李约瑟问题：假议题

李约瑟问题

十九世纪初，中国是地球上领先的文明，而且似乎将继续保持这一地位。中国拥有最多的人口、先进的行政管理制度、最大的贸易和最大的财富。安格斯-麦迪逊估计，1820年的中国占整个世界经济总量的三分之一。中国在造纸、印刷、指南针和火药等方面的伟大发明发挥了巨大作用。没有一个国家能与中国的武装力量或海军相抗衡。然而，不知何故，欧洲在短短100年内迅速赶上并超过了中国。关于中国为什么没有保持卓越地位的问题被称为 "尼德姆问题"。

The Needham Question

At the start of the nineteenth century China was the leading civilization on Earth and seemed set to remain as such. China had the largest population, an advanced system of administration, the largest trade and the greatest wealth. Angus Maddison has estimated that China in 1820 represented one third of the whole world economy. China had used her great inventions of paper, printing, the compass and gunpowder to great effect. No nation could seriously rival China’s armed services or navy. And yet, somehow Europe quickly caught up and overtook China in only a hundred years. The question as to why China did not remain pre-eminent is called the ‘Needham question’.

Joseph Needham➚（1900-95）是西方最重要的中国问题学者。他在剑桥大学开始研究工作时是一名生物化学家，但在他被一名年轻的中国实验室助理迷住后，他的伟大智慧转向了中国，在他漫长生命的最后50年里，他试图创建一个系统的中国科学和文明研究。第二次世界大战后，他开始根据联合国的倡议在中国工作；他可以接触到欧洲人以前没有研究过的书籍。他会见了许多中国学者，并与他们就科学技术的发展进行了交谈。尼德姆在1942年记下了他著名的问题："中国的一般科学--为什么没有发展？

许多人提出了尼德姆问题的答案，我在此总结一下他们的分析。随着中国现在准备作为顶级国家的中心舞台，有一种观点认为，1840-1980年期间应被视为不过是暂时的昙花一现，而不是最终的衰退。这个问题不仅对中国有广泛的影响，因为同样的命运可能在未来降临到我们所有人身上。

Joseph Needham ➚ (1900-95) was the foremost scholar of China in the West. He had started his research work at Cambridge University as a biochemist but after he became entranced by a young Chinese laboratory assistant his great intellect turned to China and for the last fifty years of his long life he sought to create a systematic study of Chinese science and civilization. After World War 2 he began working under a United Nation initiative in China; he had access to books that had not been previously studied by Europeans. He met and conversed with many Chinese scholars about the development of science and technology. Needham jotted down his famous question in 1942 ‘Science in general in China - Why did not develop?’

Many have proposed answers to the Needham question and I summarize their analysis here. With China now poised to take center stage as the top nation there is a view that the period 1840-1980 should be considered as no more than a temporary blip rather than terminal decline. The question has wider implications than just China, as the same fate could befall us all in the future.

在15世纪中叶，中国似乎相信它拥有所有需要的科学--一切有用的东西都能通过五行、阴阳和《易经》的理论得到充分的解释。当耶稣会士于1601年抵达北京时，他们看到了一个开明、繁荣的国家，他们认为这个国家几乎在所有方面都优于欧洲。欧洲人似乎唯一占优势的领域是数学，以及由此衍生的天文学。当马戛尔尼于1793年带着未能给人留下深刻印象的礼物访问中国时，欧洲人的看法是，自马可-波罗访问中国（1275-92）以来，中国在宏观层面上几乎没有什么变化。因此，到1920年，西方人能够有理有据地宣称中国 "没有科学"，而且中国确实没有对西方技术发展至关重要的纯科学基础。

以下是学者们提出的一些因素，作为对尼德姆问题的回答。

1.竞争的国家

欧洲的科学发展发生在许多国家为争夺霸权和生存而竞争的时候。任何工程或科学的进步都能使他们在冲突或贸易中获得优势。这是达尔文主义的一种形式，因为这种竞争推动了快速进化。当欧洲处于竞争性的动荡中时，中国没有对手，觉得没有必要改革。这是许多生物的策略，当它们发展到安全地占据一个环境位时，它们可能会保持数百万年不改变。这一理论得到了中国自身早期历史的支持。战国时期[公元前476-221年]，虽然具有破坏性和血腥性，但带来了许多创新和指导性哲学的发展，至今仍具有现实意义。

