The early twenty-first century witnessed the publication of the book series Zhongguo kexue jishu shi中国科学技术史(History of science and technology in pre-modern China),which was initiated and organized by the Instit...The early twenty-first century witnessed the publication of the book series Zhongguo kexue jishu shi中国科学技术史(History of science and technology in pre-modern China),which was initiated and organized by the Institute for the History of Natural Sciences,Chinese Academy of Sciences,and compiled by a multitude of Chinese scholars.In comparison with Science and Civilisation in China by Dr.Joseph Needham,Zhongguo kexue jishu shi is superior in the layout characteristics,literature collection,research and explication,field investigation,and simulation experiments.展开更多
There are diverse opinions about how to solve the Needham Puzzle. Such opinions or schools of thought can be roughly classified into three theories of a) geographical conditions, b) empirical trial and error, and c) p...There are diverse opinions about how to solve the Needham Puzzle. Such opinions or schools of thought can be roughly classified into three theories of a) geographical conditions, b) empirical trial and error, and c) private property rights. Although each school of thought makes sense, they all fail to fully uncover the main reason why, in modern history, China lagged behind western countries in the development of science and technology. In our opinion, the correct solution is to draw on historical experiences, integrate all schools of thought, proceed with an emphasis on the definition and protection of property rights, boost government investment in basic scientific research, strengthen government service functionality, actively develop NGOs, and open more widely to the outside world, with a view of pushing forward China's scientific and technological innovation and accelerating the pace of China's modernization.展开更多
Has Confucianism exerted a positive influence or a passive one on the development of ancient science and technology?This is a question that has been debated repeatedly in the field of scientific history and philosophy...Has Confucianism exerted a positive influence or a passive one on the development of ancient science and technology?This is a question that has been debated repeatedly in the field of scientific history and philosophy and has not been settled up to now.A large number of scientific historians hold the opinion that the influence that Confucianism exerted on the development of science and technology is basically passive and negative.One of the most prominent representatives of this view is the famous historian on Chinese science and technology history—British Dr.Joseph Needham.Dr.Joseph Needham declared in the second volume of Science and Civilization in China,namely History of Scientific Thought:“They(Confucians)were thus,throughout Chinese history,in opposition to those elements which groped for a scientific approach to Nature,and for a Scientific interpretation and extension of technology”(Needham,1956,p.9),“their contribution to science was almost wholly negative”(p.1).As Confucianism has been playing an important role in ancient Chinese society for a long time,it is necessary for us to discuss this issue in detail.展开更多
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 ...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.展开更多
Through exploring the limitation of the neoclassical theory of economic growth,which classifies growth as a homogenous process,this paper reconciles various theories of economic development and explains the rises and ...Through exploring the limitation of the neoclassical theory of economic growth,which classifies growth as a homogenous process,this paper reconciles various theories of economic development and explains the rises and falls of economic growth under a unified framework,focusing on incentives of the accumulation of physical and human capital.This paper classifies instances of economic growth into four categories—the Malthusian poverty trap,the Lewis dual model of economic development,the Lewis turning point,and Solow neoclassical growth model.This paper conducts empirical analysis of these categories of economic development as they are relevant to Chinese economic growth and discusses policy implications therein.展开更多
