European Civilization vs Chinese Civilization in Needhams Project - Essay Example

Introduction Nakayama argues that culture is unique and dynamic. However, these parameters are very diverse and hence they cannot be used to ascertain the issue of scientific revolution whether in Europe or in China (p 24). As we will shall see later in this paper, Needham has emphasized on the role of culture and society in shaping science in that cultural needs and problems such as diseases ignite discovery in that direction. However, comparing the scientific discoveries made in the Chinese society in ancient China and those made in Europe during the scientific revolution, there is a lot of inconsistency in timing that suggest that there was minimal interaction between these two civilizations in regards to science and culture. Furthermore, although their unique features and characteristics were to define a single civilization, comparisons along normative teleologies of moral, political, scientific, or economic progress were possible, major variation is eminent more so in scientific progression thus indicating one civilization is more unique than the other. This would mean that the claim by Needham of cosmopolitan scientific revolution does not hold but that the approach is imperialist as it tends to show Chinese inferiority in science despite being older than the European scientific progression. In this paper I will show that the Needham approach is imperialist as his approach tends to show the inability of the Chinese culture and society of enabling and facilitating an enabling environment for scientific innovation. Needham is as a scholar and historian in scientific revolution is a product of the European scientific revolution. As such, his study of science in China is subject to European paradigms. However, this issue is relatively addressed by the inclusion of Chinese scholars in his study but only seems to ascertain the point, though not explicitly stated that the Chinese people themselves appreciate the fact that their headway into science earlier than European civilizations is indicative of the Chinese civilization’s incapacity to deliver in full in regards to scientific progression. European civilization vs. Chinese civilization in Needham’s project Nakayama traces the early scenario that shaped and developed Needham’s ideologies regarding science. He says that science is believed to be based on the society and as such the postwar society in which much of his thoughts were developed thus influenced his scientific ideologies. Born in 1900, Needham’s student days coincided with the Soviet Revolution. The Soviet influence was manifested by the publication of the Engel’s Naturdialectics in 1925 and during the Second International Congress of the History of Science and Technology in London in 1931. Needham had also close association with Leftist British Scientist who had a leaning towards the Soviet hence added influence. Again his choice of school at the biological laboratory of John Hopkins at Cambridge directed him more towards the Soviet. Nakayama says that the school was basically based on biochemical science which had not flourished and hence concentration shifted towards social science thus strengthening the cause for socialism (p 24). Another fundamental issue that arose during Needham’s academic years was the division between materialism and vitalism. Nakayama writes that Needham did not take a definite side but opted for a section of each as he writes that “he was reluctant to give up the term ‘mechanism’ entirely” (p 24). He thus steered clear of opiate religion matters characteristic of materialism but restricted himself to comparative religion. In some ways, Needham argued against contemporary science and introduced new dimensions. For instance he disagreed with Newton’s perception of the universe as timeless and viewed it as evolutionary. He says that “the inorganic, biological and social orders are connected to an evolutionary chain” (Nakayama, p 24). Needham argues that the support of biological evolution based on the evolution theory was also applicable to a society. He visualized a change in society over time that bioscience also argued would be experience in an organism. This was in support of the Marxism social change theory. Unfortunately, Needham’s findings do not support the Darwinian idea survival for the fittest in the society which is very individualistic. He was in support of collectivism which he viewed as a higher level of organization that the one of survival for the fittest. As such, this would mark a capitalist society as a transition or rather an evolution stage, lower that collectivism or rather communism (Nakayama p 27, 28). Chinese history is marked by the stage of survival for the fittest through master slave relations. As such, such a society would impede a scientific revolution that as ongoing during that early period. In Needham’s view it would seem that synthesizing the mechanistic and materialistic approach of the society would open up the way for scientific revolution. Nakayama views that in Needham’s approach to science, he failed to substantially appreciate the contribution of mathematics in science as opposed to organism and society only. With the exclusion of mathematics, Nakayama say that Chinese science would remain an “unorganized mass of fragmentary empirical knowledge lacking a nucleus.” However, Sivin says science has various dimensions. On one hand, the scientific revolution is the period of “transformation of our knowledge to the external world” (p 100). But taking this various dimensions according to Sivin is inevitable in that science has various connections with other phenomena such as culture. For instance he says that the European scientific revolution ushered in a new chapter that emphasized on the truth and facts other than myth. This would in effect tend to address the issue of religion in the