In the mid 15th century China seemed to believe it had all the science it needed - everything of use was adequately explained by the theories of five elements, yin-yang and the Yi Jing (I Ching). When the Jesuits arrived at Beijing in 1601, they saw an enlightened, prosperous country that they judged to be superior to Europe in almost every way. The only area where Europeans seemed to have the upper hand was mathematics and, derived from that, astronomy. When MacCartney visited China in 1793 with gifts that failed to impress, the European perception was that little had changed in China at the macro level since Marco Polo’s visit (1275-92). So by 1920 Westerners were able to make the claim with some justification that China had ‘no science’ and it was true that China did not have the grounding in pure science that was so crucial to Western technological development.

Here are some of the factors that scholars have been proposed as answers to the Needham question:

1. Competing states

European scientific development took place when there were many states competing for supremacy and survival. Any engineering or scientific advance could give them the edge in conflict or trade. This is a form of Darwinism, as such competition drives rapid evolution. While Europe was in competitive turmoil China had no rivals and felt no need to reform. This is the strategy of many living things, when they have developed to securely occupy an environmental niche they may stay unaltered for millions of years. This theory is supported by China’s own early history. The Warring States period [476-221BCE], although disruptive and bloody, brought in many innovations and the development of guiding philosophies that remain relevant to this day.

2.人口的压力

中国的人口一直很高，到1840年，中国的人口为4亿，已经是今天的三分之一。几乎所有合适的土地都被耕种，因此，饥荒的威胁一直存在。由于如此多的人几乎没有工作可做，机械化没有任何商业利益；雇用一个人总是比购买和运行一台机器更便宜。这与欧洲形成鲜明对比，那里仍有未开发的土地需要开发，劳动力成本很高。在工业革命中，耕地的机器和织布的机器使许多工人成为多余的人。在中国，人们激烈反对引进蒸汽船和铁路，因为它们使数百万已经收入微薄的人失去了就业机会。

3.中央帝国控制

中国的文化沉浸在对 "上级"，特别是对皇帝的儒家敬畏之中。离开并以不同的方式做事会挑战公认的思维，因此被视为不爱国和颠覆者。当时普遍存在一种家长式的态度，人们不自己采取行动，而是等待当局告诉他们该怎么做。他们很少通过创新来解决问题，因为只有官方批准的发明才会被使用。中央集权也包含了学习，一个在考试中表现出色的数学家总是渴望得到宫廷的任命，而不是为自己或当地贵族工作。天文和数学等敏感学科只能在帝国的主持下在宫廷里学习，不允许独立学习。利玛窦的数学书籍在他1601年抵达时被没收了，因为除了指定的帝国学者外，没有人可以研究这一重要学科。这种制度不允许对公认的观点提出质疑或进行独立的研究。在欧洲，有更多的自由来研究你想要的东西，而且总有一些地方你可以移动以逃避国家干预。

2. Population pressures

China’s population has always had a high population, by 1840 it stood at 400 million - already about one third of today’s figure. Nearly all suitable land was being farmed and so there was a constant threat of famine. With so many people with little or no work to do there was no commercial benefit from mechanization; it was always cheaper to hire someone than to buy and run a machine. This was in contrast to Europe, where there was still untouched land to be developed and the cost of labor was significant. In the Industrial Revolution machines that tilled the soil and machines that weaved textiles made many workers redundant. In China there was violent opposition to the introduction of steamboats and railways as they removed employment from millions of already poorly paid people.

3. Central Imperial control

China’s culture was steeped in Confucian deference to ‘superiors’ and particularly the Emperor. To go away and do things differently would challenge accepted thinking and so be seen as an unpatriotic and subversive. There was a general attitude of paternalism, people did not take action themselves, they waited to be told what to do by the authorities. They rarely innovated to solve problems as only officially approved inventions would be used. The centralization embraced study too, a mathematician who excelled at the examinations would always aspire to a court appointment not to work for himself or a local nobleman. Sensitive subjects such as astronomy and mathematics could only be studied at court under Imperial auspices, independent study was not allowed. Matteo Ricci’s books on mathematics were confiscated on his arrival in 1601 as no-one apart from the designated Imperial scholars could study this important subject. Such a system did not provide for accepted opinion to be challenged or independent research to be carried out. In Europe there was more freedom to study what you wanted and there were always places where you could move to escape state interference.

