连续4天在香港中文大学参加第八届全球华人计算机教育应用大会，与国内外教育技术专家交流，聆听了WebQuest创意者Professor Bernie Dodge（ San Diego State University）的报告：Balancing Structure and Freedom in Pedagogy: A Challenge for Teachers and Researchers。还与美国第二代教学设计ID2的创意者Professor David Merrill（Department of Instructional Technology, Utah State University, USA ）讨论了他提出的“教育第一原理”。David Merrill在会议上的报告题目是：How to recognize effective e-learning when you see it?
香港的清晨，窗外是美丽的海湾，一层淡淡的薄雾在远近的青山上飘动，让人心情格外宁静。几天的会议情景又如蒙太奇般在脑海叠现，使人浮想联翩。
我们许多老师告诉我，他们关于概念图研究的投稿被淘汰了，没有入选，这次看到台湾的同样的研究文章，感到别人的研究确实比自己的文章深入。
在昨天的晚宴上，大会主席，台湾中央大学陈德怀教授讲了一个故事：一位投稿者向会议主席询问为什么没有选用他的稿子？主席回答说，你的稿子很好并有创造，"The paper is Good & Original,The good part is NOT original, The original is NOT good." （好的部分不是原创，原创部分不是好的。）
会上，香港教育城（http://www.hkedcity.net/）的介绍令内地的老师们十分感叹，为什么内地许多远比香港大的城市（例如：北京、上海）却没有能够做出象香港教育城这样的教育网站？
许多年前，人们在讨论“李约瑟难题”：为什么中国古代有着辉煌灿烂的科技文明，而近代却落伍了？“为甚么近代科学只在欧洲，而没有在中国文明（或印度文明）中产生？”
联想到上个世纪90明代后（1995年-）。中国和西方几乎是同时面临网络时代的到来，几乎同时启动教育信息化的历史进程，然而，在短短几年之中（而不是几千年），我们在教育信息化的理论和实践方面，落后了？从教学设计理论到教育资源建设，从教学软件的开发应用到课程教材改革，我们需要反思，一个十分严峻的问题摆在我们这一代人的面前：在信息化时代，我们是否会重演“李约瑟难题”？我们正在重演“李约瑟难题”！！我们这一代人是这个故事的当事人、责任人！
我们如何走出“李约瑟难题”？
——Jiahou2004年6月3日写于香港中文大学教育学院计算机室
参考资料：
1、香港教育城（http://www.hkedcity.net/）
2、David Merrill的网站：www.ID2.usu.edu
3、WebQuest创意者Professor Bernie Dodge的网站：http://webquest.sdsu.edu/
4、 关于“李约瑟难题”在详细阅读中。
关于“李约瑟难题”的资料
资料来源：http://www.ihns.ac.cn/readers/fdn.htm
关於中国近代科学落后原因的讨论
范岱年
为了发展科学，把古老的中国现代化，中国学术界多次开展了关於中国近代科学落后原因的讨论。这个问题，国际科学史界都把它称为“李约瑟难题”。许多人都以为，这是李约瑟（Joseph Needham， 1900-1995）於1964年最先在〈东西方的科学与社会〉一文中提出的，他的问题是：
“为甚么近代科学只在欧洲，而没有在中国文明（或印度文明）中产生？”“为甚么在公元前一世纪到公元十五世纪期间，在应用人类的自然知识於人类的实际需要方面，中国文明远比西方更有成效得多？”
其实，关於中国近代科学落后的原因的探讨，在李约瑟以前很久，早就引起了中外学者的关注。韩琦在〈关於十七、十八世纪欧洲人对中国科学落后原因的论述〉一文中，就介绍了法国耶稣会士巴多明（D. Parrenin）、启蒙思想家伏尔泰（F. Voltaire）、重农学派代表人物奎奈（F. Quesnay）、英国哲学家休谟（David Hume）、法国哲学家狄德罗（D. Diderot）的有关论述。而中国学者，早在本世纪新文化运动之初，就提出了这个问题。因限於资料，作者拟在本文中对中国大陆学者有关这一问题的讨论作一简单的回顾。
一 新文化运动时期（1915-1924）的讨论
中国近代科学的先驱、中国科学社的创始人任鸿隽（1886-1961）在1915年创办《科学》杂志之时，就探讨了“说中国之无科学的原因”，认为“无归纳法为无科学之大原因”。
1920年，我国启蒙思想家梁启超（1873-1929）在他的《清代学术概论》中认为：清代“朴学”的研究法，已“近於‘科学的’”，而自然科学不发达，是因为我国人有“‘德成而上，艺成而下’之观念，因袭已久，本不易骤然解放，其对於自然界物象之研究，素乏趣味”，又因为清代中国没有学校、学会、报馆之类的建制，科学上之发明不能流传和交流，“因秘而失传者，盖不少矣”。有趣的是，蒋方震（1882-1938）在1921年为这部著作写的序中主要讨论的，也是清代“纯正科学，卒不扬”的原因。他列举了四条：（1）“清以异族，入主中夏，致用之学，必遭时忌”；（2）“耶稣会党太子”，得罪了雍正，“竟为西学输入之一障害”；（3）“民族富於调和性，……此科学之大障也”；（4）“民族尚谈玄”。
化学家王阧（1888-1966）在1922年《科学》杂志上，发表了〈中国之科学思想〉一文。他认为中国科学不振之原因，不仅是“吾国学者之不知归纳法”，或“我国素鄙视物质科学，不加注意”；而强调“历史之影响，即专制之影响”，以及“民性之影响，乃依赖之影响也”。王阧认为政府的专制、学术（如易经、阴阳五行学说）的专制，对中国科学的发展是极大的“摧残”。而社会与学者的心理，“皆不视科学为研究真理之学问、不知其自身有独立之资格、固不必依赖富强之号召为其存在之保护人也”。这缺乏独立性、自主性的依赖心理也“断丧了”科学的发展。
与此同时，在美国哥伦比亚大学攻读哲学的冯友兰，在〈为甚么中国没有科学——对中国哲学的历史及其后果的一种解释〉一文中认为，探讨中国没有自然科学的原因，主要不能归之於地理、气候、经济，……而主要应归之於中国人的价值观、中国人的哲学。接著他指出：中国古代有三大学派，道家主张自然，墨家主张人为，儒家主张中道，而后墨家失败，人为路线消亡。儒家中荀子一派主张“制天命而用之”，类似於培根的征服自然的观念。但荀子一派在秦亡以后也衰落了。宋代兴起的新儒家吸收了佛家与道家的学说，而佛家也是主张自然的。新儒家强调存天理，灭人欲，不寻求控制外部世界，而只求控制内心。这样，民族思想注重人伦实用，只在人心之内寻求善与幸福，而不寻求认识外部世界的确定性；只寻求对人的治理，而不寻求对自然界的征服。这就是中国没有科学的原因。
1924年，梁启超发表了《清代学术概论》的姐妹篇《中国近三百年来学术史》，进一步综述了乾嘉时期只有考证学得到畸形发展，而自然科学未能发展起来的原因。他认为，最大的障碍物，自然是八股取士的科举制度。
综观上述学者的论述，他们把中国近代科学落后的原因，归之於研究方法、哲学思想、价值观念、专制政治和教育制度（科举制度）等，而没有涉及社会经济制度。
二 抗日战争胜利前后（1944-1947）的讨论
1944年，这是抗日战争胜利前一年，也是中国科学社成立30周年。在这一年，中国学术界又一次展开了关於中国近代科学落后原因的讨论。
1944年7月，当时在贵州的浙江大学心理学教授陈立（1902- ）讨论了我国科学不发达的心理因素：（1）拟人思想的泛生论；（2）没有工具思想的直观方法；（3）没有逻辑；（4）没有分工；（5）客观与主观的混淆；（6）理智的不诚实等等。而这一切，他都认为是反映著宗法社会的组织。与此同时，浙江大学教授、数学史家钱宝琮（1892-1974）则把“吾国自然科学不发达”归因於中国人太重实用。而这些又是由中国的大陆文化，自给自足之经济所使然。
同年10月1日，《科学时报》复刊第一期刊载了对李约瑟有很大影响的马克思主义者、德籍犹太人维特福格尔（A. Wittfogel）讨论“中国为甚么没有产生自然科学”的译文。
1944年10月24-25日，在贵州湄潭浙江大学内举行了中国科学社湄潭区年会。24日下午7时，李约瑟（当时是中英科学合作馆馆长，中国科学社名誉社友）作了题为“中国之科学与文化”的讲演。李约瑟在演讲中，首先批驳了“泰西与中国学人”的“中国自来无科学”的论点，指出：“古代之中国哲学颇合科学之理解，而后世继续发扬之技术上发明与创获亦予举世文化以深切有力之影响。问题之症结乃为现代实验科学与科学之理论体系，何以发生於西方而不於中国也。”这里，他实际上已提出了1964年发表的“李约瑟难题”。对於这个难题，他认为：“此当於坚实物质因素中求答。……中国之经济制度，迥不同於欧洲。继封建制度之后者为亚洲之官僚制度或官僚封建制度，而不为资本主义。……大商人之未尝产生，此科学之所以不发达也。”
浙江大学校长、气象学家、科学史家竺可桢（1890-1974）参加了这次演讲会。他在当天的日记中比较详细地记载了李约瑟对“中国近世科学之不能兴起”的回答，即“由於环境，即四个抑制因素，为地理、气候、经济与社会。后二者乃由中国之无商人阶级。地理方面，中国为大陆国，故闭关自守，固步自封，与希腊、罗马、埃及之海洋文化不同。天气方面因雨量无一定，故不得不有灌溉制度。因此，地主尽为一国之王所吞如。而封建官僚的基础制度不可消灭，商人无由兴起云云”。接著，竺可桢在日记中还记载了他本人、郑晓沧、王阧、钱宝琮在随后的讨论中发表的意见。
1945年，竺可桢发表了〈为甚么中国古代没有产生自然科学？〉一文，他在文中首先分析了钱宝琮、李约瑟、维特福格尔和陈立四人的结论，指出“前三位先生一致主张是农业社会在作别；陈立先生的意见是由於宗法社会的组织。两者的意见实是二而一。因为宗法社会只有以农业为经济核心时才能维持，才能发展”。竺可桢然后进一步探讨了第二个问题：“为甚么在中国历史上农业社会能保持这种压倒的势力如此之久？”竺可桢考察了中国的历史，指出：“从战国到汉初，一方面是工商业发达时期，一方面也是中国思想最灿烂的一个时期。但是，由於汉武帝厉行了重农抑商的政策，使工商业的发展被扼杀。至於在战国思想解放的时代，科学的思潮也未能发展，则是由於中西文化的差异。”“中国人对实际活动的兴趣，远在其对於纯粹活动之上。”“中国人讲好德如好色，而绝不说爱智爱天。古西方人说爱智爱天，而绝不说好德如好色。”竺可桢进一步认为，“中西文化在这种价值意义上的差异”，“也是因为中国社会一直以农业为核心的关系”。希腊曾经经过游牧时代，它是一个半岛，和海外来往很便利，所以商业从头即易於发达；而中国是一个大陆国家，从殷墟时代起，即以农业为主要生产。古代帝王认为“民农则朴，朴则易用，易用则边境安，主位尊”。“好智者多诈”，因此提倡重农抑商，农业社会势力大，求知之心不得发达，而科学思想亦无从发展。所以竺可桢的结论是：“中国农业社会的机构和封建思想，使中国古代不能产生自然科学。”
有意思的是，有别於二十多年前新文化运动时期的学者们，这次参加讨论的学者们，几乎都一致把中国科学的落后溯因於社会经济制度。
1947年，《科学》杂志又发表了朱伯康〈论中国科学技术之发展与中断〉和李晓舫〈论中国科学化的社会条件〉两篇文章。
三 改革开放初期（1980-1982）的讨论和成都会议
