12 replies to this topic

[scottbajie]

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this - I did not see a topic for general historical methods or even book reviews.

I am reading Volume 1 of "A Shorter Science and Civilisation in China" by Colin Ronin. On page 58 he says:

"It would be a mistake, moreover, to think that every development had only one source of origin; we cannot rule out the possibility of completely independent and parallel lines of thought occurring in widely separated parts of the world, especially where scientific discoveries are concerned."

He goes on with the example of Aristotle's "Ladder of Souls" and how Hsun Chhing (not sure how to convert the pinyin, can't even find this on google) developed a similar theory about 100 years later. He claims there was little chance of contact so the knowledge developed independently (conveniently forgetting that Aristotle was the tutor of Alexander the Great who made it to the Bactrian area). Personally, I don't see the great similarity or novelty of the ideas in either culture but that is not important for this discussion - here I am concerned with history writing in general.


But then on page 59 he says:

"Many examples of Chinese influence on Europe in the field of applied science will come to light in what follows, yet even when we have good reason to believe in a transmission from China to the West we generally know very little of the means by which it took place. But there is a principle operating here by which Joseph Needham and his collaborators set much store, namely that where there is doubt, the burden of proof lies upon those who wish to maintain completely independent invention or discovery; and the longer the period elapsing between the successive appearances of such a new device or development in two or more of the cultures concerned, the heavier that burden generally is."

I am not a historian and I respect many of your opinions here so I'm curious how you respond to this writing.

My own response is not positive. But, I do not want to influence or convince anyone of anything about this writing. I am just curious if it is just me. This is not the first history book that I have had this reaction to. The reason I ask is that maybe my response is wrong. Maybe my background and methods for analysis do not apply to works by historians. (Please note that I am not criticizing Needham in particular - I have seen this type of writing in other history books by other authors.)

[General_Zhaoyun]

I think the point the author was trying to stress is that all development of science was 'independent' of each civilization.

Whereas historians tend to stress that scientific development in different civilizations tend to be related to one another, since scientific thoughts spreaded from one civilization to another.

I think, if the author wanted to further his argument, he would need to argue that all civilizations were developed 'isolated' from one another. Is that possible?

Chinese civilization was said to 'develop on its own' in isolation. But is that true?

[madalibi]

Hi scottbajie,

Reading Ronan instead of Temple (The Genius of China) is a wise and excellent choice! I think the two passages are not contradictory, and I don't interpret them the way GZ did.

It would be a mistake, moreover, to think that every development had only one source of origin; we cannot rule out the possibility of completely independent and parallel lines of thought occurring in widely separated parts of the world, especially where scientific discoveries are concerned.

This passage argues (quite reasonably in my opinion) that the same invention or innovation can appear in different places independently, without mutual influence. Examples: pyramids, writing, etc. This should not be very controversial. The second passage is trickier:

Many examples of Chinese influence on Europe in the field of applied science will come to light in what follows, yet even when we have good reason to believe in a transmission from China to the West we generally know very little of the means by which it took place. But there is a principle operating here by which Joseph Needham and his collaborators set much store, namely that where there is doubt, the burden of proof lies upon those who wish to maintain completely independent invention or discovery; and the longer the period elapsing between the successive appearances of such a new device or development in two or more of the cultures concerned, the heavier that burden generally is.

What Ronan/Needham are saying here is that the older an invention is, the harder it is to assume that its sudden appearance elsewhere was an independent new invention. In some cases, we have evidence that a new technique was transmitted from place A to place B (e.g.: an Arab text mentioning that some device came from China, a European translation of that Arab text, and eventually a later example of European use of that device), but most of the time we don't. Instead of arguing (from silence) that a technique was therefore invented independently in two different places, we should always keep in mind that it might have been transmitted, especially when a long time elapsed between the original invention and its appearance elsewhere.

Needham's attitude was designed to apply only to the history of science and techniques, which he studied on a global scale. It is of course not a free pass to say "everything came from China" on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. And I hope historians don't use it as a general guideline when they study other problems!

Scottbajie, I'd be curious to know your interpretation of these passages. For example, why do you think Needham's approach "discourages reading Chinese history books"? Just curious!

