arabic or mediaeval science due perhaps to language barrier or the departments were simply more Europocentric (Needham 1981). In contrast, comparative historians’ endeavourer to proof traditional Europe’s indebtedness in discoveries and innovations can be accredited to eastern parts of the old world (Needham 1981). Accordingly, some historians still believe that modern science bears it origins to Europe only. However, Needham reveals that historians of science and Royal Asiatic society did recognize the efforts of Needham with laurels like those associated to the likes Leonardo da Vinci, Dexter’s plaque and George Sarton (Needham 1981). Nevertheless, Needham points out that mediaeval science had a close link to environment in ethnic ways that made it difficult for people from different environment to have a common participation (Needham 1981). This difficulty didn’t however prevent transmission of inventions of great social value through civilizations in the middle ages. Needham argues that artistic inventions were able to withstand test of time, as they show less continuous progress. For example theatrical works by William Shakespeare and sculptor by Pheidias remain outstanding and have never been more perfectly done in present times (Needham 1981). Natural discoveries in Medicine, science and technology in contrast marched on only in one process (Needham 1981). For example during renaissance and even post-renaissance period it is widely believed that modern science, technology experiments, and natural discoveries were accredited to scientist in the legion of Galileo (Needham 1981).However, Needham argues in the book that Chinese science was at the same pace in modern science. An example of mathematics is used to justify that, Zero as blank space and value of decimal place was in use in the yellow river before anywhere else. Also the Chinese artists were already using decimally graduated calipers to check their works then (Needham 1981). Another discovery that places China on global scientific revolution is that of pivoted and linked ring system that is presently known as Cardan suspension. Needham claims, this system that was named after Jerome cardan was actually in use by Chinese over a thousand years before the time of Cardan (Needham 1981). The field of Astronomy was not left behind as well in Chinese science, traces of records on meteors, comets sun-spots and eclipses found reveal that Chinese used same planetary monitoring system based on modern coordinates like today’s (Needham 1981). It is argued in Needham’s book that the first seismograph in the world was created by Chang Heng around +130. Subsequently, during medieval and ancient China, physics had subdivisions like acoustics, optics, and magnetism this contradicts with the West’s categorization where dynamics and mechanics were ahead while magnetism was a rare phenomena or unknown (Needham 1981). There are other notable discoveries from Needham’s book, for example use of hydraulic mechanisms to control waterways, floods, irrigation in times of draught, and transportation of tax grain. Chinese used the water-works plan for conservancy, irrigation and transportation of tax-grain or military supplies (Needham 1976, p.181). On the military front, gunpowder was traced back to 9th century and later on there was expansive explosive manufacture which occurred three centuries ahead of West. These activities can be summarized to show organization structure in Chinese administration from a working civil service, textiles mastery, civil engineering works and material science (Needham 1981). In biological field, Needham points out that Chinese were among early civilizations to apply biological methods of pest control and plant protection (Needham 1981).The remedies used to cure ailments were extracted from minerals, botanical plants, and animals. In Europe however, this was rare and can be attributed to religious superiority in determining what is moral or immoral. During this time organic materialism philosophy in china was more favored, while metaphysical idealism was less dominant (Needham 1981). According to the book the Chinese were competent in solving algebraic equations in comparison to geometry. However, this did not affect innovations in engineering. For example, invention of astronomical hydro-mechanical clock by Su Sung’s shows how elaborate the Chinese technology was in physics based on principles of gears and mechanics (Needham 1981). It is assumed that Chinese culture was more inclined to experimentation and practical fundamentals with less concern on theories like geometry. This was to there advantage. To revisit cultural concept, comparison of occidental and Chinese in terms of medicine, technology, and science raises economic and social questions. The economic and social aspects in traditional west are different from that of Chinese tradition in terms of structure (Needham 1981). Needham laments however, that the west’s perception of china having feudalism during aristocratic military is essentially false (1981), he rules out class or chaste system of administration to have existed but instead shared skills and values were practiced through a central bureaucratic system that enabled easy advances in applied science. Organized field surveys and expeditions in the sea were also conducted by the Central bureaucratic administration (Needham 1981). This can be justified by historians of dynasties who reveal that silent secrets were past down the lineages in a well guarded system. One example is the use of ancient day’s astronomical instruments. It is for this reason that there is little knowledge by scholars about them, which led to the spread and belief in unorthodox cosmological theories (Needham 1981). In contrast, Needham blames new bureaucratic system led by emperor as a great feudal lord to the loss of hereditary and aristocratic principles as compared to European Industrial capitalism and mercantilism (Needham 1976, p.179). For example, merchants in china received prejudices under this regime and were regarded to belong to low social level in society. The merchants in turn formed guilds to safe-guard their trade and interests. This form of organization resembles the insurance or mutual benefit schemes in Europe (Needham 1976, p.179). Criticism of Needham Nathan Sivin and others terms Needham’s book to be full of fallacies and unproven theories and assumptions. According to Sivin, it is important to note the difficulty of comparing scientific revolution problem in the old age. For example, one of the factors that affected transmission of knowledge and skills was the traditional practices in society. Therefore, ideas in different civilization can only be compared based on social arrangements of many strong technological and scientific traditions (Sivin 1982). Secondly, scientific Classifications lacked avenues and boundaries in the disciplines for example in the schemes of Shen kua called Memoirs of Shen Kua , science was categorized in generalized groups like, Regularities , technical skills, and strange occurrences. These schemes of