在中国，这成了一个记录现有知识而不是寻找新理论的问题。皇帝们对中国的优越性有着不可动摇的信念，认为没有必要对自然界进行调查，因为目前的思想已经充分地解释了一切。这就好比在谷歌上搜索，却发现每一个可以想象的东西之前都被研究过很多次，那么重复研究工作的意义何在？中国在其漫长的历史中曾多次将所有知识纳入数百卷的巨大百科全书。学者们参考这些庞大的知识积累，而不是重新研究自然。

4.中产阶级商人

帝国制度让皇帝对整个国家进行微观管理。地方权力很小，所以中产阶级的意义不大。在欧洲，正是受过教育的中产阶级发展了对自然的研究并建立了新的企业。独立的富人可以研究他们喜欢的任何东西。英国的一个开创者是伦敦的皇家学会，在那里，富裕的人们聚集在一起，讨论各种观点和观察。在中国，只有帝国机构才会进行研究。在中国，商人的社会地位非常低--商人被认为比农民的价值低，因为他们至少实际生产了一些有用的东西。中国认为农业是所有努力的重要目标，因为生产足够的食物是如此的艰难。自由市场商业只限于少数领域：丝绸、瓷器、盐、对外贸易。谈论财富确实被认为是不雅的。限制独立商业发展的另一个因素是，没有基础设施来支持自由市场的工业和商业。为了能够建立和经营企业，需要银行设施和公司治理结构。

In China it became a question of recording current knowledge and not looking for new theories. The Emperors had an unshakeable belief about Chinese supremacy and that there was no need for investigation into nature as everything was adequately explained by current thinking. This is rather like searching on Google only to find that every conceivable thing had been studied many times before, so what is the point of repeating research work? China had at several times in its long history put all knowledge into huge encyclopedias of hundreds of volumes. Scholars referred to these vast accumulations of knowledge rather than studying nature afresh.

4. Middle class merchants

The Imperial system had the Emperor micro-managing the whole nation. There was little local power and so the middle class was not very significant. In Europe it was the educated middle classes that developed studies of nature and set up new businesses. The independently wealthy could research whatever they liked. A ground-breaker in the U.K. was the Royal Society ➚ in London where the well off came together to discuss ideas and observations. In China it was only the Imperial institutions that carried out research. The social position of business people in China was very low - merchants were considered of lower worth than farmers - as they at least actually produced something useful. China considered agriculture the important aim of all endeavor as producing enough food was such a struggle. Free market commerce was restricted to only a few areas: silk, porcelain, salt, foreign trade. It was indeed considered indecent to talk about wealth. Another factor limiting the development of independent business was that there was no infrastructure to support free market industry and commerce. To be able to set up and run a business needs banking facilities and corporate governance structures.

5.陷入僵局

经过长期的研究，一个约定俗成的观点就会形成，很难转变。许多世纪以来，欧洲人把希腊和罗马的科学和技术视为黄金时代，但到了中世纪，这种对古代智慧的敬畏逐渐消失。在此之前，任何人挑战亚里士多德的科学或欧几里德的数学都是毫无意义的，这些理论被视为不可改变的最后定论。对古代智慧的僵化信仰的放松并没有发生在中国。例如，清朝宫廷的天文学家可以用计算来预测轨道和日食，但不知道背后的理论，因为几个世纪以来，对基本原理的理解已经失去了。新的欧洲数学使耶稣会士能够向皇帝展示他们卓越的预测能力。普遍受到钦佩的康熙皇帝接近于接受了西方的数学和科学。他是亚当-冯-沙尔的私人朋友，并致力于翻译欧几里德的《元素》➚，然而内部传教士的争吵和中国的保守派都阻止了这一发展，基督教徒被驱逐。陷入僵局的主要原因是科举制度。能够准确记忆信息的学生得到了奖励，因为它是为了让人们通过死记硬背来学习经典。有新鲜想法的人在考试中并不受欢迎。

人们普遍认为，中国社会已经发展到了一个合理的水平，不需要太多改变--也许只需要一些小的调整。农业生产力已经达到了现代化肥和杀虫剂出现之前可以达到的最高水平。中国被认为已经达到了一个黄金时代，所以没有必要改变。从欧洲带来的最新创新被看作是有趣的玩具，没有实际价值。