Cheers,
Madalibi

[tadamson]

Hi scottbajie,

I'm not entirely clear as to what you don't like about the passages, or how it relates to reading/not reading Chinese history books?

Are you confusing history (as in a story or description) with historiography (the methods of obtaining historical data/information)?

The passages are discussing the frequent historical event of the same concept or invention appearing multiple times in different places. Sometimes this is parallel development (ie different people come up with the same thing); sometimes it is dispersal of information (the idea is passed from place to place and person to person); sometimes it is a parallel development from a single idea (different people independantly modify a common thing and end up with the same thing). Chinese/European inventions are often used to discuss this (eg see the endles books and papers on the invention of gunpowder) and there are several instances whare we simply don't know if the invention was developed repeatedly or the concept travelled around the globe. In the past few decades we have come to understand that there was far more long distance trade in ancient times than was previously thought, as such the number of times we can 'prove' parallel independant development has significantly reduced. This, in turn, has led to Needham's cautious statement.

[scottbajie]

Thank you for your replies. I had to step away from it for a few days. I can get Ronin and most of the original Needham books through interlibrary loan but it is a hassle (getting the correct part of a multivolume work is difficult). I started with Ronin simply because his set had fewer volumes so I thought it would be easier for the librarians (still had problems). So it was with great anticipation when it arrived but I started reading only to be faced with (what I perceived to be) a huge bias.

So here is how I interpret the 2 statements.

1. The example he uses for his first statement is an idea created by Aristotle (or perhaps just attributed to him) travelling from Greece to China. Oh, we should not expect it to happen - is my paraphrase. He shows no evidence but claims it would be difficult. When clearly, within the time frame he is talking about, people who knew Aristotle were in Bactria. This is 80 or so years before the appearance of the idea in China. The idea could have been right on the doorstep of China.

When I read his statement - mentally I say ok - he is willing to jump to conclusions - I would not make such a claim without a lot of "we have no evidence one way or the other".

2. His second statement - on the next page even! Is that we have to accept that ideas did travel if we cannot show they didn't (paraphrase).

To me one position completely negates the other - forget the origin (which may be his bias toward China). It seems he is saying - when it is convenient to me ideas can freely travel, when it is not convenient, they originated independently. I am ok with 1 or 2 but when he tries both - well he not only seems biased but also inconsistent.

Now I think to myself - he is going to be very difficult to read. I can generally sift out the facts from an author's interpretation but usually if they have a bias it remains constant (Gibbon's seeming hatred for the later roman empire is one example - I couldn't even finish reading that). The Byzantine Empire seemed to raise disdain and ire among western historians for a long time and I never understood why.

I bring up other Chinese History books (in English of course) because I have noticed similar thinking with an opposite viewpoint. I would have to find specific examples but I remember when I finished reading one of my books thinking "what a racist idiot". And this is not even one of the 1900's books where (if you read the first few pages) you find incredibly weird and racist conjectures about Chinese civilization. (Has to be either Gernet or Fairbank/Goldman unless I had another book that I got rid of).

For a little while there I felt like everyone has an agenda when writing - trying promote a specific viewpoint.

Have you not had this reaction to some of the history books that are out there?

Maybe I am being overly critical. Again, I thank you for your input and I will get back to reading the series.

Perhaps a place for book reviews (not just recommended books) would be warranted on this forum?

[Yun]

Scottbajie, I'd be curious to know your interpretation of these passages. For example, why do you think Needham's approach "discourages reading Chinese history books"? Just curious!

I've changed the title of the thread so it better reflects what scottbajie wanted to say, which is "Chinese history books that I discourage you from reading". This is a typical case of how bad grammar totally distorts the writer's point.

Perhaps a place for book reviews (not just recommended books) would be warranted on this forum?

I have always felt that rather than a single thread for all book reviews, we should start a new thread for each book reviewed. We do not often have book reviews on CHF, but we actually should, and you are welcome to write them here anytime.

I will move this thread to the Chinese Science subforum, because I think its subject matter fits that forum best.