从1949年到70年代末，中国大陆的政治风云使科学史方面的研究成果十分稀少，仅有的一些成果也都属於中国古代科学史和内史方面的成果。对外史和中国近代科学落后的原因问题几乎无人问津。
可是，在海外，李约瑟的巨著《中国科学技术史》（Science and Civilisation in China）从1954到1980年出了前四卷和第五卷中的三个分册。李约瑟在他的“全书编写计划”中表明，这部巨著的第四部分（即第七卷）所要回答的就是著名的“李约瑟难题”。与此同时，李约瑟还撰写了《大滴定——东西方的科学与社会》等著作和一系列论文，对“李约瑟难题”作出了种种解答。欧、美、日本、南韩的不少学者对这个问题进行了深入的探讨，发表了许多论文。而在中国大陆，除了在1975年翻译出版了李约瑟的《中国科学技术史》的第一卷、第三卷以及第四卷和第五卷各两分册外，对李约瑟以及海外学者有关“李约瑟难题”的探讨的论文与著作则完全没有介绍和反应。
80年代初期，在解放思想、实现科学技术现代化的号召的鼓舞下，面对十年“文革”给中国科学事业带来的巨大摧残，中国学者又对中国近代科学落后的原因产生了兴趣。1980年，陈平从经济结构、政治制度、哲学传统三个方面，探讨了中国科学落后的历史根源。
1982年，中国科学院自然科学史研究所杜石然等六位研究人员集体编写的《中国科学技术史稿》出版。在此书结论的第四节中，作者专门论述了“中国科学技术在近代落后的原因”。作者仍坚持当时大陆公认的观点，把近代科学不能在中国产生的原因归之於长期封建制度的束缚。但是作者似乎没有掌握李约瑟在《大滴定》中的有关论述，特别是对李约瑟在〈东西方社会的科学〉一文中对中国马克思主义史学家的挑战没有作出回应。李约瑟根据考古和文献资料，参照1952年出版的马克思的《政治经济学批判大纲》等著作，认为中国没有经过奴隶制社会，中国的亚细亚生产方式（封建官僚社会）既不同於奴隶生产方式也不同於封建生产方式。而《史稿》则仍然坚持“社会发展阶段的‘单向体系’”。
为了促进大陆的科学社会史（外史）的研究，促进内外史研究的结合，也为了总结历史经验，为科学技术现代化服务，1982年10月16日至22日，中国科学院《自然辩证法通讯》杂志社在四川成都召开了“中国近代科学落后原因”学术讨论会。会上宣读并交流学术论文近50篇，到会代表74人。会后，选出其中论文24篇，集成文集。
在这些论文中，影响最大的是金观涛、樊洪业、刘青峰的〈文化背景与科学技术结构的演变〉一文。作者们看到了促进近代科学在西欧产生和近代科学在中国落后的众多因素并不是线性并列的，有的是互为因果，有的相互起作用，所以，他们采用系统论、控制论的方法，把科学看成是社会中的一个内部有结构的子系统，它又与社会中其他子系统（经济、政治、文化、哲学、技术）相互发生作用。他们认为西方有构造性的自然观，逐步形成了科学理论与受控实验、科学与开放性技术体系相互促进的循环加速机制，因而近代科学得以形成和发展。而中国是伦理中心主义的有机自然观，不进行受控实验，大一统型技术不形成开放性技术体系，因而不能形成近代科学加速发展的机制。作者还采用了定量的方法，用图表曲线对中西方科学发展作了对比，企图证实李约瑟对中西方科学成就的评价。
但是，这篇文章也引起了一些争议，特别是台湾学者傅大为对这篇文章有几点重要的批评。如（1）引用的资料比较贫乏，不少是一些比较过时的大“通史”之类的材料；（2）关於科学结构，所依据的是早期实证论和波普尔（Karl Popper）的证伪论（falsificationism）的科学观，而没有汲取后来库恩（Thomas Kuhn）有关科学革命的结构和拉卡托斯（Imre Lakatos）有关精致的证伪论等成果，也没有充分注意到意识形态、形而上学哲学对科学发展的重大影响；（3）在十七世纪西欧科学革命时期，科学和技术并未形成相互促进的循环机制；（4）对中西方的科学技术成就作定量比较时，有关科学技术成就的计分标准有很大的主观性和随意性。（关於这一点，大陆学者刘兵也有同感。）我认为这些批评都是十分中肯的。金观涛等人的这篇文章的弱点，确实反映了经过长期封闭和“文革”的破坏的大陆学术界的一些实际状况。当时要收集国外资料十分困难，而许多青年学者亦没有很好的掌握英文、德文等这些语言工具。我们在准备成都会议时，对李约瑟的有关论述也未作全面调研，只是组织翻译了一篇〈中国科学传统的贫困与成就〉。但是，金观涛等人运用系统论、控制论的方法於科学史的研究，是具有开创性的一条进路，如果结合蚕实的史料，有希望做出有价值的成果。
林文照的〈论近代科学没有在中国产生的原因〉一文，从中国传统科学的内在缺陷（重实用，轻理论，思辨性思维，用元气和阴阳学说来解释一切，缺乏严格的逻辑推理，缺乏科学实验精神，格物学说背离实践方向），封建专制的政治制度的束缚（教育和科举制度、社会鄙弃或禁锢科学技术），封建经济结构和经济政策的阻碍（自给自足的小农和手工业经济，官营工业和重农轻商的经济政策）等方面，比较全面地（材料相对比较丰富）回答了这个问题。但他对中国社会制度的分析，仍摆脱不了当时大陆公认观点的窠臼。
戴念祖、何新、叶晓青、刘吉、郭永芳、朱熹豪、樊松林、秦会斌、华大明等人的文章，有的重复了林文照的论点或稍加发挥，有的补充了“缺乏古希腊的自然哲学传统”、“带有神秘主义色彩的有机自然观的阻碍”、“短於分析的民族性格”、“重藏书、轻流通的图书情报工作传统”、“中国的符号体系对数学发展的不利影响”等等因素。
刘戟锋、宋正海和陈传康、闻人军、白尚恕、李迪、陈亚兰等人的文章则分别从不同时期对（1）宋代的哲学和科学；（2）明初的郑和航海；（3）明末阻碍科技发展的因素；（4）十七、十八世纪西方科学对中国的影响以及康熙以后西方科学受阻的原因；（5）清朝前期科技发展等作了探讨。
乐秀成、郭金彬从不同侧面探讨了中国近代数学落后的原因；梁宗巨从数学史的角度探讨了中国科学落后的原因；梅荣照、王渝生通过分析李善兰的尖锥术，认为如果没有西方近代数学的引进，中国有可能以自己的特殊方式创立解析几何；胡作玄对比了中日两国引进和发展近代数学的例子。
李伯聪探讨了至今仍能与西医并存的中医学历史和其发展中的几个问题。邹德秀阐述了自上世纪中叶开始落后、自本世纪30年代和西方国家出现了大差距的农业科技落后的原因。丘亮辉在探讨中国近代冶金技术落后一文中谈到清代官僚创办汉冶萍钢铁公司的种种教训，给人以深刻的印象。
尽管这次会议准备不够充分，特别是对海外的有关资料掌握得很不够，但这还是中国大陆第一次讨论中国近代科学落后原因的全国性会议。参加这次会议的，以中青年科学史工作者居多，对中国大陆的科学社会史研究和内外史结合起了推动作用。特别是通过不同时期（如明代、清代），不同学科的探讨，使问题讨论得更为深入。这次会议在中国大陆产生了相当大的影响。据中国文化史家刘志琴说，随后在中国大陆学术界掀起的文化热就是由这次会议和同年12月上海第一次中国文化史研究学者座谈会发轫的。这倒是我们发起召开这次会议时所没有预料到的。
四 成都会议以后（1983-1997）
成都会议以后，自1984年开始，中国学术界开始了持续多年的文化热。而关於近代科学落后的原因或“李约瑟难题”的讨论，也一直持续到今天。中山大学哲学系“马应彪科学哲学论坛”还设立了“李约瑟专题研究基金”，鼓励这方面的研究。
这十多年来的文章，大致可以分为两类。第一类是继续对这个问题进行探讨和回答。例如，吴忠在1985年发表的〈自然法、自然规律与近代科学〉一文，探讨了李约瑟提出的“缺少‘自然法’概念，也许是中国未能发展出近代科学的一个原因”。1987年，他又在〈科学传统与科学革命〉一文中，提出了科学传统模型，这是在拉卡托斯的研究纲领模型（核心理论、保护带）之外，加上一个文化传统的硬外壳。他认为科学革命是一种科学传统的改变，而旧中国的坚固的文化传统正是中国近代科学落后的原因。
1990年，为了表示对李约瑟九十华诞的庆贺，上海《自然杂志》该年11期特辑了“‘李约瑟难题’征答”专栏，从收到的60余篇应答稿件中，选载了庞朴、闻人军、李迪等13人的11篇短文。但是，令人遗憾的是，这些文章中除庞朴的文章介绍了1981年11月他与李约瑟本人关於这个问题的讨论，以及李迪关於“‘西学中源说’的恶果”的论述有一点新意外，其他的短文，比起成都会议的论文来，看不出有甚么进展。更为令人不解的是，对1984和1986年国内两次翻译、发表的美国科学史家席文（Nathan Sivin）的〈为甚么中国没有发生科学革命？——或者它真的没有发生吗？〉一文，以及在1986年出版的潘吉星主编的《李约瑟文集》中的第一部分“科学技术史通论”中大量有关内容几乎没有反应。
上海《自然杂志》在刊载了“‘李约瑟难题’征答”专栏之后，紧接著在下一期又译载了李约瑟的〈东西方的科学与社会〉一文。这是李约瑟应《自然杂志》之约，特地从英国寄来的。他在这篇文章中，对1964年发表的原文稍有修改，把写作的年代从1964年改为1990年（例如把“过去30年间”都改为“过去50年间”）。这表明李约瑟到晚年仍坚持该文的观点。国内有些学者，都期待著李约瑟的《中国科学技术史》的第七卷对他的难题作出最终的回答，其实在李约瑟的这篇文章和《大滴定》一书中的其他论文以及《中国科技史》前几卷中的某些章节已亮出了他的基本观点，提出了许多论据，值得我们去深入研究和理解。
1997年吴彤发表〈从自组织观看“李约瑟问题”〉一文，认为近代科学之所以未能发生於中国，其主要原因在於中国社会为科学性知识的演化提供了一个被组织环境，没有形成一个开放的、非线性的、远离平衡态的自组织系统。这篇文章的思路和金观涛等人的文章相似，都是从系统论的观点出发来探讨问题。
另一类文章则对“李约瑟问题”本身提出了质疑。
1984年，《科学与哲学》译刊发表了席文的〈为甚么中国没有发生科学革命？——或者它真的没有发生吗？〉一文。席文对“李约瑟问题”本身和一系列的解答提出了质疑。他认为，问“为甚么十七世纪中国没有发生欧洲那样的科学革命”这类问题虽有启发性，但没有历史学的意义和价值。中国的文化传统和历境（Context）不同於西欧，不应该要求西方发生的事情同样也发生於中国。席文认为，实际上，十七世纪中叶，中国的天文学发生了一场概念和方法上的革命，但它对中国传统文化、其他科学以及社会状况没有产生巨大的影响，也没有形成自主的科学家团体。同时，中国早期工艺技术的成就，并不取决於它应用当时科学知识的程度。因此，因为古代中国工艺技术的成就，就断言它有比欧洲更高的科学成就，也是缺乏根据的。
更重要的是，席文反对西方文化中心主义和辉格式的历史研究方法，反对用欧洲早期科学和近代科学为标准，来评价非欧文明，“把欧洲的历史描绘成一条逐步取得成功的上升的曲线（当然也有挫折，……），而把非欧洲文明描绘成失败者的舞台造型”。他提倡历境主义（Contextualism）的科学史研究方法，要“深入完整地了解从事科学技术工作的人们的情况”，把科学革命看成是“类似於历史的进化”的一个过程。他反对把近代科学看成是“普遍的、客观的和没有价值偏见的”科学观，认为“欧洲近代科学的发展带有特定的环境特征”。从这种科学观和史学研究方法出发，席文对中外学者以及李约瑟的著作中提出的二、三十个“抑制近代科学在中国和西欧出现的因素”进行了考察，指出其中的推理错误。
席文的文章在中国大陆引起了一定的反响。1986年底，《自然辩证法通讯》发表叶晓青的〈科学史研究中的文化观〉，赞赏了席文的反西方中心主义的文化观。其实，李约瑟也反对西方中心主义，推崇中国文化与古代科学。但叶认为，“与李约瑟倾慕……中国文化的热情不同，席文更多地……带著一种类似人类学家的眼光和胸怀”。吴忠在1987年的文章中表示，如果从当时中国科学传统的角度出发，探讨一下为何西学东渐会受到阻碍的问题，那就不仅并非“毫无价值”，或仅“有一定的参考价值”，而确实具有“‘科学’”历史学价值”。