Behind what is called ＂Needham＇s Grand Question＂ （why was China overshot by the West in science and technology？） lies a deeper question of how China came to lose the capacity of deeply reflective thought clearly...Behind what is called ＂Needham＇s Grand Question＂ （why was China overshot by the West in science and technology？） lies a deeper question of how China came to lose the capacity of deeply reflective thought clearly present in the ancient Chinese philosophers. This is a loss felt by all Chinese as a psychological sense of hollowness, a loss of identity, made worse by the seeming inaccessibility of the ancient Chinese wisdom to the modern Chinese mind. It is clear that at some historical point China suffered an extreme psychological blow sufficient to traumatise it at the threshold of reflective thought, unable to look inwards any more. The paper identifies that point as the utter devastation wrought by Kublai Khan and the Mongols 750 years ago. What devastates reflective thought is wilfulness, the insistent focusing of all attention and energy on external, material things, and Kublai Khan was wilful in the extreme. What confirms this as the crippling point is that, in response to Kublai Khan＇s Mongol invasion the Chinese, over time, not only completely altered the geography of China itself, moving their capital to the North （Beijing）, but have ever since fought to establish as ＂China＂ all the territory over which Kublai Khan ruled. China is clearly not free of Kublai Khan＇s shadow. But even more precisely, in the process of doing this--and showing their own wilfulness--in building the Forbidden City in Beijing they built it in the shape of the Chinese metaphysical model of the universe, the Chinese version of the Tree of Life metaphysical glyph But it has an error in it. And the error is precisely that in where it places things, it makes what would have been the attributes of reflective thought subservient to wilfulness. The model itself thus shows the hollowness of the Chinese mind from that moment on. The outer form--the ＂appearance＂---of the ancient wisdom was still there. But the content--the ＂substance＂--of it was not. And with no reflective thought, true creativity disappears.展开更多
For a long time,it has been something of a mystery why,in Joseph Needham’s third volume of Science and Civilisation in China,a translation by Arnold Koslow of a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem was published,together...For a long time,it has been something of a mystery why,in Joseph Needham’s third volume of Science and Civilisation in China,a translation by Arnold Koslow of a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem was published,together with an inappropriate diagram indicating how that proof proceeded.The story of the origin of the translation,accompanied by the irrelevant diagram,is here recounted by the author of both items,along with the translation accompanied by the appropriate missing diagram for the proof,which was intended for publication but never made it.展开更多
The Institute for the History of Natural Sciences in Beijing celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of its founding in 1957 with an international symposium devoted to“China and the World in the Global History of Science...The Institute for the History of Natural Sciences in Beijing celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of its founding in 1957 with an international symposium devoted to“China and the World in the Global History of Science and Technology.”2 This contribution to that symposium focuses on the roles that historians of mathematics,East and West,have played in bringing the importance of mathematics in China to the attention of the world at large.It concludes by discussing a controversy surrounding the diagram and purported“proof”given in the ancient mathematical classic,the Zhoubi suanjing周髀算經(Mathematical classic of Zhou’s gnomon),of the gou-gu theorem that appeared in volume 3 of Joseph Needham’s Science and Civilisation in China,published in 1959.展开更多
文摘The early twenty-first century witnessed the publication of the book series Zhongguo kexue jishu shi中国科学技术史(History of science and technology in pre-modern China),which was initiated and organized by the Institute for the History of Natural Sciences,Chinese Academy of Sciences,and compiled by a multitude of Chinese scholars.In comparison with Science and Civilisation in China by Dr.Joseph Needham,Zhongguo kexue jishu shi is superior in the layout characteristics,literature collection,research and explication,field investigation,and simulation experiments.
文摘There are diverse opinions about how to solve the Needham Puzzle. Such opinions or schools of thought can be roughly classified into three theories of a) geographical conditions, b) empirical trial and error, and c) private property rights. Although each school of thought makes sense, they all fail to fully uncover the main reason why, in modern history, China lagged behind western countries in the development of science and technology. In our opinion, the correct solution is to draw on historical experiences, integrate all schools of thought, proceed with an emphasis on the definition and protection of property rights, boost government investment in basic scientific research, strengthen government service functionality, actively develop NGOs, and open more widely to the outside world, with a view of pushing forward China's scientific and technological innovation and accelerating the pace of China's modernization.