[tadamson]

Thank you for your replies. I had to step away from it for a few days. I can get Ronin and most of the original Needham books through interlibrary loan but it is a hassle (getting the correct part of a multivolume work is difficult). I started with Ronin simply because his set had fewer volumes so I thought it would be easier for the librarians (still had problems). So it was with great anticipation when it arrived but I started reading only to be faced with (what I perceived to be) a huge bias.

First thing,I would suggest that these are not books written or designed for just reading through. They are essentially reference books for other scholars. You might get some benefit from sitting and reading the condensed "Shorter History of Science and Civilisation in China" books.

So here is how I interpret the 2 statements.

1. The example he uses for his first statement is an idea created by Aristotle (or perhaps just attributed to him) travelling from Greece to China. Oh, we should not expect it to happen - is my paraphrase. He shows no evidence but claims it would be difficult. When clearly, within the time frame he is talking about, people who knew Aristotle were in Bactria. This is 80 or so years before the appearance of the idea in China. The idea could have been right on the doorstep of China.

When I read his statement - mentally I say ok - he is willing to jump to conclusions - I would not make such a claim without a lot of "we have no evidence one way or the other".

2. His second statement - on the next page even! Is that we have to accept that ideas did travel if we cannot show they didn't (paraphrase).

To me one position completely negates the other - forget the origin (which may be his bias toward China). It seems he is saying - when it is convenient to me ideas can freely travel, when it is not convenient, they originated independently. I am ok with 1 or 2 but when he tries both - well he not only seems biased but also inconsistent.

I suspect that you are underestimating how long it could take an idea to spread. In the first case, Aristotle's work was only written up after his death, and much of it was held within a semi-religious cult. Copies could have reached the Eastern end of the Hellenistic world within a decade or two, then to the Punjab, then to the Indian mercant sphere, thus to SE Asia, then to the Chinese merchant sphere, then to China...... 80 years is very quick for this sort of concept (compare to say stirrups that took 100/200 years to go from India to China, then another 100 to cross the steppe to Europe - assuming the consept traveled along the trade routes and wasn't independantly invented). Thus the conditional statement that this was probably separatly arrived at. The next statement is to reinforce the 'we don't know' position but to say if there is a long gap iseparate development is less likely.

Now I think to myself - he is going to be very difficult to read. I can generally sift out the facts from an author's interpretation but usually if they have a bias it remains constant (Gibbon's seeming hatred for the later roman empire is one example - I couldn't even finish reading that). The Byzantine Empire seemed to raise disdain and ire among western historians for a long time and I never understood why.

I bring up other Chinese History books (in English of course) because I have noticed similar thinking with an opposite viewpoint. I would have to find specific examples but I remember when I finished reading one of my books thinking "what a racist idiot". And this is not even one of the 1900's books where (if you read the first few pages) you find incredibly weird and racist conjectures about Chinese civilization. (Has to be either Gernet or Fairbank/Goldman unless I had another book that I got rid of).

For a little while there I felt like everyone has an agenda when writing - trying promote a specific viewpoint.

Every historian and every piece of historical evidence has a bias and an agenda. Much of the science/art of history and historiography involves finding them and understanding just what they are! Sadly, this is becoming even more prevalent and the bias' more varied, under the pressure to publish that drives modern academia.

Have you not had this reaction to some of the history books that are out there?

Maybe I am being overly critical. Again, I thank you for your input and I will get back to reading the series.

Perhaps a place for book reviews (not just recommended books) would be warranted on this forum?

The best source of book reviews are the professional journals. Your library should have some and electronic access to many more, I would strongly urge you to reguarly read several and to practice electronic access to older ones.


As an aside, are you studying history? Or is it a personal interest alongside other studies/work?

[scottbajie]

The best source of book reviews are the professional journals. Your library should have some and electronic access to many more, I would strongly urge you to reguarly read several and to practice electronic access to older ones.


As an aside, are you studying history? Or is it a personal interest alongside other studies/work?