1990年，董光璧在他的〈移植、融合、还是革命？〉一文中，同意席文把中国十七世纪的天文学复兴看作是一场有限的革命。但这不同於欧洲十七世纪的科学革命，在那场革命中，西欧的科学结构范式、研究方法的模式、研究活动的组织方式都发生了变革。董认为，在中国，这样的科学革命要到二十世纪前期，通过全面移植西方科学才得以实现。
1991年10月，江晓原发表了〈“李约瑟难题”献疑〉一文。认为（1）中国古代并没有在现今意义上的科学；（2）“据和现代科学水平接近的程度”，来说中国古代科学成就的“杰出”，来衡量一种完全不同的知识体系，也大成问题。
1993年，大陆发表了在瑞典的台湾学者王禹凡女士的〈浅谈中国科学史之外史研究〉一文。作者介绍了席文、何丙对“李约瑟难题”的质疑。对大陆学者从1982年到1990年有关“李约瑟难题”的讨论作了直率的批评，介绍了台湾学者的有关工作。她还指出，大陆科学外史作者“大都持和李约瑟同样的论调，即庞大的中央官僚体系压抑了工商阶级的发展与其社会地位”，但忽视了“中国民间强烈的乡党意识与世族感情似乎阻碍了城市中工商行会团体的成长”这一面。
1993年，澳大利亚华裔历史学家陈民熙的〈比较科学史中的共时分析与历时分析〉一文，赞同席文的观点，主张对科学史进行历境主义的研究。他还比较了古代中国与古希腊的科学及其历境、十七世纪西欧的科学革命和中国的复旧的非革命性的变革，探讨了二十世纪中国的科学及其历境。
同年发表的张秉伦和徐飞的论文，首先分析了“李约瑟难题”的逻辑矛盾。他们认为：（1）李约瑟把近代以来产生於西方的各种科学理论与传统的一个集合定义为近代科学，然后又问为甚么产生於西方，这是同义反覆；（2）按照李约瑟表述，近代科学是伽利略、哈维、维萨留斯、格斯纳、牛顿等一大批不同国家的科学家所开创的一种科学传统，如果要问近代科学为甚么没有在中国产生，那么它同样也没有在欧洲的任何一个国家单独产生。作者进一步论证，若把近代科学的产生改换成科学革命，仍不能清除李约瑟难题中的逻辑矛盾。但是，作者仍然承认“李约瑟难题”大大促进了中西方科学与文化的历史的比较研究。
1996年，中国科学院院士、中国科学技术史学会理事长席泽宗在《科学》杂志上发表了〈关於“李约瑟难题”和近代科学源於希腊的对话〉一文。文中，席泽宗赞同席文的见解，认为“李约瑟难题”的提法不妥。“历史上没有发生的事情，不是历史学家研究的对象。”但他在论证古希腊文化对近代科学的阻碍作用时，强调了托勒密学说、亚里斯多德的物理学对哥白尼学说的阻碍，欧几里德几何阻碍了微积分的发展，对牛顿没有多大帮助，牛顿的《自然哲学数学原理》只学了《几何原理》的形式，……如此等等。使人感到，他的论证有很多辉格式倾向，只看到近代科学对中世纪流行的古希腊科学的革命与断裂，而忽视了它们之间的继承与连续。
五 反思与展望
回顾近八十年来我国学者有关中国近代科学落后原因的讨论，以及近十年来对“李约瑟难题”本身的质疑，我感到，我们可以对“李约瑟难题”的表述中的缺陷进行修正，但有关从古到今中国与西方的文化史、科学史的比较研究，始终是一个既有学术意义又有现实意义并具有巨大魅力的课题。
为了进一步开展中西方文化史、科学史的研究，我们是否可以把“李约瑟难题”加以修正，并分解为几个不同的时期：（1）首先是对从轴心时代（公元前800年到公元前600年）到十七世纪中西方文化和古代科学作共时性和历时性的比较研究，特别是要研究近代科学或科学革命在十七世纪的西欧是在甚么情况下发生的，中国古代科学是如何长期缓慢地发展的；（2）研究十七世纪以后到二十世纪初，经过两次西学东渐，中国为甚么不能很好地学习、吸收西方近代科学，使中国近代科学落后於西方；（3）研究二十世纪以来，中国虽然全面地移植了西方近代科学以及科学的体制，但中国近代科学为何仍不能顺利发展，为何仍然落后於欧美。
为了在中西方科学史研究中有所突破，我们需要进一步加强内史和外史的结合，力求从辉格式研究转向历境主义的研究。在从事比较科学史研究时，对一些事物，要结合它们的历境加以比较。我们还需要吸收解释学（Hermeneutics）的方法，对不同时期的科学文本，要从作者本人和当时的读者的理解去理解，要研究它与后来读者理解的差异。
虽然早在70年代初，科学哲学家就强调科学哲学和科学史研究的结合，但在实际上，这两个学科结合的状况还远不合乎理想。回顾十多年来大陆学者的讨论，大多数学者（自觉或不自觉地）所依据的还是比较陈旧的实证论的科学观。近三十年发展起来的自然主义实在论，通过对当代科学哲学的综合，结合关於复杂适应系统的新学科，把科学看成是社会系统中的一个非线性的、复杂的、适应的、自组织调节系统。他们提倡研究科学与哲学，科学方法与理论，科学与技术，科学技术与社会，理解与管理，方法与政策之间的互动和共同演化。我感到，它为比较研究中西方文化和科学发展的历史提供了一个较好的框架。
韦伯（Max Weber， 1864-1920）是知识社会学和文化比较研究的先驱，他一生致力於探讨世界诸主要民族的精神文化气质（ethos）与民族的社会经济发展之间的内在关系。他认为，新教伦理的理性主义精神对资本主义和近代科学的产生和发展起著重大作用，因此，对近代科学的起源问题作出了不同於李约瑟的解答。有一些西方学者认为，在近代文化比较研究方面，韦伯胜过李约瑟。可是回顾成都会议，没有一个人提到韦伯的观点。到1985年，韦伯已经引起了大陆学术界的广泛兴趣。从1986到1987年，韦伯的《新教伦理与资本主义精神》出了两个中译本。可是，在1990年对“李约瑟难题”的11篇应答论文中，仍没有一个人提到韦伯的观点。而1922年冯友兰的论文的思路倒是和韦伯一致的。其实，知识社会学或科学知识社会学，从韦伯、默顿（R.K. Merton， 1910- ）、英国的马尔凯（M. Mulkay）、爱丁堡学派的巴恩斯（B. Barnes）、法国的拉都尔（B. Latour）以及当代的科学哲学和科学史，特别是科学社会史和比较科学史，都有十分密切的关系。今后，我们要加强比较科学史的研究，不能不十分关切科学知识社会学的进展和成果。
近三、四十年来，后现代主义者、女性主义者、环境生态主义者、人文主义者对现代性和现代科学进行了种种批判。他们反对现代科学的理性精神，否认科学是客观的、进步的，认为科学知识是由权力机制所建构的，现代科学压倒了人文精神，压制了非西方文化的边缘文化。他们认为，人们利用现代科学和技术征服、控制自然，而不是关怀（care）自然，导至自然资源的匮乏和生态环境的破坏；利用现代科学发明的武器，足以消灭人类，……如此等等。这些批判有一些合理的内容是值得我们汲取的。但他们中的激进者，明确反对科学，宣告科学的终结。这些观点仍难让我们苟同，因为现实的情况是，现代科学并没有终结。被破坏的生态环境仍需要利用现代科学技术来加以治理。禁止和销毁各种杀人武器，也只能通过理性的协商才能解决。比较可行的还是允许一些非西方的传统科学、原始科学能够与现代科学并存（parascience），相互竞争，例如中医学与西医学的并存。
这样，我们就不仅要探讨中国近代科学落后的原因，还应当探讨中国有哪些传统科学可以与现代科学并存，我们还可以从中国传统科学中汲取哪些仍然有价值的内容，而且还要考虑，在努力实现中国科学现代化的同时，如何避免西方国家在实现现代化过程中所犯的错误，并汲取它们的教训。
* 本文获马文辉科学哲学论坛李约瑟问题基金会赞助。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
相关阅读
李约瑟档案简介和目录
刘钝、潘吉星等谈李约瑟的世纪难题
“李约瑟难题”：研究与反思
李约瑟：科学、正义与进步
李约瑟的世界和世界的李约瑟
李约瑟著作中的印度科学
从“百川归海”到“两岸风光”
探究中华科技文明之河的“两岸风光”－从社会、文化的角度发展李约瑟关于中国科技史的正面问题研究
社会学家眼中的“李约瑟难题”
从古代中西科学特点的比较谈近代中国科学落后的原因
A New Survey of the “Needham Question”
http://www.ihns.ac.cn/news/reference%20for%20needham%20studies.htm
李约瑟研究专辑
张东荪解释“李约瑟难题”
关於中国近代科学落后原因的讨论
李约瑟档案简介和目录
刘钝、潘吉星等谈李约瑟的世纪难题
“李约瑟难题”：研究与反思
李约瑟：科学、正义与进步
李约瑟的世界和世界的李约瑟
李约瑟著作中的印度科学
从“百川归海”到“两岸风光”
探究中华科技文明之河的“两岸风光”－从社会、文化的角度发展李约瑟关于中国科技史的正面问题研究
社会学家眼中的“李约瑟难题”
从古代中西科学特点的比较谈近代中国科学落后的原因
A New Survey of the “Needham Question”
近十年来有关李约瑟和李约瑟难题研究论文目录
朱敬提供
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
王国忠，“李约瑟难题”面面观，中国史研究动态，1991，1
钱兆华，对“李约瑟难题”的一种新解释，自然辨证法研究，1998，3，55-57
李 迪等，自组织与“李约瑟问题”，方法，1998，1，4-6
张诗亚，走出李约瑟似的大山 ，读书，1998，7，53～59
葛剑雄，寻访李约瑟，文汇报，1998年10月26日
童 鹰，论李约瑟的中国自然哲学观，自然辨证法研究，1998，14（11），37-39
周瀚光，论儒家思想对科技发展的积极影响--兼评李约瑟对儒家思想的偏见，华东师范大学学报，1998，6，30-32
辛元欧，李约瑟对中国古船文化研究的贡献和启示--纪念李约瑟诞辰100周年，中国船史研究会*，1998，11，19，1-14
王国忠，求索“李约瑟难题”答案--五十余位中国科技史学者聚会浦东，文汇报，1998年12月11日
沈铭贤，有感于《李约瑟》难题的争论，文汇报，1999年1月16日
黄政新，试解“李约瑟难题”，江淮论坛，1999，1，79-83
黄生财，从中国古代思想观念谈李约瑟命题，自然辩证法通讯，1999，21（6），48-54
乐爱国，李约瑟评朱熹的科学思想及其现代意义，自然辨证法研究，1999，（15）3，48-50
欧阳维诚，试论《周易》对中国古代数学模式化道路形成及发展的影响—兼谈李约瑟之谜，周易研究，1999,4,86-96
江晓原，李约瑟给中国人带来了什么，中华读书报，1999年4月14日
孔令宏，从传统文化对王道政治的源属性谈李约瑟难题，大自然探索，1999，18（2），120-123
徐 刚，李约瑟对朱熹自然哲学的评判，华东师范大学学报(哲社),1999,3,52-56
洪晓楠，从中国古代科技文化特质看<李约瑟难题>.中国文化月刊(台)*5,1999,4,38-50
李国志，抗战时期李约瑟三黔中之行，贵州文史丛刊，2000，3，70-73
王汝发，与李约瑟及其“李约瑟难题”，湖南大学学报（社科），2000，14（3）
赵建军，李约瑟问题的内涵与我们应有的理论视野，自然辩证法通讯，2000，22（3），69-73
戴建平，李约瑟科学史观探析，自然辩证法通讯，2000，22（4），66-70，29