5. Locked in stasis

After a long period of study an agreed opinion becomes established that is very hard to shift. For many centuries Europeans looked back to Greek and Roman science and technology as a golden age, but by the medieval period this deference to ancient wisdom faded. Previously it had been pointless for anyone to challenge the science of Aristotle ➚ or the mathematics of Euclid ➚, the theories were just treated as the unalterable last word. The relaxation in the rigid belief in ancient wisdom did not take place in China. For example the Qing court astronomers could use calculations to predict orbits and eclipses but had no idea of the theory behind them because over the centuries the understanding of the underlying principles had been lost. The new European mathematics allowed the Jesuits to demonstrate their superior predictive skill to the Emperor. The generally admired Emperor Kangxi came close to embracing western mathematics and science. He was a personal friend of Adam von Schall and worked on a translation of Euclid's Elements ➚, however both internal missionary squabbles and Chinese conservatives put paid to this development and the Christians were expelled. It was the Imperial Examination system that was mainly to blame for the descent into stasis. Students who could recall information accurately were rewarded as it was geared to people learning the Classics by rote. Creative people with fresh ideas did not prosper in the examinations.

There was a general feeling that Chinese society had developed to a reasonable level and there was no need for much change – maybe only a few small adjustments. Agricultural productivity had reached the maximum attainable before modern fertilizers and pesticides became available. China was considered to have reached a Golden Age so there was no need to change. The latest innovations brought in from Europe were seen as interesting toys of no practical value.

虽然欧洲在科学和技术方面确实在飞速发展，但认为中国完全停滞不前是一种误解。中国继续在许多领域进行精细的创新：钻井、火药、船舶、隧道、铸铁和桥梁建设。例如，从南美进口的最新粮食作物红薯、玉米和花生很快就被纳入了饮食。

在这场辩论中没有受到质疑的是，中国输给了一套优越的理念；但根据目前的世界形势，必须对这一点提出质疑。经济和人口增长不可能永远持续下去；这是一个资源有限的世界。当然，可持续性必须是关键的关注点。十九世纪的中国已经达到了一个相对稳定但可持续的发展水平。中国是自给自足的，许多世纪以来都是相对和平和繁荣的。只有时间能证明，由现代科学认识推动的快速工业和技术发展是否是正确的方向；也许中国采取了正确的路线，而不是跟随西方疯狂地开发地球。

While it is true that Europe was leaping ahead in science and technology, to suggest China was standing completely still is a misconception. China continued to make fine innovations across many fields: drilling, gunpowder, ships, tunnels, cast iron and the bridge building. For example the latest food crops of sweet potatoes, maize and peanuts imported from South America were quickly adopted into the diet.

What goes unchallenged in this debate is that China lost out to a superior set of ideas; but this must be questioned in the light of the current world situation. Economic and population growth can not go on forever; it is a finite world with finite resources. Surely sustainability must be the key concern. China of the nineteenth century had reached a relatively static but sustainable level of development. China was self-sufficient and for many centuries relatively peaceful and prosperous. Only time will tell whether rapid industrial and technological development fueled by modern scientific understanding was the correct direction to take; may be China took the right course rather than following the West in its mad dash to exploit the planet.

6.二等科学

中国一直重视人文科学，而不是科学。如果你有志于担任高官，你要学习的是经典而不是科学。在中国，道家研究自然，但儒家才是统治精英。儒家认为道教是为文盲大众服务的东西，这对科学研究产生了负面影响。道教的分析相当肤浅，涉及观察和思考，而不是把事物拆开来，试图回答基本的 "为什么 "问题。许多道教文献对自然界的结构充满了好奇，而不寻求解释这一切是如何形成的。中国管理者的主要关注点是人民的健康和福利，而不是增加知识。为科学而科学并不被认为是一种有用的职业，因为它并不直接惠及任何人。人们认为研究伦理学和政治更有价值，可以提高每个人的福利。相比之下，在欧洲，古代的科学研究（自然、数学、物理和哲学）保留了很高的地位。

