A Chinese Scientific Revolution?

[Faeelin]

I've been doing some reading about China, and why it failed to have a scientific revolution [1].

One of the more interesting arguments I've read is that, inspired by western learning, the Chinese did reach the threshold of a revolution. "The most striking long-range outcome of the mid-seventeenth century Chinese encounter with European science, in fact, was a revival of traditional astronomy, a rediscovery of forgotten methods, that were studied once again in combination with the new ideas".[2]

It's suggested that part of the failure of the Chinese astronomers to examine these issues in more detail stemmed from the fall of the Qing, which led to many of these scholars focusing on moral issues instead.

Hmm. I'm not sure how valid this is, but it's an interesting idea. The Chinese do have a large, literate population, with access to printing...


[1] Short answer: Nobody has a freaking clue.

[2] From an article entitled "Why the Scientific Revolution did not take place in China-Or didn't it?"

 

[Hendryk]

the fall of the Qing, which led to many of these scholars focusing on moral issues instead

You mean the Ming. But otherwise it corroborates my own reading.
Then again, perhaps your earlier idea of having it take place under the Song is even better.

 

[Thande]

Hmm...I don't think a Chinese "Scientific Revolution" (with capitals) is possible, because that was a uniquely European phenomenon (although I suppose it could also have occurred in the Arab/Islamic world): a shakeup of the existing system of book-learning and the authority of the classical writers being supreme, with natural philosophers beginning to present their work as replacing rather than complementing the Aristotelian and Galenic orthodoxy.

I'm not saying that China couldn't become (or should I say remain? ) the premier centre for scientific thought, but it wouldn't happen by anything comparable to the European Scientific Revolution. Maybe it wouldn't be a 'revolution' at all, but a more gradual progression (although there's the argument that our Scientific Revolution can be said to have lasted about two centuries, so it's hardly an overnight thing either).

Thande (I like brackets way too much)

 

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Thande (I like brackets way too much)

Try mixing it up with commas and hyphens. The both do te same job, just with different degrees of emphasis. Pretty good points, though. It's starting to look like creating a "modern world" is much harder than anyone previously suspected.

 

[Anaxagoras]

The Scientific Revolution happened in Europe because Europe inherited Greek rationalism. The Muslims did, too, and there were many steps towards science in the Islamic world until the Mongol catastrophe of the 13th Century.

China had no rationalistic tradition. Therefore, no Scientific Revolution was possible until it had reached them from the West.

 

[Thande]

The Muslims did, too, and there were many steps towards science in the Islamic world until the Mongol catastrophe of the 13th Century.

There's also the issue that the Greek writings were essentially never lost to the Muslims, whereas they were dramatically rediscovered by the Christians/Europeans in the thirteenth century and provided a missing link to the classical age.

So they were never treated with the same reverence and aura of infallibility by the Muslims as they were by the Europeans (cf. the case of Alhazen, who disproved the Aristotelian view that light emanates from the eyes to illuminate the object - by contrast, in Europe similar attacks on Aristotle were clamped down on almost as hard as if they'd been contesting the Bible). And if there isn't a period of treating the Greeks as the indisputable fount of all knowledge, then it less likely that there'll be a following revolution based on reacting against that view.

So a Muslim scientific revolution, although far from impossible, seems less likely than a European one (barring different circumstances going far back, e.g. if the Greek writings are never lost in Europe in the first place).

 

[Max Sinister]

Yes... on the one hand, one should actually expect that a scientific revolution has to happen in China, since they've got a big population, Confucianism values good education, and they've even got printing.

OTOH, there are also some problems: Confucianism also values stability very much - a real revolution, something that changes everything in their world, would be something they should abhor.
Then, the intellectuals in China seemed not to be that interested in thinking about "ordinary" things, like technical improvements.
Sometimes I even get the impression that they spent a lot of their time writing yet another poem about the beauty of gardens. Beautiful, but not that useful against westerners with cannon boats who aren't impressed.

 

[fortyseven]

however advanced Westerners are, they're still dirty barbarians.

What if Aristotle met Superman?

 

[Faeelin]

but it wouldn't happen by anything comparable to the European Scientific Revolution. Maybe it wouldn't be a 'revolution' at all, but a more gradual progression (although there's the argument that our Scientific Revolution can be said to have lasted about two centuries, so it's hardly an overnight thing either).

Thande (I like brackets way too much)

In fact, what are we considering a scientific revolution? Is it the old mathematicization of nature?

 

[NapoleonXIV]

Anaxagoras

The Scientific Revolution happened in Europe because Europe inherited Greek rationalism. The Muslims did, too, and there were many steps towards science in the Islamic world until the Mongol catastrophe of the 13th Century.

China had no rationalistic tradition. Therefore, no Scientific Revolution was possible until it had reached them from the West.

China had Taoism, the worldview of Taoism is very much the worldview of modern science, particularly present day science where all statements are probablistic.