赵建军，从古代东西方科学传统的差异看近代科学产生于欧洲的必然性--李约瑟问题的再思考，科学技术与辩证法，2000，17（3），45-48
钱王国忠，上海举行纪念李约瑟博士百年诞辰研讨会,农业考古,2000,3,334-334
王钱国忠，曹天钦与谢希德与李约瑟博士的深厚友谊．科学新闻周刊，2000年22期
黎 明，李约瑟问题与世界巨著《中国科学技术史》，博览群书，2000，6，56-57
刘 钝，李约瑟的世界和世界的李约瑟，纪念李约瑟诞辰100周年学术报告会（北京），
2000年8月
刘 钝，李约瑟工作的现代意义，中华读书报，2000年8月23日
李小娟，今年出版的有关李约瑟的部分中文书籍，中华读书报，2000年8月23日
胡维佳，李约瑟《中国科学技术史》简介与书目，中华读书报，2000年8月9日
本 刊，李约瑟：20世纪的文艺复兴人--纪念李约瑟诞辰100周年专刊（何丙郁、印度学者、胡维佳等），中华读书报，2000年8月9日
宁小玉译，李约瑟视野中的印度科学，中华读书报，2000年8月9日
何丙郁，李约瑟的成功与他的特殊机缘，中华读书报，2000年8月9日
李 瑶，怀疑主义传统，反抑制的思想火花--读李约瑟《中国科学技术史》第二卷《科学思想史》札记，广西民族学院（自然），2000，6（1），43-48
李 瑶，从中古科学史看道家自然观的发展轨迹--读李约瑟《中国科学技术史》第二卷《科学思想史》札记，广西民族学院（自然），2000，6（4），286-290
本 刊，李约瑟夫妇与《科学前哨》．科学，2000，52（6），55-55
朱 敬，近年来国内报刊有关李约瑟的部分文章，农业考古，2001，1，33-34
郭 郛，纪念大师李约瑟，农业考古，2001，1，23-25
李 迪，登高望远莫兴叹--纪念李约瑟博士华诞100周年，农业考古，2001，1，26-32
许为民等，李约瑟与浙江大学，自然辩证法通讯，2001，23（3），65-68
江晓原，被中国人误读的李约瑟--纪念李约瑟诞辰100周年，自然辩证法通讯，2001，23（1），55-64
尚智丛，新视野中的“李约瑟难题”，科学技术与辩证法，2001，18（4），66-69
黄生财，论李约瑟对自然法则观念与科学发展的研究，科学技术与辩证法，2001，18（4），61-65
龚秀勇，试论胡适对李约瑟问题的解答，科学技术与辩证法，2001，18（2），72-73
董英哲等，对“李约瑟难题”质疑的反思，科学技术与辩证法，2001，18（6），72-77
杨家润，李约瑟与复旦大学，档案与史学，2001，2，50-52
潭盛凤等，跨文化比较研究方法在科技史上的应用--从李约瑟《中国古代科学思想史》
谈起，广西民族学院学报（自然），2001，7（3），197-200
钱兆华,科学·哲学·文化--兼谈“李约瑟难题”,江苏里工大学学报（哲社）*,2001，2,34-38
杨建德等, “李约瑟之谜”的新制度经济学解析--兼谈西部大开发的产权制度建设,四川师范大学学报（哲社）*,2001，28（6）,11-17
闵 丽等，“李约瑟难题” 新解--如何理解中国传统的科学精神，北京日报，2001年1月22日
刘 钝等,回归学术轨道的“李约瑟难题”研究, 中华读书报, 2002年4月24日
尚智丛,从思想和行动注释语言--从李约瑟科学史思想和科学史研究看“李约瑟难题”,
自然辩证法通讯, 2002，24（2）, 74-77
魏屹东,李约瑟难题与社会文化语境,自然辩证法通讯, 2002，24（3）, 15-20
管成学等,从李约瑟的错误引出的对学术批评的思考,自然辩证法研究, 2002，18（7）, 77-80
刘啸霆,原型控制与张力文化--未来视野中的“李约瑟难题”,自然辩证法研究, 2002，18（7）, 72-76
陈 平,从李约瑟问题看中国科技体制和学风的差距, 科学对社会的影响, 2002，2, 49-51
倪怡中,王铃协助李约瑟写《中国科学技术史》,炎黄春秋, 2002，9, 61-62
孟现志, “李约瑟难题”研究的现实意义, 科技进步与对策, 2002，19（9）, 52-53
刘祖慰,李约瑟问题和席文的批评,上海交通大学学报（社科）*, 2002，10（1）, 8-10
施瓦宾,李约瑟文本的当下意义--李约瑟著《中华科学文明史》, 中华读书报, 2002年10月16日
江晓原,听李约瑟说说心理话--李约瑟著《中国古代科学》,中华读书报, 2002年10月16日
徐 凌,中国欧洲和近代科学的起源：李约瑟的‘大滴定’,中国科学革命与科学革命--李约瑟难题及其相关问题研究论著选, 2002年4月, 137-160
郑巧英译,科学、文明与历史：与李约瑟的后续对话, 中国科学革命与科学革命--李约瑟难题及其相关问题研究论著选, 2002年4月, 516-559
李信明,怀念李约瑟教授（上下）--科学、宗教、历史、哲学、艺术的搭桥者, 科学月刊（台）*, 2002，33（8-9）, 714-724；808-819
王国忠,展示李约瑟与中国古代科技风采--李约瑟博物馆筹建刍议, 科学时报, 2002年7月11日
王钱国忠,李约瑟研究所学者来访记,科学新闻, 2002年20期
张双武等,李约瑟难题对科学史研究的启示,湖南商学院学报*, 2002，9（4）, 91-92，136
刘叶涛,“李约瑟问题”的深曾解读, 西南师范大学学报（社科）*, 2002，28（1）, 18-21
张双武,李约瑟难题对科学史研究的启示, 湖南商学院学报（社科）*,2002，9（4）, 91-92，136
刘爱玲,从社会文化价值因素和社会结构看中国近代科学落后的原因-李约瑟难题再探, 中国地质大学学报（社科）*, 2002，2（1）, 30-32
严水其,李约瑟难题一解, 自然辩证法研究, 2002，18（12）, 28-32
周桂钿,“李约瑟难题”试解, 自然辩证法研究, 2002，18（12）, 24-27
姚泽,地域、制度与李约瑟之谜, 读书, 2003，1, 40-47
本刊,李约瑟之谜和韦伯疑问, 科技日报, 2003年2月19日
肖朗等,李约瑟与近代中英文化教育交流, 浙江大学学报（社科）, 2003，33（1）, 5-14
李建军,关于“李约瑟问题”与“诺贝尔现象”的思考, 科技导报, 2003，4, 23-25
徐凌,郑和谜题和李约瑟难题的比较研究及其启迪, 海交史研究, 2003，1, 30-45
朱海文,从数学谈科学与技术的划界及联系--兼谈“李约瑟难题”的数学问题, 北京邮电大学学报（社科）*, 2002，4（3）, 1-4
李勇,试解“李约瑟难题”--从中国传统思维方式的角度思考, 鄂州大学学报（社科）*,2002，9（4）, 55-57
钱兆华,从科学的构成看科学与经验的关系--也谈“李约瑟难题”, 山西师大学报（社科）*, 2003，30（1）, 27-31
梁宗华,李约瑟的中国文观, 孔子研究, 2003，5, 65-71
刘钝，伯林顿馆塞比勒拱和李约瑟--《两种文化》新译本，科学时报，2003年8月14日
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
相关阅读：
张东荪解释“李约瑟难题”
关於中国近代科学落后原因的讨论
李约瑟档案简介和目录
刘钝、潘吉星等谈李约瑟的世纪难题
“李约瑟难题”：研究与反思
李约瑟：科学、正义与进步
李约瑟的世界和世界的李约瑟
李约瑟著作中的印度科学
从“百川归海”到“两岸风光”
探究中华科技文明之河的“两岸风光”－从社会、文化的角度发展李约瑟关于中国科技史的正面问题研究
社会学家眼中的“李约瑟难题”
从古代中西科学特点的比较谈近代中国科学落后的原因
A New Survey of the “Needham Question”
英文资料：
A New Survey of the “Needham Question”*
LIU Dun**
（Institute for the History of Natural Science, CAS, Beijing 100010）
Abstract "Why did modern science not develop in China?" Nowadays, the "Needham question" — as historians have come to refer to this subject — is still a widely-discussed topic among historians of science throughout the world, and its full implications go well beyond the more specific matter of science and China. This article does not discuss the various dynamic factors related to this subject, whether internal or external to science. Instead, it provides a broad survey of recent research concerning this problem, and places special emphasis upon the origins and development of the "Needham question", as well as its significance in the historiography of world science.
Key words Needham question, Science and Civilisation in China, Scientific Revolution, lagging behind, traditional science, modernity
CLC number
Document code
Article ID
1. The“Needham Question”and the“Lagging Behind”Issue
It is well-known that Joseph Needham（1900-1995）was the first to propose the inclusion of an“S”for science in UNESCO. When this supranational organization was created in 1945, Needham had just finished his term as Chief Science Adviser for the British Government in China, and was subsequently appointed as the first Head of the Natural Sciences Section of UNESCO [1] . It was shortly thereafter that he began to consider a project that would eventually occupy the rest of his life, namely writing and editing the multi-volume Science and Civilisation in China（hereafter SCC）.