Chinese civilization where some mythical gods have been credited to be responsible for certain phenomena in the universe. The European civilization however came to verify some of the claims by the Chinese civilization through the truth and facts. As a result, there had to be a change in affiliates and connections of science as facts and truth as opposed to myth set in. He identifies some changes that would set in as a result of factual science as “redefinition of what authority should determine what uses may be made of knowledge….what knowledge of nature is socially desirable and undesirable” (p 101). Another case that would hinder scientific revolution in China according imperialists is language. As such there would be no effective communication of ideas between Europe and China that would allow a cosmopolitan scientific revolution in any sense. The complexity of the Chinese language according to Needham presented scholars with difficulties in the early times. Among the many advancements that some scholars claim had been made in China in the 17th century did not reach Europe until later times. Needham is accused of exaggerating the scientific innovations in China where he attributes almost every discovery to China. Sivin wonders why the same knowledge had not reached Europe by then. While language played a significant role in strengthening the cosmopolitan theory in scientific revolution other factors also played a role such differences in religion. On one hand, the Chinese civilization relied on the study of the universe for religious matters. In their study however, Needham notes they developed the ideas according to religious interpretations more than in a factual way. He says that the “Chinese were the most persistent and accurate observers of celestial phenomena anywhere before the renaissance” (p 10). However, despite this knowledge, they did not develop geometrical planetary theory until the Greek did so. He says that the Chinese kept records of comets and eclipses which they observed using crude astronomical instruments that they had developed. For instance he notes that the first seismograph was developed by Chang Heng around 130 (p 10) Another aspect that stresses the cosmopolitan approach would be the discovery of gunpowder. Needham writes that the Chinese had discovered gun powder in the 9th century a good three centuries before the west had any idea about it (p 12). In the same century a number of other explosives weapons such as the famous canon were developed. In the west however, the first recorded history of a canon is in 1327. However, Needham also notes that the transfer of scientific knowledge that would allow a cosmopolitan approach in scientific revolution is absent in the relation of China and Europe as most of the scientific knowledge from China was first passed on to other civilization such as the Ottoman and the Byzantine before it could make its way into Europe. Organic materialism was the dominant feature in Chinese scientific revolution in contrary to the metaphysical idealism experienced in Europe. According to Needham, the organistic conception where everything in the phenomenon was interconnected shaped the Chinese scientific thinking in every sense. Consequently they studied nature such as seasons and developed theories to explain such happenings whereby more than not they stumbled on the true theories (p 14). In the European case, the idea of tides was further elaborated with the inclusion of the discoveries about the celestial bodies’ gravitational fields. However, the Chinese people as early as the 11th century had recognized the influence of celestial bodies over tides but had not arrived at a conclusive theory on the type of influence and the cause of it. Conclusion Needham has used a cosmopolitan approach in addressing the scientific revolution in China. His views as sown in this paper point to the fact that China was way ahead in scientific innovations by approximately 3 centuries. Therefore, it is clear that his approach to the whole issue of scientific revolution is based on an imperialist approach that puts China way ahead of Europe. However, the theoretical frameworks under which the discoveries and innovations were made did not allow further advancement. Needham criticizes the analytical approach used in Chinese science that seems to explain phenomena as an end to itself. Needham proposes the synthesis approach where knowledge and innovations are used as a means to something better. He says the Chinese approach sought to explain phenomenon for the sake of curiosity but the synthesis approach used in Europe sought explain phenomenon and seek to identify its role in and influence on other phenomenon. This therefore indicates that the science in China developed separately from the way it did in Europe. This has thus shown that the disparities in timing and depth of knowledge and direction in the two civilizations were different hence confirms what this paper sought to show that the scientific revolution developed in a imperial manner having started in China 3 centuries earlier than it did in Europe in the 17th century. References Needham, Joseph (1981), Introduction, Science in traditional China: A Comparative Perspective, (Hong Kong, The Chinese University Press) Needham, Joseph (1976) “Thoughts on the Social relations of Science and technology in China” The Grand Titration Science and Society in East and West (Cambridge, George Allen and Unwin) 1976. Sivin, Nathan (1982) “Why the Scientific revolution did not take place in China—or didn’t it?, Explorations in the History of Science and technology in China, Li Guohao, Zhang Mengwen, Cao Tianqin (eds), (Shanghai Chinese Classics Publishing House) Nakayama, Shigeru (1973) “Joseph Needham, Organic Philosopher”, Chinese Science: Explorations of an Ancient Tradition, Shigeru Nakayama and Nathan Sivin (eds), (Massachusetts, MIT Press) 1973. Read More