文摘Has Confucianism exerted a positive influence or a passive one on the development of ancient science and technology?This is a question that has been debated repeatedly in the field of scientific history and philosophy and has not been settled up to now.A large number of scientific historians hold the opinion that the influence that Confucianism exerted on the development of science and technology is basically passive and negative.One of the most prominent representatives of this view is the famous historian on Chinese science and technology history—British Dr.Joseph Needham.Dr.Joseph Needham declared in the second volume of Science and Civilization in China,namely History of Scientific Thought:“They(Confucians)were thus,throughout Chinese history,in opposition to those elements which groped for a scientific approach to Nature,and for a Scientific interpretation and extension of technology”(Needham,1956,p.9),“their contribution to science was almost wholly negative”(p.1).As Confucianism has been playing an important role in ancient Chinese society for a long time,it is necessary for us to discuss this issue in detail.
基金major project funded by National Social Sciences Foundation(14ZDB017)western project funded by National Social Sciences Foundation(15XZX004)
文摘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.
文摘Through exploring the limitation of the neoclassical theory of economic growth,which classifies growth as a homogenous process,this paper reconciles various theories of economic development and explains the rises and falls of economic growth under a unified framework,focusing on incentives of the accumulation of physical and human capital.This paper classifies instances of economic growth into four categories—the Malthusian poverty trap,the Lewis dual model of economic development,the Lewis turning point,and Solow neoclassical growth model.This paper conducts empirical analysis of these categories of economic development as they are relevant to Chinese economic growth and discusses policy implications therein.
文摘Behind what is called ＂Needham＇s Grand Question＂ （why was China overshot by the West in science and technology？） lies a deeper question of how China came to lose the capacity of deeply reflective thought clearly present in the ancient Chinese philosophers. This is a loss felt by all Chinese as a psychological sense of hollowness, a loss of identity, made worse by the seeming inaccessibility of the ancient Chinese wisdom to the modern Chinese mind. It is clear that at some historical point China suffered an extreme psychological blow sufficient to traumatise it at the threshold of reflective thought, unable to look inwards any more. The paper identifies that point as the utter devastation wrought by Kublai Khan and the Mongols 750 years ago. What devastates reflective thought is wilfulness, the insistent focusing of all attention and energy on external, material things, and Kublai Khan was wilful in the extreme. What confirms this as the crippling point is that, in response to Kublai Khan＇s Mongol invasion the Chinese, over time, not only completely altered the geography of China itself, moving their capital to the North （Beijing）, but have ever since fought to establish as ＂China＂ all the territory over which Kublai Khan ruled. China is clearly not free of Kublai Khan＇s shadow. But even more precisely, in the process of doing this--and showing their own wilfulness--in building the Forbidden City in Beijing they built it in the shape of the Chinese metaphysical model of the universe, the Chinese version of the Tree of Life metaphysical glyph But it has an error in it. And the error is precisely that in where it places things, it makes what would have been the attributes of reflective thought subservient to wilfulness. The model itself thus shows the hollowness of the Chinese mind from that moment on. The outer form--the ＂appearance＂---of the ancient wisdom was still there. But the content--the ＂substance＂--of it was not. And with no reflective thought, true creativity disappears.
文摘For a long time,it has been something of a mystery why,in Joseph Needham’s third volume of Science and Civilisation in China,a translation by Arnold Koslow of a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem was published,together with an inappropriate diagram indicating how that proof proceeded.The story of the origin of the translation,accompanied by the irrelevant diagram,is here recounted by the author of both items,along with the translation accompanied by the appropriate missing diagram for the proof,which was intended for publication but never made it.
文摘The Institute for the History of Natural Sciences in Beijing celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of its founding in 1957 with an international symposium devoted to“China and the World in the Global History of Science and Technology.”2 This contribution to that symposium focuses on the roles that historians of mathematics,East and West,have played in bringing the importance of mathematics in China to the attention of the world at large.It concludes by discussing a controversy surrounding the diagram and purported“proof”given in the ancient mathematical classic,the Zhoubi suanjing周髀算經(Mathematical classic of Zhou’s gnomon),of the gou-gu theorem that appeared in volume 3 of Joseph Needham’s Science and Civilisation in China,published in 1959.