For years Needham had been puzzled by an historical question, a question that in turn became the strongest motive for him to carry out his monumental project. The question he had to face was: why did modern science, especially the mathematicization of hypotheses about Nature, with all its implications for advanced technology, develop only in the West at the time of Galileo?
Needham also formulated this question in an alternative way: why was Chinese civilization, between the first century B.C. and the fifteenth century A.D., so much more efficient than the West in applying human natural knowledge to practical human needs? In other words, what had happened to explain why this lead never led to“modern”science in China?
In fact, many of Needham's writings concerning the scientific achievements of ancient China are devoted to these and related issues. Numerous answers, including several from Needham himself, have been proposed over the past half century. Nowadays historians of science call this comparative problem of the Scientific Revolution and the status of science and technology in China the“Needham question”. It has been a subject of great interest to historians of science generally, and its significance goes well beyond the subject of science in China. However, the various dynamic factors, both internal and external to science, that have been used to help answer the “Needham question”, will not be discussed here. Instead, special emphasis will be given in what follows to the origin and development of the “Needham question”, and to its significance in the historiography of world science.
In the People's Republic of China, this question has been discussed repeatedly, especially after the 1980s. In October of 1982 a colloquium was held at Chengdu, Sichuan Province, with the title of “Why China’s Modern Science Lags Behind 中国近代科学落后原因 [①] ”, and about 50 papers were presented and discussed. Some of the selected papers were later published in a volume of proceedings entitled Scientific Tradition and Culture科学传统与文化 [2] which in turn stimulated substantial interest in the “Needham question”throughout the Chinese academic community. On the occasion of Needham' s ninetieth birthday in 1990, the Shanghai journal Nature devoted a special section to the“Needham question”. Furthermore, a Foundation for studying the “Needham question ”was established at Zhongshan University in Guangzhou to encourage studies of this topic. Of the most recent research on this matter in China, the most interesting and detailed report is Fan Dainian' s “Discussions of the Reasons of for the Lagging Behind of Science in Modern China ” [3] .
It seems that the current Chinese scholars have been inclined to treat the “lagging behind” issue as an equivalent of the “Needham question”. Is this a kind of misreading of Joseph Needham, or is it inevitable that once people discuss the “Needham question”they have to face the “lagging behind”issue?
As a matter of fact, the “Needham question” was formed within the context of a firm belief in the inevitability of general human progress, culturally, politically, scientifically and technologically. This belief was shared by many intellectuals in the first half of the 20th century, who never doubted that all mankind was ultimately on its way to somewhere better, and that they knew roughly what that "somewhere" would be like. Therefore the best thing people could do was to try to move in that direction as quickly as possible [4] .
Once this concept of inevitable progress is adopted, it is very hard to avoid looking at the history of every culture with the question in mind "how fast are they moving forward?" For the universalizing beliefs of people like Joseph Needham, and their strong sense of the unity of humanity, this meant that no-one could be left out. The question was not whether all mankind would one day get to the bright and promised future, but when and by what route. A society that was not progressing towards that goal in a recognizable sense was held to be in some way faulty -- in Joseph Needham's embryological terms, some "inhibiting factor" must be at work [②] .
2. The Discussions Before the SCC Was Published
As early as the 17th century, the Jesuits who came to China had already noted the“lagging behind”problem in Chinese science, and consequently in the 18th century, some European thinkers and scientists had tried to find appropriate explanations. Moreover, during the first half of the 20th century, a number of Chinese scholars devoted attention to the“lagging behind”issue. All these arguments emerged before the impact of SCC on academic circles.
2.1 The Jesuits’“lagging behind”issue
Generally speaking, the European conception of China in the first half of the 16th century, had not changed essentially compared with the views expressed in the Travels of Marco Polo（1254-1324）. In 1585, a Spanish writer J. G. de Mendoza published Historia de las cosa mas notables, ritos y costumbres del Gran Reyno dela China [③] , which considerably broadened Europeans’visual field on China. However, European understanding of Chinese science and civilization should mainly be ascribed to the Western missionaries, especially the Jesuits who came to China in the 16th - 17th centuries. Their works not only introduced China’s history, geography, its political system and social customs, but also mentioned Chinese science and crafts. For example, De Christiana Expeditione apud Sinas（1615） [④] by Matteo Ricci（1552-1610） was the first comprehensive work about China since Mendoza, and it was considered as one of the main resources on Chinese science for 17th- century European scholars.
The French Jesuits who arrived after the time of Ricci paid much attention to Chinese science. Not only were they deeply impressed by Chinese governance and Chinese crafts, but such positive impressions made them feel even more perplexed. What factors had stunted the growth of Chinese science? Dominicus Parrenin（1665-1741）was the first who seriously raised the“lagging behind”issue in earlier times.
Parrenin came to China in 1698 and thereafter maintained a frequent correspondence with Dortous de Mairan (1678-1771), then President and later Permanent Secretary of the French Academy of Science. From 1728 to 1740, de Mairan wrote numerous letters to Parrenin inquiring about the chronology, astronomy and other aspects of Chinese civilization. Among Parrenin’s various replies, one dated on August 13, 1730, mainly concerned causes of the “lagging behind” of Chinese Science [5] .
At the beginning of this letter, Parrenin wrote:“Sir, it would appear inexplicable that although the Chinese had committed themselves to pure theoretical science for a very long period, they had never gone further. I agree with you that the fact is incredible. I do not think it should be imputed to the Chinese mind. If they really lacked for brightness and vigor in questing for knowledge, would their talents and diligence have been exhibited in other disciplines any more than what was requisite in astronomy and geometry? There are many causes entangled together, which have prevented science developing along its expected course, and as long as these causes still exist, movement forward would be blocked.” In regard to these causes, Parrenin believed,“firstly, those who might hope to show their abilities could have no expectation of any reward”; “the second cause standing in the way of scientific development is the lack of competition, no matter whether it might come from inside or outside of the country.” [⑤] And he pointed out that astronomers living in neighboring countries had no competence to reveal mistakes in Chinese astronomy, while the Chinese Emperor just wanted his people to keep silent and accept the dynastic orthodoxy. The road leading to wealth and power was to recite the classics and speak in a bookish way rather than do research on astronomy.
1.2 The analysis of European scholars in the 17th-18th centuries
From the Jesuits’ initial accounts of China and from the favorable gloss they put on those accounts, there arose a“China craze”in 17th- and 18th-century Europe. Some leading thinkers and scientists, such as R. Boyle (1627-1691), G. W. Leibniz (1646-1716), J. Cassini (1677-1756), F. Voltaire (1694-1778), F. Quesnay（1694-1774）, D. Hume（1711-1776）, D. Diderot (1713-1784), and S. Montesquieu (1689-1755), all paid attention to Chinese science [6] .
However, Leibniz had differed in his judgement and analysis of the “lagging behind”issue from the Jesuits. In the Preface of his Novissima Sinica（1697）, he pointed out that although the Chinese had developed their own learning for thousands of years, and miraculously applied it to practical needs, for which Chinese scholars should receive bountiful credit, their comprehension of human reason and of the art of demonstration are utterly deficient. He argued that the basic reason was that the Chinese lack the insights that Europeans had gained into mathematics. This was because mathematical research should properly be regarded as a matter for philosophers rather than craftsmen, whereas it appeared the Chinese were ignorant of the art of demonstration and just satisfied themselves with mathematics acquired from practical experience [7] .
Obviously, Leibniz analyzed this question from the point of view of science itself. In contrast to this, Hume adopted a sociological point of view. He believed that several neighboring and independent states connected by trade and intercourse would be more beneficial for the advancement of cultivation and learning, while China was severely lacking in this respect. Externally, China was lacked commercial organizations that might promote trade and cultural exchanges; internally, China was under a dynastic regime, and all of Chinese spoke the same language, lived in the same life-style, and were ruled by the same system. This situation forced every Chinese to hold authorities in reverence and made them lose vigor and courage, thus stunting development in the past several centuries.
In the 18th century, French thinkers of the Enlightenment showed the strongest interest in Chinese science and civilization. This was not only the after effect of the “Rites Controversy” at the beginning of that century, it also reflected the hope of some thinkers that they might find in China a model for the reformation of Western society. Under these circumstances, their analysis naturally emphasized the influence of social custom and ethics. In Le siecle de Louis XIV（1751）, Voltaire remarked that Chinese ancestor worship was just like European worship of Aristotle [⑥] . In his Dictionnaire Philosophique（1764）, he further claimed that ancestor worship had stunted the progress of Chinese physics, geometry and astronomy [⑦] .
Among French thinkers of the Enlightenment, Diderot also analyzed the reasons for “the absence of the European genius” in China. He believed that it should be imputed to the Oriental spirit, which tended towards easiness and laziness, only concerned with one’s immediate interests, and lacked the courage to challenge traditional common sense. It fell short of a passionate pursuit of knowledge, and of the spirit of exploration that was essential for the development of science. Although these remarks did not surpass the depth of those of Leibniz and Hume, they did indeed touch on many of the links connecting the social system and scientific research（[5], pp. 295-297）.
2.3 The arguments by Chinese scholars in the first half of the 20th century
At the beginning of the 20th century, when the New Culture Movement approached its climax, the “lagging behind”issue also became one of the more heated topics discussed among Chinese scholars. In 1915, Ren Hongjuan任鸿隽 (1886-1961), one of the forerunners of Chinese modern science as well as the founder of the Chinese Society of Science中国科学社 and the journal Science科学, published an article “On the Reasons Why China Does Not Have Science” in vol. 1 of Science. In this he claimed that the main reason was that the Chinese did not employ the method of induction [8] .
Following this, many Chinese scholars joined the discussion and proposed different solutions in the light of their background and experience. In 1920 Liang Qichao梁启超（1873－1929）, in his Introduction to Learning in the Qing Dynasty清代学术概论, claimed that the method of philology in the Qing Dynasty was quite “scientific”, and the underdevelopment of natural science should be mainly imputed to traditional ethics which laid little stress on science. Four years later in The History of Learning in China in the Past Three Hundred Years中国近三百年学术史, he further emphasized the evil consequence of the imperial examinations. At the same time, Feng Youlan冯友兰（1895－1990） published his English paper “Why China Did Not Have Science — an explanation of the history and consequences of Chinese philosophy” [9] . In this article, Feng claimed that, since the Han Dynasty, Chinese had lost the ideal of conquering nature and completely withdrawn from the external world.
The enthusiasm for science was ascending in pace with the growth of scientific organizations in China in the 1930s and 1940s. During the course of those years a number of scholars began to consider problems about science and modernity. This tendency reached its summit in 1944.
First, a collection of paper with the title Modern China and Science现代中国与科学 was published in 1944 [⑧] . Among others there are two articles in particular exploring the reasons that modern science did not occur in China [10] [11] .
Second, a paper titled“Why Natural Science Did Not Rise in China”was published in Science Times科学时报, which was actually translated from the book Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Chinas（Leipzig, 1931）, written by a German Marxist historian K. A. Wittfogel, who had a strong impact on Joseph Needham [⑨] .