6. Second class science

China always valued the humanities above the sciences. If you aspired to high office it was the classics rather than the sciences that you would study. In China the Daoists studied nature but it was the Confucians who formed the ruling elite. Confucians regarded the Daoist teaching as something for the illiterate masses and this had a negative impact on scientific research. Daoist analysis was fairly superficial, involving observation and reflection rather than taking things apart and trying to answer the fundamental ‘why?’ questions. Many Daoist texts are full of wonderment at the structure of nature without seeking to explain how it all came to be. The primary concern of Chinese administrators was the health and welfare of people rather than increasing knowledge. Science for science’s sake was not thought of as a useful occupation as it did not directly benefit anyone. It was considered more worthwhile to study ethics and politics that could enhance everyone’s well-being. By contrast in Europe the ancient studies in sciences (nature, mathematics, physics and philosophy) retained a high status.

7.玻璃

有些人认为，中国科学发展的停滞完全是由于一件事--玻璃。尽管中国使用了少量的玻璃作为装饰，但它并没有将其用于窗户或酒器（而是使用纸和瓷器），因此没有开发出生产高质量玻璃的工艺。据说，欧洲人在制造精细、透明玻璃方面的技能使一切都变得不同，因为你需要高质量的玻璃来制造镜片。镜头被用于显微镜和望远镜，这些仪器为科学研究开辟了广阔的领域。例如，1665年罗伯特-胡克拍摄的早期跳蚤的显微图像引起了大量的惊奇和兴奋，并引发了对自然的研究。同样重要的是，用于眼镜的玻璃镜片使学者们能够在他们的晚年继续研究。

8.为革命推波助澜

虽然玻璃可能是一个因素，但另一个因素是煤炭。虽然中国有大量的煤，但大部分都没有暴露在地面上，必须进行开采。新的机器（织布、抽水和运动）都需要燃料。由于无法获得煤炭，不得不使用木材，而中国在经过几个世纪的森林砍伐后，严重缺乏燃料。由于燃料如此稀缺和昂贵，机器的运行是不经济的。在据说是工业革命开始的英国铁桥，煤炭、石灰石和铁矿石都是唾手可得的；亚伯拉罕-达比可以很容易地利用这些自然资源来建立廉价铁的大规模生产。

9.远方的土地

到1800年左右，欧洲国家开始在非洲和美洲以及大洋洲建立海外帝国。殖民地对工业革命产生了振奋人心的作用。他们提供了新的未开发的资源：劳动力、食物、石油、煤炭、肥料和许多原材料，为欧洲国家的快速发展提供了动力。制造商也能够为其产品开拓新的市场。征服和控制这些领土需要一支拥有卓越武器装备的专业军队。富有进取心的欧洲人可以在政府的支持下，在几乎没有干预的情况下，移居到殖民地并创办新企业。另一方面，中国没有正式的殖民地，常备军只被用来维持内部秩序。中国继续进行非常广泛的贸易，但她并没有占领海外的土地。

7. Glass

Some have taken the view that the stalling of Chinese scientific development was purely down to just one thing - glass. Although China used a small amount of glass for decoration it did not use it for windows or drinking vessels (paper and porcelain were used instead) and so did not develop processes to produce high quality glass. It is said that the European skill in making fine, clear glass made all the difference because you need quality glass to make lenses. Lenses are used in both microscopes and telescopes and these instruments open up vast areas for scientific study. For example the early microscopic images of a flea by Robert Hooke in 1665 caused a great deal of wonderment and excitement and provoked much study of nature. Just as significantly glass lenses for spectacles allows scholars to study well into their old age.

8. Fueling the revolution

While glass may have been one factor another was coal. Although China has plenty of coal, most of it is not exposed at ground level and has to be mined. New machines (weaving, pumping and locomotion) all needed fuel. Without access to coal, timber had to be used and China had a severe shortage of fuel after centuries of deforestation. With fuel so scarce and expensive, machines were uneconomic to run. At Ironbridge ➚, UK where the Industrial Revolution is said to have begun, there was coal, limestone and iron ore all readily to hand; Abraham Darby could easily use the natural resources to set up the mass production of cheap iron.