Which is, however, also the problem. Taoism separated very early in Chinese history into two branches. The first, philosophical taoism is the one we were referring to. The second, ritualistic or magical taoism started out as a real world application of the first, with a particular emphasis on moralist stories and medicine, but over the years also became a system of magical trickery, quackery, and even animism calculated mainly to make mendicant monks a living. Unfortunately, this was the system that the average Chinese was most familiar with.

I don't know about the situation that existed in the Song or the 16thc but I do know that by the 19thc Taoism's reputation in this regard had become so bad that Science was being tarred with the same brush.

This was just one factor, however. Others might be the general Confucian attitude of disdain toward matters of money and commerce; coupled with the structure of the Civil Service Exams which heavily influenced intellectualism toward literary, rather than mathematical, expertise.

 

[Thande]

A thought...perhaps if China had an earlier and more destructive Mongol invasion-like event, that could serve as its "dark ages", thus leading to the recovery of Confucian etc. texts later on being treated in the same 'infallible-wisdom-of-the-ancients' light as the Greek writings were in Europe, and providing a base for an empiricist Revolution to act against?

A lot of ifs there, but what do you think?

 

[pieman3141]

^^^ Bigger impact during the Hun invasions? Bigger, more competitive 3 (or more) Kingdoms era? Maybe the Chinese saw the Roman army in action somehow (some legion got lost, or a visiting envoy wound up during the late Han dynasty) and the Chinese decided to become more warlike (not that they weren't, but they weren't expansionist or "achievers.")

BTW the Chinese word for dynasty actually shares the same word for "era" or "age".

 

[Faeelin]

China had no rationalistic tradition. Therefore, no Scientific Revolution was possible until it had reached them from the West.

::Casts resurrection on this thread::

I'm not so sure. Particularly amongst the early neo-confucians, there was a belief that heaven had gien the world an orderly basis; and that it could be determined by examining the multitude of things. The Song dynasty (others too, but to varying extents) saw a large amount of empirical work done. Things like dissection, greater accuracy in observation, mathematical advances.

Meanwhile, you have officials who are willing to abandon thte traditional ways (although they're willing to cloak their decisions in Confucian terminology).

Others might be the general Confucian attitude of disdain toward matters of money and commerce; coupled with the structure of the Civil Service Exams which heavily influenced intellectualism toward literary, rather than mathematical, expertise.

As opposed to Europe? Rhetoric certainly was a popular and important skill for nobles and monarchs to learn.

 

[HelloLegend]

I've been doing some reading about China, and why it failed to have a scientific revolution [1].

One of the more interesting arguments I've read is that, inspired by western learning, the Chinese did reach the threshold of a revolution. "The most striking long-range outcome of the mid-seventeenth century Chinese encounter with European science, in fact, was a revival of traditional astronomy, a rediscovery of forgotten methods, that were studied once again in combination with the new ideas".[2]

It's suggested that part of the failure of the Chinese astronomers to examine these issues in more detail stemmed from the fall of the Qing, which led to many of these scholars focusing on moral issues instead.

Hmm. I'm not sure how valid this is, but it's an interesting idea. The Chinese do have a large, literate population, with access to printing...


[1] Short answer: Nobody has a freaking clue.

[2] From an article entitled "Why the Scientific Revolution did not take place in China-Or didn't it?"

Western culture allowed for the production of some "geniuses"...
Issac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci types because the culture allowed
for free thinkers. While Chinese was about respect for things past.
If smart people are not allowed to be creative, then the civ will suffer.

It is interesting to see in the 21st Century whether China will take over
America's Research and Development role.

 

[srv fan]

I actually had to write a full length research paper on the subject of Chinese science and technology fairly recently. The main reasons China didn't develop an industrial revolution were (in no particular order)...

1) Lack of the all-important merchant class, which in European societies were the prime movers and consumers of information. Confucianism venerates the ruler and the peasants, but does not attach very much value to merchants.

2) Far too centralized. I believe it was Joseph Needham who described much of Chinese government as "a Moloch state, a great octopus with tentacles reaching into every village and every hut." While this may be somewhat of an exhaggeration, China did not have the decentralization or tolerance that allows for independent science. Most of Chinese science was government directed, and often aborted or modified as so not to rock the dynastic boat.

3) Flat-out bad intellectual framework. As previously mentioned, the large influence of Taoism and subsequent mystrical undertones attached to much of the "science", meant scholars often posited opinions as fact, with absolutely no basis for them. Basically, they didn't have the Scientific Method, or anything close to it, and without that, you flat-out will NOT get an IR. Its worthwhile to note all the early Jesuit visitors to China trumpeted Sinic superiority in agriculture, arts, literature, architecture, politics, etc. The one area they claimed Europeans were vastly superior in was science.