Third, when the Chinese Society of Science celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of its foundation [⑩] , as an honorable member of the Chinese Society of Science and the President of the Legation of Scientific Cooperation between China and the United Kingdom, Joseph Needham participated in the Society’s annual meeting which took place in Meitan, Guizhou, on October 24, and he gave an address entitled“Science and Culture in China”. In this lecture, Joseph Needham first criticized the arguments previously raised by some Western and Chinese scholars that there was no science in ancient China. As he said, ancient Chinese philosophy was very close to scientific explanation, and Chinese inventions and creations in later ages had produced a tremendous influence on the culture of all the world. Therefore, the fundamental problem is why modern experimental science and related theoretical systems were produced only in the West rather than in China. Here Needham had in fact proposed that the so-called “Needham question” very clearly. And he suggested that we should look for the reasons based on a material foundation.
Zhu Kezheng竺可桢（1890－1974）, a meteorologist and one of the close friends of Joseph Needham, also took part in this meeting. In his diary that day, Zhu explicitly recorded Needham’s answers to the question, which refer to the four inhibiting factors -- geography, climate, economy and society, the last two also relating to the fact that there was no commercial class in China [12] .
In 1945, Zhu published his own study on this topic, “Why Did Natural Science Not Rise in Ancient China?”, and he concluded that the structure of agricultural society and feudal ideas had hindered the rise of modern science in China [13] .
As Fan Dainian pointed out, it is interesting to note that the majority of the discussions concerning the “lagging behind”issue in the 1940s dealt with the social and economic factors shaped by China’s specific geographical circumstances, while most of those that appeared in the 1920s focused attention on the context of traditional politics and philosophy（[3], pp.18-21）. In To what extent Chinese scholars concerned with this “lagging behind” issue in the 1940s had been influenced by Marxism, or in to what extent they and Joseph Needham had been interplayinginteracting [?], these are questions should that deserve be inquired furtherfurther investigation.
3 The Global Significance of the“Needham Question”
According to the new humanism that we recognize in George Sarton（1884-1956）and Needham himself, like art and literature, science is the common heritage of the whole humankind. In other words, the unity of nature was reflected in the unity of science and the latter was an affirmation of the unity of mankind, and therefore every nation or civilization would have its own contribution to general human progress [14] .
In an article which was praised as being “of immense value” for “scholars who are not specialists on‘Science and China’, but who are interested in the transfer of scientific knowledge between different cultural areas”（[1], p.152）, Joseph Needham wrote:
The standpoint here adopted assumes that in the investigation of natural phenomena all men are potentially equal, that the oecumenism of modern science embodies a universal language that they can all comprehensibly speak, that the ancient and medieval sciences（though bearing an obvious ethnic stamp）were concerned with the same natural world and could therefore be subsumed into the same oecumenical natural philosophy, and that this has grown, and will continue to grow among men, pari passu with the vast growth of organisation and integration in human society, until the coming of the world co-operative commonwealth which will include all peoples as the waters cover the sea [15] .
Not only did Joseph Needham believe unequivocally in progress, he also thought he knew pretty clearly where such progress was going – forwards more and better science, democracy, social equality and plenty for all in a planned society, and the abolition of war through the replacement of the nation-state by such larger and better entities as what Joseph Needham called the "world co-operative commonwealth" [11] .
However, this idea has come to be considered outdated and problematic in the wake of crises in the rapid development of science and society, and especially attempts at the sociological deconstruction of science [12] . On the other hand, the“Needham question”still remains heuristically relevant to historiography in the world-wide history of science.
As Maurice Goldsmith pointed out, the ultimate goal of Needham' s SCC was to promote mutual understanding among different cultures [16] . The fundamental contribution of Needham' s SCC is generally deemed to lie in pioneering the integration of non-Western traditions and achievements into world history of science. In one word, science is the common heritage of all humankind.
As an advocate of continuity and universality in science, Joseph Needham argued that modern science cannot be identified as European ethnoscience. “Knowledge of Nature is no one’s private property. The world is like a holy vessel, says the Tao Te Ching道德经. Whoever grabs at it will lose it irretrievably. [13] ” [17] Therefore non-Western cultures should no longer to be treated as “lagging behind” and modern science should be considered as a great conglomeration of the scientific knowledge of different civilizations. As Needham expressed it:
There is an old Chinese expression about ‘the Rivers going to pay court to the Sea’ [14] , and indeed one can well consider the old streams of science in the different civilisations like rivers flowing into the ocean of modern science. Modern science is indeed composed of contributions from all the peoples of the Old World, and each contribution has flowed continuously into it, whether from Greek or Roman antiquity, or from the Arabic world and from cultures of China and India [18] .
On the other hand, he also warned against an absolutization of the notion of ethnoscience, used to underline the achievements of non-Western cultures, like ancient Egypt, India, and China. As Elzinga pointed out: “That would be to deny the universal validity of certain scientific findings independent of geographical and cultural meridians. Relativism on the one hand, and the claim for a need for a fundamental resacralization of science, in tune with the value of some other civilization made absolute, Needham, it appears, saw as twins on the tree of ethnocentrism, where Eurocentric scientism is a further branch, also to be rejected. A distinction is made between values and science, and between scientism and science.” [19] Thus Needham writes in the“Author's Note”in the fifth volume of SCC:
There is a danger to be guarded against, the danger of falling into the other extreme, and of denying the fundamental continuity and universality of all science. This could be to resurrect the Spenglerian conception of the natural sciences of the various dead（or even worse, the living）non-European civilizations as totally separate, immiscible thought patterns, more like distinct works of art than anything else, a series of different views of the natural world irreconcilable and unconnected. Such a view might be used as the cloak of some historical racist doctrine, the sciences of pre-modern times and the non-European cultures being thought of as wholly conditioned ethnically, and rigidly confined to their own sphere, not part of humanity's broad onward march. Moreover, it would leave little room for those actions and reactions that we are constantly encountering, deep-seated influences which one civilisation had upon another [20] .
Needham' s works are not only regarded as important by contemporary scholars in China., Hhis heuristic question has also caused a lasting interest among historians of science in the world. In September 1996, a conference conceived as an homage to Joseph Needham took place in New Delhi, India. As the organizers pointed out,“Science -- the Refreshing River”, the theme of the conference, was “inspired by and reflecting Needham' s lifelong engagement with crossing disciplinary and institutional boundaries, drew on the constituencies of academic and professional colleagues with varied intellectual and political concerns.” [21] [15]
At the 20th International Congress on History of Science held in July 1997 in Liege, Belgium, a symposium with the title“Global History of Science” was dedicated to Joseph Needham. “We chose to focus on some aspects of the history of‘non-Western’science”, Catherine Jami, the organizer wrote,“on which an impressive amount of literature has appeared since the first volume of SCC was published. Besides bringing to light a‘dark continent’, this literature raises fundamental methodological and historiographical issues that could and should inform the work of the majority of historians of science, who study the‘West’. We thus intended to enlarge upon Needham 's contribution to the construction of a new history of science, which strives to take into account its multifaceted development in all civilizations.” [22]
Helaine Selin, the editor of the Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures（1997）, attributed her inspiration to Joseph Needham: “All of us in the field of non-Western science owe him an enormous debt for bringing the intellectual worlds of the East and West together. In a sense all of our work follows from him.” [23]
Recently a number of articles, more or less dealing with the“Needham question”, have been dedicated to the discussion of the social contexts of different cultures. For example, concerning science in East Asia and particular in Korea, Jeon Sang-Woon has studied“Traditional Korean Science and East Asia -- science and technology drawn from East Asian experience” [24] , while Park Seong-Rae has written about“Some Indices of the Rise of Modern Science in Korea” [25] . From Japan, Togo Tsukahara, Keizo Hashimoto and Noriaki Matsumura have published“Needham' s Impact on Japanese History of Science” [26] . With regard to Islamic science and its relation to Western science, Steve Fuller provided some remarks in his “Prolegomena to a World History of Science” [27] , and Pascal Crozet made a case study on “Modernization of Science and Its History Outside Europe: Egyptian projects in the nineteenth century” [28] ; both were contributed to the New Delhi conference.
In the eyes of those who study the history of science in other ancient civilizations, perhaps the most interesting paper is“The Missing Picture: the non-emergence of a Needhamian history of sciences in India”, written by Dhrun Raina and Irfan Habib. Despite the fact that A. K. Bag published Science and Civilization in India in 1985 [29] , the two Indian historians of science asked “why has an Indian equivalent (of SCC) not been produced?”In answering this question the authors raised some questions about Needham's historiography that were problematic for the history of science in India, and discussed the conditions relating to the non-emergence of the Indian equivalent of the SCC [30] .
Diversity is a topic of considerable interest in today’s world. No matter whether it refers to the diversity of life embodied in the Natural natural world, or to cultural diversity in human society, the principle of diversity is like a hymn to the riches of the material world and the variety of humankind. Through his lifelong contribution to the conviction of continuity and universality in science, especially through his monumental SCC, Joseph Needham deserves the title of “the 20th-Century Renaissance Man”. Meanwhile, keeping pace with the concept of cultural diversity as a trend-setting popular idea in the new century, the full implications of the “Needham question”should be reevaluated by all scholars who study science and civilization.
4 Science and Modernity
Another question concerning modern historiography and the influence of Joseph Needham is: was the concept of inevitable progress inevitably Eurocentric? One has to say that it tended to be so, but we cannot ignore the question of whether this was a matter of historical contingency rather than a necessity. When a late 19th-century British person held views of this kind, it would have been hard to find many contemporary examples of recent "progress" in his or her most probable sense of the word outside Europe and North America. But if on the other hand one had been able to give such a person the necessary information, it is conceivable that he or she would have admitted that China in the eleventh century was a much more "progressive" place than England at the time of the Norman Conquest.
The triumph of modern science initiated in 17th-century Europe has caused a widely disseminated mythology: science is a heritage that only came from Western civilization, the civilization that was held to have originated from Greece and to have been rediscovered in Renaissance Europe [16] ; hence“modernization”is simply equated with “science”, and even to the“Westernization”.
The most profound criticism of the“Needham question”relates to this kind of mythology.“Why do people keep asking why the Scientific Revolution did not take place in China when they know enough not to waste time explaining why their names did not appear on page three of today's newspaper?”Nathan Sivin used a metaphor to show the meaninglessness of the “did not take place”question. On the other hand, he admitted that the “Needham question”is a heuristic one. “Why is the Scientific Revolution problem discussed so much more often than other heuristic questions?” Sivin asked, and then he argued that the assumption of Western cultural superiority might cause misunderstanding, so that many people want to see in Chinese science a confirmation of Western cultural superiority in the evolution of universal modern science. The assumption also means that civilizations which had the potential for a scientific revolution ought to have had the kind that took place in Europe. But the assumption is not correct, for instance, as Sivin explains:“A revolution in Chinese scientific thought and practice took place in the seventeenth century as a number of major thinkers responded to Western astronomy and cosmology.” [31] Here he actually refers to the so-called“conceptual revolution” in the Chinese context, which was the conversion to modern science and a “little copy”of the Scientific Revolution of Europe [32] .
In his article“‘Traditional’vs.‘Modern’in the Japanese Context”, Tadashi Yoshida concluded that Japan's “modernization” had occurred in the Meiji period（1868-1912）under considerable Western pressure [33] . Similarly, based on the research on Egyptian projects in the nineteenth century, Pascal Crozet gave a study of“Modernization of Science and Its History Outside Europe” [34] . Men Yue recently provided another case study on the practice of the Jiangnan Arsenal江南制造局（1864-1897）which she called “Hybrid Science versus Modernity” [35] . All these authors suggested that there were different approaches to modernization, which varied from that described in most textbooks of the history of science.