A fantastic response - I was hoping Ronin would kind of "fill in the blanks" (I think this is the shorter version?) for Needham such as your comment has done or at least talk only about what we know and leave out the speculation (I am concerned with the ideas themselves - not where they originated). I will eventually try to get the original Needham texts partly because I am interested in formulations for poisons and other chemical processes that he translated(there is an incomplete thread on poisoning in China that I hope to advance further at some point).

My hobby is reading history but my studies were/are in theoretical chemistry (phd) and math and computer science (ms). I am used to searching for bias in my own work and others; however, since this is a hobby, I did not want to have to critically assess every page. In the parts of Needham that are available on google books (the chemistry one - I forget which volume) - he seems to write some about ancient knowledge then jump to modern times for comparison. I am left going "fact fact fact opinion opinion fact..." when reading his work.

My previous interest was in the Byzantines and, as you may be aware, many historians have treated them as if they were not human at all - something I cannot fathom since their culture is dead and gone. I have found similar opinions up through WWII in English writings about China. Even some later books say things (I truly must look up some of those for this site) that seem to forget that we are all the same type of animal. So I am wary when reading history - people seem to either love a culture and want you to love it also or hate it and want you to hate it too.

But my unimportant self aside, thank you for enlightening me. I see that my interpretation is false. As a layperson, I do not have the background to fill in the unwritten in this case.

[Although, as an aside, I am now wondering if somehow you could measure the amount of "out of the ordinary" of the Ladder of Souls idea in ancient Chinese culture and if it is very unusual then maybe it should be presumed to be copied.]

This is precisely why I enjoy reading this website - I can learn so much. Although I doubt my skills would be useful, if I can be of any help in the future let me know.

[tadamson]

A fantastic response - I was hoping Ronin would kind of "fill in the blanks" (I think this is the shorter version?) for Needham such as your comment has done or at least talk only about what we know and leave out the speculation (I am concerned with the ideas themselves - not where they originated). I will eventually try to get the original Needham texts partly because I am interested in formulations for poisons and other chemical processes that he translated(there is an incomplete thread on poisoning in China that I hope to advance further at some point).

My hobby is reading history but my studies were/are in theoretical chemistry (phd) and math and computer science (ms). I am used to searching for bias in my own work and others; however, since this is a hobby, I did not want to have to critically assess every page. In the parts of Needham that are available on google books (the chemistry one - I forget which volume) - he seems to write some about ancient knowledge then jump to modern times for comparison. I am left going "fact fact fact opinion opinion fact..." when reading his work.

My previous interest was in the Byzantines and, as you may be aware, many historians have treated them as if they were not human at all - something I cannot fathom since their culture is dead and gone. I have found similar opinions up through WWII in English writings about China. Even some later books say things (I truly must look up some of those for this site) that seem to forget that we are all the same type of animal. So I am wary when reading history - people seem to either love a culture and want you to love it also or hate it and want you to hate it too.

But my unimportant self aside, thank you for enlightening me. I see that my interpretation is false. As a layperson, I do not have the background to fill in the unwritten in this case.

[Although, as an aside, I am now wondering if somehow you could measure the amount of "out of the ordinary" of the Ladder of Souls idea in ancient Chinese culture and if it is very unusual then maybe it should be presumed to be copied.]

This is precisely why I enjoy reading this website - I can learn so much. Although I doubt my skills would be useful, if I can be of any help in the future let me know.

No need to put yourself down. You are discovering the fundamental (and frustrating) differences between academic study in science and the humanities. History can be particuarly hard to grasp as it seldom deals with real hard facts or immutable evidence. For example we might look at an incident described in one of the Chinese official histories, but before we can say it is a 'fact' we need to understand what manuscript we are reading, when it was written, how often it has been copied/ammended, edited, 'corrected' etc.. then we can decide what the original charaters probably were and what they meant. Then we have to look at how much time there was between that document being written and the event in question, we have to undestand the position and intentions of the men who wrote it, we try to understand whare they got the information...

Now think about the wast number of different sources an overview book like Needhams team have produced and you start to see just how fragile the web of evidence is and just how difficult it can be to have any degree of certainty about what actually happened.

So keep reading, keep asking questions (and every now and then, step back and think about how YOU weigh the evidence).