What's kind of interesting is how China managed to produce so many innovations despite its handicaps. The explanation I believe in points out very few of these inventions were really "scientific", they were more extremely clever solutions to practical problems. Chinese society places a great value on cleverness and literacy, and with such a huge population of people, a lot of whom are better educated and have access to more resources than anywhere else in the world, it is pretty probable that they will create a lot of smart solutions. Stuff like the steel-tipped plow, bucket conveyor belt, compass- these are not creations requiring any sort of ideological framework. A smart peasant farmer could easily make the logical connection between the strength of steel, and the weakness of wooden-tipped plows. This is not to say China didnt have great intellectual thinkers, just that said thinkers had to work a lot harder to get results than a post-Renaissance European counterpart with access to a better intellectual framework. To paraphrase Dirk Kotter, China was the best inventor until the Europeans invented the best way to invent things.

4) Lack of need to innovate. China was so overwhelmingly superior to just about every other state in population, organization, agriculture, and size that they were going to dominate regardless of whether they had technology or not. They could afford to (and often did) abandon promising avenues of technology and thought in interest of stability- the big threat to Chinese society wasnt invasion, it was disunity. In contrast, European princes had to embrace just about every new technology, because if they didnt, their neighbour would, and leave them in the dust.

5) Cultural pride. Chinese society was so very ethnocentric and self-glorifying (with some good cause) that when they had chances to adopt new technology from the Europeans, they did not, on the basis that Chinese society was so obviously superior, the gwailo barbarians could neve produce anything worth keeping.

 

[HelloLegend]

I agree that Chinese of that day had an old saying, which isn't
in use anymore...

An Dao Lao Gui Ju Ban.

"In accordance to the Old Rules governed" is the literal translation.

The Chinq wanting to be more accepted by the Chinese as legitimate
"in my opinion" went overboard in focusing on the Classic examination system as way to promote Chinese individuals.

Also, the abuses of one individual in the latter half of 19th century did a lot to set China back. Empress Dowager Cixi took money earmarked for military science (naval warfare improvements) and built a mississippi style seamboat out of italian marble at YeHe Yuan.

As far as centralization is concerned. Centralization can be good in aiming fund towards a certain form of research... Nazis rocket program, Nasa's Kennedy driven Moon program, etc.

Market forces tend to make better "consumer" decisions...
The Toyota Prius (of Japan) a good example. Consumers want hybrids. And that's where the technology should go. In the 21st Century, China will adapt to the Western capitalistic model when creating improved consumer-driven products as well. The Stone Company in China is making domestic cars that are gasoline efficient. Look for Chinese car manufacturers to be competitive within 20 years with alternative fuel cars.

 

[aware of emptiness]

Also, besides Muslims and the Chinese, I'd think India could be another place that would have likely had a scientific revolution. India had a pretty well-developed mathematic and scientific background.

 

[aware of emptiness]

Anaxagoras

he second, ritualistic or magical taoism started out as a real world application of the first, with a particular emphasis on moralist stories and medicine, but over the years also became a system of magical trickery, quackery, and even animism calculated mainly to make mendicant monks a living. Unfortunately, this was the system that the average Chinese was most familiar with.

About the issue of rationalism, is China's philosophical/religious stance less rational and scientific than Europe's? Scientific ideas such as Galileo's heliocentric view or Darwin's evolution seemed to be dragged down by the fundamentalist Christian worldview a lot.

The idea of a single, omnipotent miracle-making personal God controlling everything would not seem less "rational", in my opinion, than Taoism or Hinduism.

If God can do anything, interrupt daily events to perform miracles and answer prayers, then he would not have to obey any scientific laws. So, I don't see how the rational view that the universe works under a series of set, logical, and unchanging laws is more compatible with a Christian European than a Hindu Indian or Chinese Taoist.

 

[Tocomocho]

After the arrive of the Jesuits there were a great renaissance of Astronomy, Carthography and Mathematics in China. If I'm not wrong, the peak of this advance was around the late 17th-early 18th centuries, during the reign of the Emperor Kangxi. However, in the 1720s exploded a crisis between China and Europe when the Pope condemned the Chinese rits as a form of Paganism. Kangxi was angry (mostly due to the bad attitude of the Papal ambassador) and decided to break the relations between China and the Christian countries, returning China to isolationism, closing the Christian missions and expelling the Jesuits from the country, despite many of them were in his own Court as counselors.

So, a possible POD is that in the early 1720s, a less radical Pope accepts the Chinese rits as non incompatible with the Christian faith, just like the Jesuits in China claimed. The relation between China and the Europeans could be more closed and by the last decades of the 18th century the Age of the Enlightenment could be hited China. Can you imagine the possible consequencies?

 

[Max Sinister]

But Galileo & Darwin succeeded at last... even if many people, esp. in the US, don't believe in evolution, all serious scientists do so.

I second the idea that Chinese wanted practical solutions: There are so many inventions they made, but how many progresses of the kind "science just for the sake of science" were made? Were there any people seeking new knowledge, even if there was no visible use for it, just on purpose?