9. Far flung lands

By around 1800 the European nations had begun to establish overseas empires in Africa and the Americas as well as Australasia. The colonies had an invigorating effect on the Industrial Revolution. They provided new untapped resources: labor, food, oil, coal, fertilizer and many raw materials that fueled the rapid development of European states. Manufacturers were also able to exploit new markets for their products. To conquer and control these territories required a professional army with superior weaponry. Enterprising Europeans could move to the colonies and start up new businesses with the support of their governments but with little interference. On the other hand China had no official colonies and the standing army was only used to maintain internal order. China continued to trade very widely, but she did not occupy land overseas.

10.是经济问题，愚蠢

在清朝的大部分时间里，政府的财政状况都很糟糕。没有多余的资金可以投入到新技术的探索中。相反，在欧洲，一个良性的经济循环正在运行：技术和创新推动了经济增长，而经济增长又为技术的进一步发展提供了资金。尽管中国最初能够通过销售茶叶积累财富，但当欧洲，特别是英国开始进行鸦片贸易时，情况发生了逆转。中国的鸦片瘾的规模破坏了任何经济改革或科学进步的机会。

11.王朝周期

几千年来，中国一直由不同的朝代统治，这些朝代经历了一个变化的周期。一个王朝在建立之初，会通过改革重新激活整个国家；然后是一个相对和平和繁荣的巩固期。最后一个阶段是颓废、自满和衰退。中央控制的削弱导致叛乱，将新的王朝推向了权力。

在清朝衰败的日子里，也有变革的机会。太平天国起义（1850-64年）占领了整个中国南方，如果他们愿意，很容易就能占领北京并推翻满族统治者。太平天国采用的西方和中国哲学的奇怪混合体肯定会改革中国社会，特别是科学工作。这次叛乱造成的巨大死亡人数、费用和损失，使此后发生根本性变革的可能性消失了。清朝迟来的改革尝试:戊戌变法和自强运动太少、太晚。汉族人为保持 "外国 "满清王朝而采取的任何行动都遭到了反对，特别是在南方。

12.语言上的限制

一些学者认为，是中国语言的局限性阻碍了进步。如果一种语言不能清楚地表达概念，这将是一个严重的障碍。欧几里德或亚里士多德提出的复杂的逻辑思想能够毫无困难地被翻译成中文，这一事实反而推翻了这种想法。虽然许多汉字确实有多种含义，可能会使文本产生歧义，但实际上这并不是一个实际问题。也许学者们使用的文学语言的非常正式的性质是一个障碍，但这主要是因为很少有人能够阅读和书写这种形式的语言，而不是语言本身的描述能力的限制。

13.种族特征

必须遗憾地承认，多年来，西方的看法是，中国人被认为不适合进行科学研究和发展。美国传教士阿瑟-亨德森-史密斯（1845-1932）在谈到中国人的思想时写道。"他对逻辑矛盾一无所知，更不关心。他凭着本能学会了调和固有的不可调和的命题的艺术，即猛烈地肯定每一个命题，而不需要考虑它们之间的关系。"事件证明这种观点是完全错误的。中国的太空探索计划与美国一样雄心勃勃，它拥有世界级的射电望远镜和粒子加速器。在任何领域，中国的科学和技术现在即使不领先，至少也是世界一流的。

10. It’s the economy, stupid

For much of the Qing dynasty the government’s finances were in a poor state. There was just no surplus to plow into exploring new technologies. In Europe, by contrast, a virtuous economic cycle was in operation: technology and innovation fueled economic growth which provided the funds for technology to be further developed. Although China was initially able to amass wealth from selling tea, the tables were turned when Europe, and Britain in particular, began to trade in opium. The scale of opium addiction in China destroyed any chances of economic reform or scientific advances.

11. Dynastic cycle

For thousands of years China has been ruled by different dynasties that went through a cycle of change. On foundation a dynasty would re-invigorate the whole country with reforms; which would then be followed by a period of consolidation with relative peace and prosperity. The final phase is of decadence, complacency and decline. Weakening central control led to revolts that swept a new dynasty to power.

There were opportunities for change in the failing days of the Qing dynasty. The Taiping Rebellion (1850-64) overran all of southern China and could easily have captured Beijing and overthrown the Manchu rulers had they wished. The strange mixture of Western and Chinese philosophy adopted by the Taipings would surely have reformed Chinese society and scientific work in particular. The ruinous death toll, expense, and damage of this rebellion took away any possibility of fundamental change thereafter. Belated Qing attempts at reform : The Hundred Days Reform and Self Strengthening Movement were too little and too late. Any moves by Han Chinese to keep the ‘foreign’ Manchu dynasty in place were met with opposition particularly in the south.