[TangXiucai]

My previous interest was in the Byzantines and, as you may be aware, many historians have treated them as if they were not human at all - something I cannot fathom since their culture is dead and gone.

Ah, I have a personal experience that may shed some light on this. Although I was born in Russia (perhaps you were too seeing your interest in Byzantine studies?), I have gone through intense periods of hatred for that country, in part because my field of interest was Economics, and the history of Russia seemed to suggest that Russia was the country whose people and rulers had less economic sense than any other civilization in history. (not quite true if one looks below the surface. it's not much more true than saying that Germans are more racist than other peoples.)

Now, the Russians themselves state that they're the successors of the Byzantines, thus it seemed natural for me to extend my hatred backwards to the Byzantines. This thought was validated by the fact that the Byzantines were one of the most extreme examples in the ancient world of the centralized tax-and-spend regulatory state, with heavier intervention by the government in the economy that in any society in the world at the time.

Furthermore, I also had some background in the art history of Rome, and it's beyond dispute that the sculpture and painting of the Byzantines shows a vast regression in techniques compared to the height of Roman art (this is largely due to a failure to transmit artistic techniques and education during troubled political times).

Thus, it seemed natural to think that, if one could rank civilizations, the Byzantines were pretty low, maybe even as bad as you could get from a Republican economist's viewpoint.

There's probably a religious component to it as well, since Orthodoxy and Western Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism) have consistently been at odds and inciting mutual hatred.

Edited by TangXiucai, 14 October 2008 - 08:50 PM.

[shunyadragon]

I think the point the author was trying to stress is that all development of science was 'independent' of each civilization.

Whereas historians tend to stress that scientific development in different civilizations tend to be related to one another, since scientific thoughts spreaded from one civilization to another.

I think, if the author wanted to further his argument, he would need to argue that all civilizations were developed 'isolated' from one another. Is that possible?

Chinese civilization was said to 'develop on its own' in isolation. But is that true?

I believe that there is evidence for both independent inventions, and innovations of technology, and the spread of inventions and innovations from one culture to another. For example there is evidence for independent invention of bronze and iron technology, but certain inventions, like pulp paper, silk technology and printing technologies were Chinese inventions.

Some technologies found first in China like machine and assembly line technologies first used on jade in the Neolithic and later in Bronze and Iron Age weapons and sophisticated construction techniques of vehicles like chariots and carriages appeared to have never been transfered to other cultures in the west. Assembly line technologies developed independently in the industrialized west. some very sophisticated metalurgy technologies were first developed in China and used in weapons but kept as guarded secrets, and not transmitted to the west. Some steel technologies were independently developed in both the east and west.

Edited by shunyadragon, 20 October 2008 - 07:09 PM.

[tadamson]

I believe that there is evidence for both independent inventions, and innovations of technology, and the spread of inventions and innovations from one culture to another. For example there is evidence for independent invention of bronze and iron technology, but certain inventions, like pulp paper, silk technology and printing technologies were Chinese inventions.

Some technologies found first in China like machine and assembly line technologies first used on jade in the Neolithic and later in Bronze and Iron Age weapons and sophisticated construction techniques of vehicles like chariots and carriages appeared to have never been transfered to other cultures in the west. Assembly line technologies developed independently in the industrialized west. some very sophisticated metalurgy technologies were first developed in China and used in weapons but kept as guarded secrets, and not transmitted to the west. Some steel technologies were independently developed in both the east and west.

This is indeed the common accepted understanding, though much isn't nearly as clear as many historians imply.

eg.

Pulp paper is essentially applying the techniques of felt making to vegetable fibres rather than animal ones. Felt making is very, very, old. Interestingly a remarkably similar process was used by ancient Egyptians to make special 'extra smooth' papyrus for religious purposes.

Block printing is, in essence a development of stamping and imprinting techniques used on ceramics for tens of thousands of years. The 'development' was the mechanical press used to generate an even pressure on the ink.

The history of science and technology is fascinating and despite long study by a few individuals it is essentially a field that is just scratching the surface.

[Tibet Libre]

Definitely "The Genius of China" by Robert Temple - it contains almost as much errors as words. Not just small ones, big ones, HUGE ones.