However, since the 1990s, whether there was science in ancient China has become a growing problem ── because many scholars strongly advocated that there was science in ancient China. Therefore, the "yes" and "no" factions strive for their own advantages, expanding the depth and breadth of thinking on this issue.
In the early 1990s, after the publication of the book "The Origins of Tianxue", it was gradually regarded as a useful weapon by the Wu school, and it was waved at the You school from time to time-because this book proved that there was no astronomy in the modern sense in ancient China with a lot of historical data and analysis, and it was considered as a discipline that objectively provided evidence for the Wu school and provided new argumentation ideas.
On the other hand, the argument of the "You" school "has many wonderful ideas":
For example, first change the definition of science, define science as something that existed in ancient China (at least what they think exists), and then assert that there was science in ancient China. As we all know, as long as it is properly defined, the conclusion can of course have anything it wants, but it has actually changed the topic and the debate is meaningless.
For another example, because the "No" school usually thinks that the source of modern science is in ancient Greece, the "Yes" school tries to prove that there is no science in ancient western countries, for example, there is no source of science in ancient Greece, so either ancient China and the West are almost the same, and everyone has no science; Or allow the use of extremely broad definitions-let everyone have science.
The scientific definition that domestic "you" are willing to adopt is often infinitely broad. For example, it sounds reasonable to define "scientific spirit" as simple "seeking truth from facts", but this "scientific spirit" has certainly existed in all nations and civilizations in the world for thousands of years-even in gorillas. How valuable is this? If it is proved that China had such a "scientific spirit" in ancient times, how much glory can it add to us? Therefore, adopting such a broad and boundless definition can only vulgarize the concept of "science", but it is difficult to produce meaningful results.
Someone asked: If there was a source of science in ancient Greece, how can it be explained that until Galileo's time, scientific discovery was basically slow, at least not in the form of rapid growth or exponential growth, but experienced a long Middle Ages? This question seems very plausible, as if a stick can suffocate the other person. In fact, it's just an empty trick that has no effect. There is an idiom in China, "Dead wood meets spring"-a dead tree that seems to be dead in long winter, grows new green every spring and shades in midsummer. How can you deny that it is still the original tree because it doesn't appear new green in winter? The development and evolution of things need external conditions. Europe experienced great changes in the Middle Ages, and ancient Greek science lost the conditions for further development. It was not until after the Renaissance that he died. For example, the source of the Yangtze River is in the west, but it takes a long way to flow into the sea from the east. How can you ask it to enter the sea as soon as it comes down?
It is of obvious practical significance to argue whether there was science in ancient China.
From the standpoint of some "rich" people, on the one hand, it proves that ancient science in China can "improve national self-confidence" ── many of them always intentionally or unintentionally want to link academic research with non-academic factors such as "patriotism" and try to put themselves in a favorable position in the debate. On the other hand, proving that China had science in ancient times can also expand their research fields or make some of their activities more academic. Because many of them have eternal enthusiasm for Zhouyi, Yin and Yang, Five Elements, Eight Diagrams, Astrology, Alchemy and Feng Shui, and they are eager to rehabilitate these "oriental wisdom" and let these things enter the hall of science. They believe that "thirty years in Hedong, thirty years in Hexi" and the like "the wind and water turn around"-they believe that the era when Europe and the United States lead the coquettish science and technology will soon pass, and it is China's turn. And what does China rely on to lead coquettish after the "China Change"? They think it depends on Zhouyi, Yin and Yang, Five Elements, Eight Diagrams, Astrology, Alchemy and Feng Shui. Therefore, they hope that by demonstrating that there was science in ancient China, it is easier to "clear the name" of these magical methods.
Finally, we return to the problem of Zhouyi. Zhouyi system was originally a digital mysticism system constructed by China scholars. Of course, there are some ancient philosophies, ethics and even natural views in this system, which really had a great influence in ancient China, but they have nothing to do with science in the modern sense. This is an obvious thing, just as Picking Flowers and The West Chamber have nothing to do with modern science.
Some people always like to talk about the relationship between Zhouyi and binary mathematics as important evidence that Zhouyi is related to science, while others try to prove that binary mathematics is not inspired by Zhouyi. In my opinion, these arguments are of little significance. As an ancient system of digital mysticism, the Book of Changes has some binary things, which does not make it have "scientific" value, and even makes it linked with science. Just as people find curves that conform to certain mathematical laws on the shell of Nautilus (there are many examples in nature), it does not mean that Nautilus is "scientific", let alone that those mathematical knowledge is inspired by Nautilus.
As for why China's science is backward (in fact, it may never be advanced, but its technology is advanced), it cannot be attributed to one or two ancient books-in fact, no one has done so. I think Richard Baum of the University of California has some reference value. He believes that there are five cultural factors that cause China's "scientific lag": one is the formalism of epistemology in traditional philosophy; Second, the narrow empiricism in traditional philosophical methodology; Third, the dogmatic scientism prevailing in modern China; Fourth, feudal bureaucracy in political culture; 5. Compulsory ethics in behavior. His theory not only focuses on ancient times, but this is what makes him more brilliant. On the surface, "dogmatic scientism" elevates science to the supreme position (which is the influence of tying Zhouyi to science), but it is actually harmful to science.