classification in order to understand human knowledge are not comprehensive (Sivin 1982, p. 92) Consequently, during Han dynasty period, scientific knowledge was passed down from within and thus had little influence from contemporary philosophy. In cases where it spread it did so through divergent routes out from the theoretical views that sciences originated. This is an example of failure by the Chinese scientific advances to impress cosmopolitan approach (Sivin 1982, p. 93). Sivin poses questionable assumption theories, one of them is why it was assumed that scientific revolution took place where it is and not anywhere else including china, yet evidence discussed above in Needham’s book show efficiency in human sciences in the civilization of china by first century up to 1400 years to be greater that Europe. The view shared by many who are in the same school of thought like Joseph Needham as this essay puts it in the preamble, is that European civilization was based on exploitation of nature through their technology and exploitation of societies through political will especially for societies that were less privileged in technology (Sivin 1982, p. 94). Thirdly, social dynamism and political debates prevented technology and science to become universal. This failure to take cosmopolitan approach is the cause for blame to western civilization and thus Occidentalism theory. Lack to impress cosmopolitan approach is because new ideas clashed with old traditions and led to abortive entrenchment of new techniques or sharing of new skills from one society to another (Sivin 1982, p. 95). Likewise, the issue of cataloguing as put forward by Needham is criticized on the ground that development of scientific methods like that of Sir. Francis Bacon gave knowledge universal status, however, this aspect lacked in Chinese civilization during Han’s period (Sivin 1982, p. 96). Consequently, a critical overview of some of the inhibiting Factors in Needham’s book can be termed to be merely elementary fallacies. For example on the view of conditional necessity where natural phenomena contributed to science or technology, therefore lack of advances in particular field has no bearing to nature(Sivin 1982, p.97). Actually, bureaucracy in passage of knowledge in china is their demerit as compared to universal approach by scholars in Europe. Western scientific revolution was oriented more on human institutions than to nature. In addition, Chinese lacked systems of constructing verifications in experiments and formulation of mathematical constructions as a means to foster and track scientific innovations (Sivin 1982, p. 98). During the time of Laplace and Copernicus Science took a new definition in terms of testing the truth. While in Europe everything is based on proofing facts wrong or right, and bore principles of public appeal and invariant to social beliefs (Sivin 1982, p.100). Religious faith on scientific discoveries predominated and played authoritative role in scientific revolution by determining which knowledge is morally right or socially undesirable in relation to man and nature (Sivin 1982, p. 101). For example during Galileo’s time Catholic Church did not favor scientific revolution in certain fields (Sivin 1982, p. 102). However, by eighteen century scientific knowledge had begun spreading across borders that is how knowledge of trigonometry and geometry reached china and established western astronomy (Sivin 1982, p. 103). Similar studies correlate science revolutions and politics to have taken same changes in societies. In contrast, the prevailing leadership in china during seventeenth- century were more oriented to dominant cultural values in which awareness was limited to a few and there was no motivation for students in astronomy to break the border barrier until Wang and Mei as modern scientist from lower Yangtze area refused to follow conventional society roles (Sivin 1982, p. 103). Another important base to critic Needham’s book is the roles played by absolutism and democracy or rationalism and mysticism in the development of science (Nakayama 1973, p. 41). It is possible to point out that a macroscopic perspective on scientific revolution can not be taken for granted because real factors are omitted in the structure being promoted (Nakayama 1973, p. 42). Macroscopic parameters are factors like general spread in thoughts and social structures, which need to be correlated to microscopic factors that are linked to environmental influence on individual researchers and also on their parallelism (Nakayama 1973, p. 42). Inconsistence with the above criticism, Lewis S. Feurer sampled views of Needham’s and that of protestant ethics hypothesis by Robert Merton, to find factors promoting science in a hedonistic-libertarian environment (Nakayama 1973, p. 42). Lewis argued based on the phenomenon that science was an activity by individuals; therefore the social aspect of science history should arise from findings at individual level (Nakayama 1973).Although Needham regarded levels of macroscopic society and microscopic individual as being organizationally differently, it was apparently clear that the author did not recognize collectiveness in society and believe in necessity chain evolution (Nakayama 1973, p. 43). In contrast, modern science research trend has moved away from personal experiments to organized system. It is therefore difficult to correlate macroscopic and microscopic levels (Nakayama 1973, p. 43). It is therefore appropriate to criticize Needham’s view on scientific revolution problem to have aroused unnecessary divergent ideas and disagreements as D.C Lau commented ((Nakayama 1973, p. 178). Conclusion This essay concludes by stating that based on Needham’s book and the criticism views generated in response, one can draw conclusion by critically analyzing Islamic civilization, Indian civilization, against mercantile capitalism and compare this with Chinese civilization. From discussion given above it is positive to notice that there is a general and clear distinction because the Chinese culture which is serene and lacks any influence from west (Lau 1201-2). It is therefore justified to say there is no basis to compare the two and conclude that western civilization and scientific revolution belong where it is today. References Needham, J 1981, ‘Introduction’ in science in traditional China, a comparative perspective, Chine University Press, Hong Kong. Needham, J 1976, ‘Thoughts on the Social relations of Science and technology in China’, in the grand titration science and society in east and west, eds. George A & Unwin. Sivin, N 1982, ‘Why the scientific revolution did not take place in China—or didn’t it?’, in Explorations in the History of Science and technology in China, eds. Li Guohao, Zhang Mengwen, Cao Tianqin , Chinese Classics Publishing House, Shanghai. Nakayama, S 1973, ‘Joseph Needham, Organic Philosopher’, in Chinese science: explorations of an ancient tradition, eds. S Nakayama & N Sivin, MIT Press. Lau, DC 1201-2, ‘Review of volume II of science and civilization in China’, in Nature. Read More