The problem is: Did China, or other non-Western nations, experience something that we could call “modernization”when they were unfamiliar with what is normally considered modern science? In his “Modernization Less Science”, Pierre-Etienne Will introduced this more broadly conceived concept of modernity, based on his analysis of some examples in China and Japan before Westernization. He concluded: “If there was not much real ‘science’in pre-1850 East Asia, at least not in our sense, there occasionally were interesting moves in that direction; and there definitely was an amount of modernisation -- an amount fairly variable in nature and according to country or region, to be sure, but sometimes an impressive amount.” [36]
In past decades, the concepts of “modernity”and “modern science” have been frequently attacked by various groups of critics: from post-modernists to feminists, and from ecologists to humanists. They object that humankind only uses modern science to conquer nature, but does not care for it, which has led to natural resources being exhausted and the ecological environment being damaged. Therefore they deny that science is a cause of continuing progress. On the other hand, they have pointed out that scientific activities are too often dominated by the power of authorities, which unfairly suppress the humanistic spirit and all non-Western cultures.
Nevertheless, science has never gone to its end, as some ultra-radicals claimed -- science, as a potentially positive social force, has not [?] become exhausted due to its many branches havinge approached to their limitsIn a lecture presented to a conference organized by the Canadian Association of Asian Studies in Montreal in 1975, Joseph Needham evaluated the so-called anti-culture and anti-science movement [37] as characterized in the writings of Theodore Roszak [38] [39] . Recently a radical form of opposition to "scientism" has appeared, which makes the claim that we are nearing "The End of Science". This would mean (for instance) that in physics we can expect no significant additions to the sum of human knowledge beyond relativity and quantum theory [40] . I reject such claims on various grounds. Firstly, the history of science shows that all earlier claims to have reached the limits of human understanding have proved to be entirely misconceived. Secondly, the very nature of scientific knowledge means that it can never be a closed and complete system. But most of all, it is clear to those of us who share some of Joseph Needham' s belief in the possibility of human progress that science as a positive social force has much more to contribute to humanity than we have seen so far. [41] . Nevertheless, tHowever, tThere is no border barrier to prohibit mankind from exploring the secrets of nature and developing even better intelligenceunderstanding.
In developing countries, people should not only explore the reasons for any“lagging behind”; more importantly, they may also need to find a way of maintaining the coexistence of modern science and traditional science, and promoting their prosperity together, as an Indian historian of science has recently said: “Even now in India, traditional astronomy coexists with modern astronomy; traditional medicine with modern medicine; likewise traditional technology. The past resides in the present providing a sustainable future for both modernity and tradition.”41
Can people really find a way of keeping harmony between mankind and nature, science and society, industrial development and a healthy ecological environment, global economic integration and cultural diversity? This is a crucial issue for mankind in the new century. In this sense, the“Needham question” will continue to evoke divergent responses from different parts of the world; and of course, its significance will extend far beyond the more specific matter of science and China.
重审“李约瑟问题”
刘钝
（中国科学院自然科学史研究所）
摘要 “为什麽近代科学没有在中国产生？”这个被历史学家称作“李约瑟问题”的命题今天仍然是全世界科学史家们关注的热点之一，它的意义已经超越了“科学”和“中国”这两个特定范畴。本文的目的不是对这一问题再添加一个或数个特解，即不讨论与此有关的种种动力因素 —— 无论是从科学内部还是从科学外部；相反，它将对国际上有关“李约瑟问题”的近期研究提供一个广角俯瞰，着重分析这一问题的来源和发展，指出其在世界范围内科学编史学上的作用，进而将“李约瑟问题”置于人类文化多样性的角度来审视它的现代意义。
关键词 “李约瑟问题” 《中国的科学与文明》 科学革命 “落后” 传统科学 现代性
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This paper was originally presented to the World Conference on Science which took place in Budapest, Hungary, from 26 June to 1 July 1999. The author is grateful to the International Council for Science（ICSU）for inviting him to attend the Conference. He also expresses appreciation to Joseph Dauben and Christopher Cullen for their many useful comments and for help in revising the English draft during the writing of this paper.
** Professor of the Institute for the History of Natural Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
[①] Quite a long time ago, European anthropologists used the words "backward" or "stagnant" to describe peoples whose cultures were in their view not so "advanced" as their own. Hence the words had all kinds of negative connotations, although nowadays nobody would think of using them in the old way, and these expressions are really much more descriptive of a condition or state rather than condemnatory of basic nature. Nevertheless, as Christopher Cullen pointed out in one of his letters to me:“once one starts talking in Needham terms, one needs to find some equivalent of ‘backward’ or‘stagnant’ unless everybody is advancing together at the same rate”, and according to his advice, I use the phrase "lagging behind" to describe the state of luohou落后 in this paper. My warmest thanks to Wang Yangzong王扬宗for bringing the subtle meaning of luohou to my special attention.
[②] I am indebted to Christopher Cullen who provided his heuristic comments on the relationship between Needham’s terms and his belief in the inevitability of human progress in general.
[③] Chinese translation: Zhonghua dadiguo zhi中华大帝国志，He Gaoji何高济 trans., Beijing: Zhonghua Press, 1998.
[④] Chinese translation: Limadou zhongguo zaji利玛窦中国扎记，He Gaoji et al. trans., Beijing: Zhonghua Press, 1983.
[⑤] These three quotations are all translated from the Chinese ([5], pp. 293～294) ; and according to Han Qi, the original letter was published in L. Vissiere ed., Lettres édifiantes de la Chine par des missionaires（1702-1776）, Paris, 1979.
[⑥] Chinese translation: Luyi shisi shidai路易十四时代，Wu Moxin吴模信 et al. trans., Beijing: Shangwu Press, 1982.
[⑦] Chinese translation: Zhexue cidian哲学辞典，Wang Yansheng王燕生trans., Beijing: Shangwu Press, 1991.
[⑧] My thanks to Wang Yangzong who introduced me to this book.
[⑨] K. A. Wittfogel had been the German Communist Party’s authority on China during the Weimar Republic period, and his Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Chinas provided an eloquent argument for Marx’s Asiatic mode of production, although Wittfogel later bitterly criticized Marxism in the US during the McCarthy period. Christopher Cullen told me, that amongst what he remembers Joseph Needham saying in the year of his death about the things that had influenced him was a reference to his being “very interested by the early Wittfogel”.
[⑩] In fact, the Chinese Society of Science was formally founded in 1915 in Cornell University by a group of Chinese students studying there, while in the previous year they decided to publish a Chinese journal Science.
[11] The term“world co-operative commonwealth” came from an old friend of Joseph Needham, the socialist and Anglican priest Conrad Noel, of Thaxted, who promoted the organization of agricultural workers into trade unions in the 1920s, and led them in strikes and demonstrations. As for Needham’s final phrase, compare these words:
God is working his purpose out as year succeeds to year,
God is working his purpose out and the time is drawing near;
Nearer and nearer draws the time, the time that shall surely be,
When the earth shall be filled with the glory of God as the waters cover the sea.
…（by A. C. Ainger, in Hymns ancient and modern, no 271, Norwich, 1994）
As Christopher Cullen indicated to me, Joseph Needham often “embedded” such references in his prose without making them explicit, in order to express his own combination of socialism and Christianity and might have put offwithout repelling those who did not share his religious belief.
[12] For details, see A. Elzinga, Revisiting the“Needham Paradox”, 73～113; and S. Visvanathan, The Strange Question of Joseph Needham, 198～219, in I. Habib and D. Raina eds., Situating the History of Science -- Dialogues with Joseph Needham. The earlier two criticisms on Needham’s concept of “historical determinism”, see C. C. Gillispie, Perspectives, American Scientist, 45 (1957), 169～176; and A. F. Wright, Review of Volume 2 of SCC, American Historical Review, 62（1957）, 918～920.
[13] The Chinese text is “天下神器，……不可执也。……执者失之。”
[14] The Chinese text given by Needham is朝宗于海; another similar expression is百川纳海. However, this recalls “the waters cover the sea”in that Anglican hymn mentioned in a previous footnote, which Joseph Needham certainly knew very well.
[15] My thanks to Catherine Jami and Dhruv Raina for their generosity to in provide providing me with all references about this conference.
[16] One of the most provocative criticisms of this mythology is given by Xi Zezong席泽宗in his Guanyu“Liyuese nanti” he jindai kexue yuanyu xila de duihua关于“李约瑟难题”和近代科学源于希腊的对话 (A Dialogue on the “Needham Puzzle” and the View that Modern Science Originated in Greece）, in Song Zhenghai宋正海et al. eds., Bianyuan didai边缘地带（Borders）, Beijing: Xueyuan Press, 1999, 73～79.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFERENCES
[1] Petitjean P. Needham, Anglo-French Civilities and Ecumenical Science. In Irfan Habib and Dhruv Raina eds., Situating the History of Science -- Dialogues with Joseph Needham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, 167～174.
[2] FANG Dainian 范岱年et al. eds. Kexue chuantong yu wenhua科学传统与文化（Scientific Tradition and Culture）. Xi'an: Shanxi kexuejishu Press, 1983.
[3] FANG Dainian. Guanyu zhongguo jindai kexue luohou yuanyin de taolun关于中国近代科学落后原因的讨论 (Discussions of the Reasons of the Lagging Behind of Science in Modern China）. Ershiyi shiji二十一世纪（The 21st Century Review）, 1997, no. 44, 18～29.
[4] Werskey G. The Visible College. London: Free Association Books, 1988.
[5] HAN Qi韩琦. Guanyu shiqi shiba shiji ouzhouren dui zhongguo kexue luohou yuanyin de lunshu关于十七、十八世纪欧洲人对中国科学落后原因的论述( On the Reasons of for the Lagging Behind of Science in Modern China ce Discussed by 17-18th-century Europeans）. Ziran kexueshi yanjiu自然科学史研究 (Studies in the History of Natural Science）, 11:4（1992）, 289～298.
[6] Reichwein A. China and Europe: intellectual and artistic contacts in the eighteen century, Chinese trans. by Zhu Jieqin朱杰勤. Shiba shiji zhongguo yu ouzhou wenhua de jiechu十八世纪中国与欧洲文化的接触（The Cultural Contacts between China and Europe in the Eighteenth Century）. Beijing: Shangwu Press, 1991.
[7] Hsia A. 夏瑞春ed. Deutsche Denker uber China. Chen Aizheng陈爱政et al. trans. Deguo sixiangjia lun zhongguo德国思想家论中国. Nanjing: Jiangsu Renmin Press, 1995, 3～16.
[8] Ren Hongjuan任鸿隽. Shuo zhongguo wu kexue zhi yuanyin说中国无科学之原因( On the Reasons Why China Does Not Have Science). Science科学, l:1（1915）.
[9] Fung Yu-Lan冯友兰. Why China Did Not Have Science — an explanation of the history and consequences of Chinese philosophy. The International Journal of Ethics, 32:2（1922）, 239～263.
[10] Xu Mo徐模. Zhongguo yu xiandai kexue中国与现代科学（China and Modern Science）. In Lin Ying林英ed. Xiandai zhonguo yu kexue现代中国与科学（Modern China and Science）. Shanghai: Yanxing Press, 1944, 53～59.
[11] Zhu Kezhen竺可桢. Zhongguo shiyan kexue bufada de yuanyin中国实验科学不发达的原因（The Reasons Why Experimental Science Did Not Develop in China）. In Lin Ying ed. Xiandai zhonguo yu kexue, 59～68.
