I forgot earthquake science as well
I'll give you seismology and astronomy because their records show an accumulation of evidence but there were scant interpretations. I asked around about vaccination in China and found nothing. So, I'm a little worried about the cow pox and the milk-maid story from China and not the Green Mountains of Vermont.
I do believe that Arabs and Persians entered China's thinking after 800 AD as part of spreading Islam. From what I read, Jesuits were awed by the completeness and depth of astronomical records. Admittedly they came equipped with Midlevel interpretations that differed markedly from Greek science and interpretation. From what I've read recently about Greek science, it appears that Rome set science back to zero and used only the resulting technologies. They were really not interested in why something worked only that it was useful.
BTW: when I say that China was pure technology and little if any science, I am not making a slur at their abilities. I am pointing out that in China technology was, perhaps, used in its purest form.
In other words, everything that I said was wrong.
No. Everything you said is technology.
From what I can see in his bio, his interaction with Chinese science began in 1936 at a time after western influence. To be sure there were scientists active all over China at all times but that science was not in the drivers seat of thought. Technology and its practical aspects were in the drivers seat. China and Rome have this is common. I'm sure that there were those in authority in China that said the same a Cicero, 'Don't ask those old guys (scientists) they'll just talk your ear off'.
BTW: thanks for the leg up to heaven. I'll need it.
like you don't understand Chinese science.
Yet, all of this discussion illustrates the confusion between science and technology.
May be of interest in other ways as well
Most of the lecture is about history and government. There are a few problems that I recognized at the surface. The author describes chaos and revolution then turns and claims that the stability of government enabled science. To me, that's a stretch. Court appointed astronomers "... task of observing and recording what could be seen in the sky. ..." . Observing eclipses of the sun and moon and even sunspots is one thing trying to determine what they are and how the cyclic natures work are entirely different.
"The closeness of science and technology was also the result of the concentration of both scientific research and applied technology in the emperor's workshops". This says it all science here is too close to technology. Even the seismoscope was a technical fix for knowing the direction of the earthquake. The science was that the surface disturbance could be directional (a scientific result). The same data also provides the distance but they would see it. They didn't look for it.
Chinese astronomers designed armillary spheres well before the 1st century BC, at about the same time when such devices were developed in Greece. But the Chinese scientists were more adept at technology and fitted armillaries with drives, so that they indicate the positions of the planets for every moment automatically. Yet the antikythera mechanism shows that such technical achievements took place in Greece in the 1st century AD. During the 3rd century BC in Greece the armillary sphere was providing Aristarchus, Hipparchus, and others with enough data to see that the universe was heliocentric and most of the cyclic nature of planetary and stellar observations were explained.
Other points made, lead to the same conclusion that technology was prevalent in China and science was a backwater effort. The article goes on to explore medicine but the thread culminates at acupuncture a technology without any science. It's more a philosophy of life than a science of life.
Now, I'm not arguing a lack of ability on the part of China or the peoples, I am arguing that the concepts of technology and science are distinct and separate. They are not oil and water, to be sure, they are necessary. Science in its pure form may well be useless and pure technology is scienceless. Science made useful is technology. Technology without science leads to dangerous applications.
you just don't wish to admit
On the contrary, I can and will admit that there was science in China at all times. At no time has the human animal ever not asked, "Why". Why, is the first step to science; study. Yet I contend that science and technology are quite separate and in China, as in Rome, technology took the upper hand. In Greece and the rest of modern western civilization (which now includes China) science had the upper hand.
I admit the technology is an application of science but technology can breed by itself. In Japan, China, and the heart of Africa metal smiths have worked metals into tools. In all those cases where such tools were created no one studied the chemical and crystal structures of their results. Technology breed technology and science played catchup. Today science breeds science and technology plays catchup. Science produced the laser but technology found applications and perfections.
The difference between science and technology does not put anyone down or lift anyone up. The difference exists and must be understood as a difference. My concern is that this board shows a lack of that distinction.
TFC: I believe you are over thinking your premise. Science is a philosophy and a skill-set. It asks questions and seeks solutions. Science is always one discovery away from negating itself, and beginning again from scratch. Yes, science can breed science because men are scientists and so long as men think and question, then science will continue. But, can technology breed technology without science?
You’re getting into the philosophic realm here.
I do not believe it is possible for technology to advance without science. In order for technology to advance without science it must advance in incremental steps (evolve) without the technician(s) asking why or how, and without questioning its own usefulness or effectiveness.
When does a technician become a scientist?
Einstein's Nobel Prize was for a 1905 paper explaining the photoelectric effect where Einstein pointed out that stimulated emission of radiation could occur. It wasn’t until 1960 that an actual working Laser was developed at Hughes Laboratories. Was Ted Maiman, who constructed the first laser, a technician or a scientist? Were all the people who followed Maiman, who evolved the laser, scientists or technicians?
But then you could ask, is an automobile mechanic a technician or a scientist, and my whole argument falls flat, except for this….a mechanic fixes the problem, he/she does not advance (improve) the design or usefulness of the engine. But every mechanic that ever turned a bolt dreams of building an engine that’s faster or more powerful or more efficient. At what point does a mechanic become a scientist? What questions must he answer? What experiments must he perform? What processes must he follow? What papers must he write and get published?
Let’s face it! Science does not advance itself, people do. Technology does not breed itself, people do. People are scientists; people are technicians; people are mechanics. It isn’t the label we place on them that matters, it is the individual that matters. It’s what they do, and how they do it, that determines what they are.