The East, represented by China, takes another road, and its academic research focuses on synthesis. This stems from the philosophy of the East, whether it is the Confucian idea of great unity or the Taoist idea that "heaven and earth are big, but their transformation is also unified;" Although there are many things, it is also a cure. "(Zhuangzi's heaven and earth) take the universe as a whole and conduct comprehensive research from the perspective of the whole. Although the synthesizer also realizes that the whole is composed of parts, it often only pays attention to the external relations and interactions between parts, and rarely analyzes its connotation. Emphasis on synthesis over analysis dominates the academic research in the East, and Chinese medicine is a good example. Traditional Chinese medicine theory is based on the harmony of Yin and Yang, and Jin Mu's five elements of fire, water and soil. These concepts are abstracted from the whole, and their essence is to consider the influence of various organs and factors of the human body as a whole, and to treat them in a comprehensive way. The meridian theory of Chinese medicine and acupuncture-one needle and one point connecting the whole body, and the compatibility of monarch and minister in Chinese medicine prescriptions are all based on the concept of overall integration. Western medicine, on the other hand, is completely different: based on human anatomy, it makes in-depth analysis from organs to tissues, and then to cells, nuclei, chromosomes, genes and other different levels ... Western medicine treats diseases: treating headaches and feet, and cutting the operation if it is broken. Undeniably, western medicine pays more attention to analysis than synthesis.
The differences in scientific methods between the East and the West are bound to have a far-reaching impact. Emphasizing synthesis over analysis is an important reason why China's modern science lags behind the West. There is nothing wrong with the synthesis method itself. The problem is, if we only synthesize without analyzing, this one-sided method can't go deep into the study of things, and the result can only be gilding the lily and losing subtlety. This is not a serious problem in the initial stage of ancient science, and it is not competent when modern science develops in depth.
(Excerpted from Shen Zhiyuan's Analysis and Synthesis, Wen Wei Po Pen Club, August 22, 2000)
From the western perspective, China's emphasis on synthesis can explain the prosperity of western science and the decline of China's science and technology. However, in recent years, in the west, some scholars have put forward the problem of "the end of science", thinking that science has developed to the end. This shows that truth is always concrete and relative, and so is any method.
John Hogan, an American journalist, published "The End of Science" in 1996 (the translation of this book can be found in Inner Mongolia Fiona Fang Publishing House 1997 10 edition), which caused a worldwide debate about whether science will end. In fact, in the history of western civilization, even in the era of rapid development of science, there have been various anti-scientific thoughts. Hogan's final conclusion on science is nothing more than systematizing and highlighting these people's thoughts.
The idea of ending science first appeared around 1900. At that time, there was a view that "future progress can only add a few decimals to the data" [1]. This idea came into being at the end of 19 and the beginning of the 20th century. At that time, many people, including many scientists, were disappointed because many new problems could not be solved by physics based on popular mechanisms. In desperation, they pointed out that "people are always ignorant" and further thought that "science is bankrupt". Later, due to the emergence of quantum theory and relativity, physics got unprecedented new development, which made the first "ending" trend of thought self-defeating, and the first "scientific ending movement" with a certain climate in human history came to an end temporarily.
The second influential ideological trend of "the end of science" began to appear around 19 18, which was due to the publication of the book The Decline of the West by Oswald Bingler. Bingler thinks that "science is a kind of cancer, which will soon kill civilization itself". Physicist Dirac also believes that "with the rise of quantum mechanics, most physics and all chemical principles have been explained" [2]. Bingler is a theorist of historical cycle. He thinks that any culture, such as ancient Indian culture, China culture, Arabian culture, ancient Greek culture, etc. "All go through the same seasonal cycle, from its early spring to its last funeral in winter. Therefore, in the west, our own inevitable fate is to die according to the timetable that can be inferred from existing precedents "[3]. In his view, western civilization is very close to the end of the historical cycle. With the end of civilization, science is bound to end.
Bingler pointed out that the winter stage of civilization is characterized by the fact that high science is the most fruitful time in its own field, and it is also the time when the seeds of its destructive behavior begin to sprout. There are two reasons for this: science has lost its authority inside and outside its discipline, and the rising opposition and self-destruction factors within science itself will eventually destroy it [4]. He thinks there are many reasons why science dies. First of all, the characteristics of scientific understanding determine that the authority of scientific thinking is shaken. Scientific understanding is restricted by the position and culture of the subject (scientist), which makes science subjective, so it is impossible to truly grasp the true colors of the objective world. Secondly, the pursuit of theorization and symbolization in science is doomed to failure. These unsuccessful places are the "internal cancer" of science, which will soon kill science, which is the natural destruction of science. All kinds of situations show that science is doomed to "commit suicide with its own sword." In this case, Bingler thinks it is entirely possible to "predict the date when western science reaches the limit of evolution" [5].
