On the Historiographical Reform of General History of Chinese Science and Technologyin the Post-Needham Era

The research of General History of Chinese Science and Technology(GHCST) has so far failed to transcend the"positivist history", a program of historiography initiated by Joseph Needham. The historians after Needham have made important explorations on the historiographical reform of GHCST. However, nearly all of these explorations are still the methodological reflections of the positivist history perspective, failing to reflect metaphysically on such historiographical presuppositions as views of science, technology and history, which means they have failed to break away from the positivist history perspective. To go beyond the limitations of positivist history calls for the introduction of the perspective of phenomenology of body and reflecting on and criticizing the historiographical presuppositions of positivist history on a metaphysical level. Such reflection will lead us to a new program of historiography in the post-Needham era, that is"phenomenal history"or the GHCST from the perspective of the phenomenology of body.

A Positivistic Analysis of Altering Charges by Courts

It iS general practice in China for coupsactively to alter a charge.There are threeimportant reasons for this that people tendto overlook.They can be detailed as thefollowing:(1)The bill ofcomplaint separatesof charge facts from legal comments.insteadof integrating them.(2)It is common

Theoretical Debates and Analysis of Legal Research Methods

Legal research methods refer to a general term for disciplined and systematic procedures, approaches, means, techniques, and models used by researchers to acquire novel and reliable legal knowledge. Several theoretical debates on the originality of legal research methods go on as follows: Is one legal research method superior to another? Do legal research methods aim for methodological independence? Are legal research methods objective or subjective? Influenced by scientism, positivism is usually considered to be the only reasonable research method, but since law is different from science, only using positivist research approaches is insufficient for solving legal problems. Strictly speaking, a method that is appropriate for the research subject is a reasonable method. As one of the humanities and social sciences, law has similarities with other disciplines in terms of the scope of research;therefore, its research methods could be borrowed from other disciplines. However, law cannot ignore the development of its own unique research methods while retaining its advantages. Legal research methods are supposed to be objective because they should follow scientific standards and have objective arguments, but inevitably, legal research would be subjective and full of value judgments since it means subjective and creative activities of researchers. Of course, the choice of values should preferably be made in the context of value-freeness to ensure the organic combination of value-freeness and value judgment.