 |
 |
Dear Francois, Thanks for your reply. I’ve been following the evolving thread on science in China with interest. This note will address a modest yet significant point in your reply. Your wrote about “the excellent documentation by Joseph Needham on China and science.” Needham was not a documentalist. If Needham had only been engaged in documentation, he could have accomplished much of his work in a decade or so, instead of the six decades he took. Needham’s work comprised history, historiography, socio-cultural analysis, and philosophy. That’s why the short 1981 book, Science in Traditional China, provide answers to your questions if you don’t want to read the massive volumes. This is where Needham offers comparisons with Arabic, Hellenistic, and Indian cultures. The difference between documentation and Needham’s work involves analysis and interpretation. No interpretation can be correct in the sense of a correct mathematical equation, but interpretation is the essence of historiography, philosophy, and socio-cultural analysis with respect to your questions. This is the difference between the blunt facts recorded in documentation and understanding what facts mean. In the late 1980s and the early 1990s, I spent a fair amount of time working on knowledge economy questions. One issue that interested me was the shift of geo-political power to Asia, first in Japan, then in China. If I were to work on these issues today, I would pay a great deal more attention to Korea, Singapore, and India. The other day, I mentioned the fact that Chinese iron production reached a level in the 11th century that the West would not attain until the early stages of the 18th century Industrial Revolution. In the 15th and 16th centuries, China was arguably the world’s largest, most powerful and best-organized empire. In the 15th century, however, China began a great withdrawal from the world comparable to -- but different in means and policies from -- Japan’s sakoku policy forbidding communication and commerce with foreigners. The implications are startling. Take the case of the clock. Prior to the withdrawal, China had some of the best and most advanced clocks in the world. Clocks, calendars, and timekeeping involved control of cognitive authority and even of legitimate authority, so Chinese emperors often neglected or destroyed the earlier advances in timekeeping of previous reigns. The fate of the clock in China mirrors the later technical and economic fate of China itself. The mechanical clock was among the early forerunners of the computer. A timing mechanism is the heart of every computer. Coupled with China’s early leads in printing arts, communication, metallurgy, and manufacturing, China’s early lead in mechanical timing devices could have been nurtured into some form of the information technology on which a computer might have been built. This would involve preserving and developing early contributions to science and technology rather than losing them – even in cases where trade took Chinese inventions to other parts of the world while they were forgotten in China. It is a documented fact that China had a lead in timekeeping technology. What led to this fact, what followed from it, and how China responded to these issues involves more than documents. Some of these issues involve speculation and reflection. Despite having the resources that might have led to a computer, nothing guarantees the evolution of the computer. A few years back, someone built a working computing engine built on Charles Babbage’s model using the resources and technology available to Babbage. This dispelled the myth that Babbage could not have done so himself. Nevertheless, he did not complete his computing engine. Attempting to understand why – while showing that it could have been done – involves forms of inquiry and research that go beyond documentation. Much of Needham’s work involves similar questions. Best regards, Ken Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 | Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design