[12] Zhu Kezhen. Zhukezhen riji竺可桢日记（Diary）. Beijing: Renmin Press, 1994, vol. 2, 789～790.
[13] Zhu Kezhen. Weishimo zhongguo gudai meiyou chansheng ziran kexue? 为什麽中国古代没有产生自然科学 (Why Did Natural Science Not Arise in Aancient China?). Science, 28:3（1945）, 137～141.
[14] Raina D. Introduction. in Habib I. and Raina D. eds. Situating the History of Science -- Dialogues with Joseph Needham, 2.
[15] Needham J. The Roles of Europe and China in the Revolution of Oecumenical Science. Journal of Asian History, 1:1 (1967), 3～32.
[16] Goldsmith M. Joseph Needham: 20th-Century Renaissance Man. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 1995, 146.
[17] Needham J. The Dialogue of Europe and Asia. Presidential Address to the Britain-China Friendship Association（October 1955）. United Asia, 8: 5（1956）; reprinted.
[18] Needham J. The Roles of Europe and China in the Evolution of Oecumenical Science. in Clerks and Craftsmen in China and the West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970, 397.
[19] Elzinga A. Revisiting the“Needham Paradox”— the multifaceted nature of Needham’ s question. In Habib I. and Raina D. eds. Situating the History of Science -- Dialogues with Joseph Needham, 102.
[20] Needham J. Science and Civilisation in China. Cambridge: CUP, 1974, vol. 3, part 2, xxii.
[21] Habib I. and Raina D. eds. Situating the History of Science --Dialogues with Joseph Needham, Oxford Univ. Press, 1999, Preface, vii.
[22] Jami C. Introduction to Science and Technology in East Asia. Proceedings of the 20th ICHS（1997, Liege）, forthcoming.
[23] Selin H. ed. Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997, Acknowledgements, xiv.
[24] Jeon Sang-Woon. Traditional Korean Science and East Asia -- Science and Technology Drawn from East Asian Experience. In Keizo Hashimoto, Catherine Jami and Lowell Skar eds. East Asian Science: Tradition and Beyond. Osaka: Kansai Univ. Press, 1995, 49～59.
[25] Park Seong-Rae. Some Indices of the Rise of Modern Science in Korea. In Hashimoto K. et al. eds. East Asian Science: Tradition and Beyond, 111～117.
[26] Tsukahara T., Hashimoto K. and Matsumura N. Needham's Impact on Japanese History of Science”. In Jami C. ed. Science and Technology in East Asia.
[27] Fuller S. Prolegomena to a World History of Science. In Habib I. and Raina D. eds. Situating the History of Science -- Dialogues with Joseph Needham, 114～151.
[28] Crozet P. Modernization of Science and Its History Outside Europe. In Habib I. and Raina D. eds. Situating the History of Science -- Dialogues with Joseph Needham, 245～259.
[29] Bag A K. Science and Civilization in India. New Delhi: Navrang, 1985.
[30] Raina D. and Habib I. The Missing Picture: the non-emergence of a Needhamian history of sciences in India. In Habib I. and Raina D. eds. Situating the History of Science -- Dialogues with Joseph Needham, 279～302.
[31] Sivin N. Why the Scientific Revolution Did Not Take Place in China -- or didn't it? Chinese Science, 5（1982）, 45～65.
[32] Hart R. Beyond Science and Civilization: a post-Needham critique. East Asian Science, Technology, and Medicine, 16（1999）, 101, 107.
[33] Yoshida T. Traditional vs. Modern in the Japanese Context. In Hashimoto K. et al. eds. East Asian Science: Tradition and Beyond. 119～139.
[34] Crozet P. Modernization of Science and Its History Outside Europe. In Habib I. and Raina D. eds. Situating the History of Science -- Dialogues with Joseph Needham, 245～259.
[35] Meng Yue. Hybrid Science versus Modernity: the practice of the Jiangnan Arsenal. East Asian Science, Technology, and Medicine, 16（1999）, 13～52.
[36] Will P E. Modernization Less Science? Some Reflections on China and Japan Before Westernization. In Hashimoto K. et al. eds. East Asian Science: Tradition and Beyond. 33～48.
[37] Needham J. History and Human Value: a chinese perspective for world science and technology. Philosophy and Social Action, no. 11（1976）, 2～33.
[38] Roszak T. The Making of Counter-Culture: reflections on the technocratic society and its youthful opposition. Garden City: Doubleday, 1969.
[39] Roszak T. Where the Wasteland Ends: politics and transcendence in post-industrial society. Garden City: Doubleday, 1972.
[40] Horgan J. The End of Science, Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age. New York: Broadway Books, 1996.
[41] Horgan J. The End of Science, Sun Yongjun孙雍君et al trans. kexue de zhongjie科学的终结，Huhhot: Yuangfang Publishing, 1997.41 Subbarayappa B V. Was There Science in Ancient India? Kexue dui shehui de yingxiang科学对社会的影响 (The Impact of Science on Society). no.4（2000）, forthcoming.
资料来源：http://www.ihns.ac.cn/members/liu/doc/needq.htm
我也是一个教育工作者,身处教育一线.对现在的学生素质实在是难以认可(也可能是一个民办高校的缘故).学风比较差。比起各位的忧国忧民实在汗颜，可能许多也仅仅是谋的一分工作罢了，也想献身教学，做出更大的奉献，可是就个人发展来说，就不能很好的统一。工作待遇如此的低也让人找不着，在一个大城市生活已属不易，又如何有多的教学热情。师者已经如此，怎么办呢
Posted by: mobianhuyang 发表于 2005年08月08日 13:51我也是一个教育工作者,身处教育一线.对现在的学生素质实在是难以认可(也可能是一个民办高校的缘故).学风比较差。比起各位的忧国忧民实在汗颜，可能许多也仅仅是谋的一分工作罢了，也想献身教学，做出更大的奉献，可是就个人发展来说，就不能很好的统一。工作待遇如此的低也让人找不着，在一个大城市生活已属不易，又如何有多的教学热情。师者已经如此，怎么办呢
Posted by: mobianhuyang 发表于 2005年08月08日 13:50我也是一个教育工作者,身处教育一线.对现在的学生素质实在是难以认可(也可能是一个民办高校的缘故).学风比较差。比起各位的忧国忧民实在汗颜，可能许多也仅仅是谋的一分工作罢了，也想献身教学，做出更大的奉献，可是就个人发展来说，就不能很好的统一。工作待遇如此的低也让人找不着，在一个大城市生活已属不易，又如何有多的教学热情。师者已经如此，怎么办呢
Posted by: mobianhuyang 发表于 2005年08月08日 13:50非常敬佩黎老师的为人和学问。
我是一个师范毕业生，与上面的有影响力的人物相比，真是微不足道。
由于中国信息技术水平的日渐提高，像我们这样的一线老师也不得不学生制作课件、使用课件，但是稍微有一点头脑的人就会注意到，这其实是一个迫不得已的选择，因为没有人来做这个事，所以老师们不得不来承担这个坚巨的任务。
我从5年前开始制作课件，主要为了参加比赛（因为学校在乡镇一级，根本没办法配备这么多设备）或是为别人的公开课制作课件。虽然课件也获了很多奖，但是我对于中国的信息技术现状是极为不满的。这个不满也是在通读了黎老师的文章之后加剧的。
如果黎老师有空的话可以到我的网站看看，我不做别的什么东西，我只关心教育资源的积累，以及与之相关的积件的发展。www.dobiz365.com
经常浏览黎老师的网站，非常敬佩黎老师的学识和忧国忧教的思想。
恰好昨天我给学生讲信息技术与学科整合的内容时，也提出了和您一样的问题：90年代我们说网络技术缩短了我国与外国的差距，使我们又和发达国家站在了同一条起跑线上，而近十年以后的今天我们才发现原来我们的差距仍有很大，照此下去必将进一步扩大，所有教育技术界将为之汗颜，原因何在？
作为本科生他们并不知道，可能会简单归结为制度原因。
但我的解释是：
(1)我们常看到显性的技术，却忽视技术的应用等隐性技术；
(2)我们关注引进照搬国外的理论与方法，未能充分结合本国国情即教育体制、教育条件的现状进行针对性研究；
(3)我们关注教学模式的创新或套用，而忽视教师的感受和适应能力。我们总想改变他们，却未能关注他们的真正需要。也就是一线教师内在的潜在需要和教育技术研究者的理论指导下的目标要求之间存在差距，如何缩短差距，使教师们由外在驱动变为内在驱动？
(4)我们的研究过多照顾教育改革的要求，忽视了从传统到改革需要一个过程，观念上、操作上的改变提高过程。
(5)职前培养关注少。而“改变一个旧世界比创造一个新世界难”，职前教师在观念上、精力上、技术上远强于职后教师，为什么要等他们毕业后再继续“回炉”改造呢？
(6)非学历教育和开放教育重视不够。当前研究教育技术界对非学历教育、开放教育重视不够，许多国外的远程教育、企业培训正抓紧果机蚕食中国，我们却未引起足够重视!
(7)资源的原创。我们在谈资源建设时，没有拿出实现行动开发制作大量的适用于中国基础教育的以及中国文化背景的动画及视频，每每看到外国的科谱片、精美的课件等，作为教育技术人员我常感悲哀。
问题多多，不胜言表。
总之，从研究来过程来看，研究态度、研究问题确定、研究方法、研究成果推广策略等方面存在问题；
从哲学观或方法论角度看未做到“具体问题具体分析”、“理论与实践相结合”、“科研与应用紧密结合”、“发展是一个过程”；
从人类学意义上来看，国人分析问题、解决问题、应用技术的意识与能力等方面确实不如别人。这可能正是中华民族多少发明未能充分运用与发展的原因!
要改变现状，必须进行反思，而反思的不该是教育技术是什么，应该是教育技术干什么，用大的教育观去界定教育技术，以应用推广去评估研究成果，技术是为应用而生而创!
以上只是感想，如何改变现状，谋求信息技术、教育技术的价值在中华大地各类教育中广泛真正体现，还需继续努力!
感觉黎老师对中国的教育有很多的紧张，似乎更多是焦虑，站在世界教育的最高峰前面，这种焦虑是应该我们思考的！我们的教育正进行着一场变革，这是我们所惊喜的，下一步怎么走，我们一直努力让一切更好◎
Posted by: z9528 发表于 2004年06月09日 01:29李约瑟难题背后的原因恐怕是制度的因素，试想，每一个中国人从小就专注于应试，渐渐地也就不会关心新的技术是否会给现实社会带来巨大的影响。
Posted by: zhanxj 发表于 2004年06月08日 20:50黎教授:
近日我应邀参加江苏南通地区和常州地区电教馆联合举办的小学语文专题资源网站建设的展评活动。我在会议上作一报告,特向黎教授请教。地址:http://teachers.tzgz.net/edupioneer/ppt/rd.ppt
我与黎教授相识已久,敬佩您的学识和人品。我和柳栋、邱发文、齐伟是朋友。
另外,我在南通海安地区还有一个报告的视频,如黎教授有闲暇时间，能指点一二。地址：http://vod.tzgz.net/view/list.exl/click?id=1474
加厚博士之忧也是我等之忧，中国教育技术的“李约瑟难题”会让我们这一代人蒙羞的，看来是到了平心静气，冷静思考的时候了，这是一个非常现实的重大课题，我们是否能组织集体攻关，把它作为中国教育技术史的重大课题来研究讨论。
国民素质急待提高啊！
Posted by: 123 发表于 2004年06月04日 17:11