12. Linguistic limitations

Some scholars believe that it was the limitations of the Chinese language that prevented progress. If a language can not express concepts clearly it would be a severe obstacle . This idea is rather disproved by the fact that complex logical thoughts as set out in Euclid or Aristotle were able to be translated into Chinese without great difficulty. While it is true that many Chinese characters have multiple meanings which could make texts ambiguous, in actual fact this is not a problem in practice. Perhaps the very formal nature of the literary language used by scholars was an obstruction, but this is mainly because so few people could read and write this form of the language rather than a limitation of the descriptive power of the language itself.

13. Racial characteristics

It has to unfortunately be admitted that for years the western perception was that the Chinese race were considered ill suited to scientific research and development. The American missionary Arthur Henderson Smith (1845-1932) wrote of the mind of a Chinese man: “He knows nothing about logical contradictions, and cares even less. He has learned by instinct the art of reconciling propositions which are inherently irreconcilable by violently affirming each of them paying no need whatever to their mutual relations.” Events have proved this view wholly incorrect. China’s space exploration program is as ambitious as America’s and it boasts world class radio telescopes and particle accelerators. There is no field in which Chinese science and technology is now, if not leading, at least of world class.

结论

有些人对Needham的问题提出异议，认为它太简单了。中国和西方导致分歧的所有事件如何能够被比较？什么叫 "发展"，难道只是技术的工业化应用吗？在这种情况下，中国在工业革命之前很久就有现代技术，例如景德镇的陶器。或者是中国对经验研究的依赖，而不是像西方那样发展的纯粹、抽象的数学？尽管这个问题本身有些缺陷，但对关键因素的猜测还是很有趣的。

所有这些对尼德姆问题提出的答案，除了最后一个，似乎都有一定的道理。我很容易得出这样的结论：没有一个因素能胜出，真正的答案是它们的某种组合。如果我被迫选择一个最佳答案，那一定是(5) "锁定在停滞状态"。最近读了老舍发人深省的《猫国》一书，很难逃避这样一个事实：在20世纪初，有一种被困在传统中的感觉，被锁定在旧的方式中，因为一切都一直是这样做的。共和国时期（1911-1949年）的教训也说明了一些问题；改革被引入，西方的科学被教授，西方的工厂被建造，但这些变革的尝试从未扎根，也未能繁荣。我把这归结为一种失败主义的态度，这种态度侵入了社会的各个层面--尝试现代化是没有意义的，一切都注定要失败。只有随着1949年人民共和国的成立，民族精神的重新焕发，才产生了必要的自我信念，相信中国能够在现代世界取得成功。正是人们的基本愿望最终导致了所有的不同。中国已经真正站起来了。？

Conclusions

Some of taken issue with Needham's question on the basis that it is far too simplistic. How can all the events of China and the west leading to th e divergence be anyway compared? What is meant by 'development', is it just industrial use of technology? In which case China had modern techniques for example in the Jingdezhen potteries long before the Industrial revolution. Or is it the reliance in China on empirical studies rather than pure, abstract mathematics as developed in the west? Even though the question is in itself somewhat flawed it is interesting to speculate on the key factors.

All these proposed answers to the Needham question, except the last one, do seem to have some merit. It would be easy for me to conclude by saying that no single factor wins out and that the true answer is some combination of them. If I am forced to choose the best candidate to answer the question it must be (5) ‘Locked in stasis’. Having recently read Lao She’s thought provoking book ‘Cat Country’ it is hard to escape the fact there was in the early 20th century a sense of being trapped in tradition, locked into old ways because that was how everything had always been done. The lessons of the Republican period (1911-1949) also sheds some light; reforms were introduced, western science was taught and western factories built but these attempts at change never took firm root and failed to prosper. I put this down to a defeatist attitude that had invaded all layers of society - that there was no point in trying to modernize, it was all bound to fail. Only the re-invigoration of national spirit that came with the foundation of the People’s Republic in 1949 was the necessary self belief created that China could succeed in the modern world. It is the underlying aspiration of people that ultimately makes all the difference. China had truly stood up.