The Soviet influence was manifested by the publication of the Engel’s Naturdialectics in 1925 and during the Second International Congress of the History of Science and Technology in London in 1931. Needham had also close association with Leftist British Scientist who had a leaning towards the Soviet hence added influence. Again his choice of school at the biological laboratory of John Hopkins at Cambridge directed him more towards the Soviet. Nakayama says that the school was basically based on biochemical science which had not flourished and hence concentration shifted towards social science thus strengthening the cause for socialism (p 24).

Another fundamental issue that arose during Needham’s academic years was the division between materialism and vitalism. Nakayama writes that Needham did not take a definite side but opted for a section of each as he writes that “he was reluctant to give up the term ‘mechanism’ entirely” (p 24). He thus steered clear of opiate religion matters characteristic of materialism but restricted himself to comparative religion. In some ways, Needham argued against contemporary science and introduced new dimensions.

For instance he disagreed with Newton’s perception of the universe as timeless and viewed it as evolutionary. He says that “the inorganic, biological and social orders are connected to an evolutionary chain” (Nakayama, p 24). Needham argues that the support of biological evolution based on the evolution theory was also applicable to a society. He visualized a change in society over time that bioscience also argued would be experience in an organism. This was in support of the Marxism social change theory.

Unfortunately, Needham’s findings do not support the Darwinian idea survival for the fittest in the society which is very individualistic. He was in support of collectivism which he viewed as a higher level of organization that the one of survival for the fittest. As such, this would mark a capitalist society as a transition or rather an evolution stage, lower that collectivism or rather communism (Nakayama p 27, 28). Chinese history is marked by the stage of survival for the fittest through master slave relations.

As such, such a society would impede a scientific revolution that as ongoing during that early period. In Needham’s view it would seem that synthesizing the mechanistic and materialistic approach of the society would open up the way for scientific revolution. Nakayama views that in Needham’s approach to science, he failed to substantially appreciate the contribution of mathematics in science as opposed to organism and society only. With the exclusion of mathematics, Nakayama say that Chinese science would remain an “unorganized mass of fragmentary empirical knowledge lacking a nucleus.

” However, Sivin says science has various dimensions. On one hand, the scientific revolution is the period of “transformation of our knowledge to the external world” (p 100). But taking this various dimensions according to Sivin is inevitable in that science has various connections with other phenomena such as culture. For instance he says that the European scientific revolution ushered in a new chapter that emphasized on the truth and facts other than myth. This would in effect tend to address the issue of religion in the Chinese civilization where some mythical gods have been credited to be responsible for certain phenomena in the universe.

The European civilization however came to verify some of the claims by the Chinese civilization through the truth and facts. As a result, there had to be a change in affiliates and connections of science as facts and truth as opposed to myth set in. He identifies some changes that would set in as a result of factual science as “redefinition of what authority should determine what uses may be made of knowledge….what knowledge of nature is socially desirable and undesirable” (p 101). Another case that would hinder scientific revolution in China according imperialists is language.

Read More