Due to the influence of World War II, since quantum mechanics and relativity were put forward, until the rise of scientific and technological revolution in 1950s and 1960s, there were no amazing achievements and great leaps in science and technology. The scientific community seems to be peaceful for a long time, and people seem to have forgotten the fate of science for a long time and are more concerned about people's own destiny. But after the 1950s and 1960s, with the development of electronic technology and space technology, the scientific and technological revolution rose. In this case, social life can reflect the brilliance of science everywhere, and people are bathed in the sunshine of science and technology. The scientific and technological revolution has also brought unprecedented prosperity to capitalist society. Economic achievements are getting more and more attention. As a result, people began to be optimistic, and the trend of thought opposite to the final conclusion of science-"technology dominance theory" began to prevail. Technocracy sees the great influence and pervasive penetration of technological progress on social life, but it also expresses concern about people's own destiny.
The wave of scientific and technological revolution has not ended today. On the contrary, since the 1990s, new discoveries have been made in various fields of natural science. We are still in the most exciting times. As a result, people seem to have fallen into blind optimism and left the fate and prospects of science behind. Faced with people's blind optimism, Hogan calmly thought and once again provoked the debate about the fate of science with the title "The End of Science". Hogan believes that the development of scientific and technological revolution is actually mainly in the technical field, and scientific thought itself is not beyond the level of quantum theory and relativity. This shows that "all the great ideas in science have been discovered, and what remains can no longer be proved to be false, so this is an ironic activity" [6]. Today, the theory of relativity has summed up the laws of the universe as a whole, and the rest is just "tinkering around the edges". Therefore, the traditional science of studying the natural universe has actually ceased to exist. This undoubtedly marks the end of science. Scientists' efforts to seek objective truth are in vain. Because scientists unanimously gave up the pursuit of certainty. People's subjectivity participates in cognition. Scientific understanding is becoming more and more uncertain. All these make the primitive science come to an end and be replaced by scientific relativism. Science can't solve all problems. For example, the problem of faith is that science is powerless. As soon as Hogan's opinion was published, it caused an uproar in the west and even the whole world. What people care about is not the viewpoint he put forward, but the question he raised: will science eventually end?
The end of science has aroused widespread concern. Different philosophers and scientists will give different answers. So how does Marxist philosophy view this problem? In fact, according to Marxist viewpoint, it is impossible for science to end. Because:
First, from the historical facts, some people have claimed that science has come to an end more than once, but the result is that with the continuous development of science itself, various final conclusions are naturally denied. As Gerald James Holton pointed out: "Since the publication of Hogan's book, new discoveries in various fields of natural science have actually flooded. Of course, this shows that we are in the most exciting times; We are facing a new and very basic scientific frontier, whether someone thinks that a mass neutrino has been discovered, or that the acceleration of galaxies seems to have a repulsive force at work, or that genetics is used to explain physiological and psychological breakthroughs almost every week. " [7] It is an indisputable fact that science has never stopped developing. It refutes various conclusions that have appeared in history. According to this fact, today's scientific final conclusion is bound to be refuted like the previous final conclusion.
Second, we should distinguish between the end of science itself and the end of specific scientific forms. Science itself is an activity for human beings to understand and explore the mysteries of the universe, but in different historical periods, due to the influence of social and historical conditions and social practice level, scientific understanding will present various specific forms or models. For example, ancient science is different from modern science and different from modern science. Take the modern scientific form as an example, it mainly studies the world in different categories, and its morphological feature is that mechanics is dominant. Since modern experimental science, scientific cognition has always been aimed at pursuing certainty and eliminating uncertainty, but the development of modern science shows that the pursuit of certainty can never be realized, and today's science reveals more about the uncertainty and relativity of science. These are the manifestations of great changes in the morphological characteristics of modern science. Any particular form of science can only exist under certain conditions and will inevitably decline. As Kuhn described, the change of scientific form always transits from one conventional scientific tradition to another. This shows that the specific form of science will always die out. However, this does not mark the end of the whole scientific understanding, because after one scientific form is replaced by another through the scientific revolution, scientific understanding will still exist, but its morphological characteristics have changed to some extent. When we are talking about the end of science, we can only talk about the end of a certain scientific form. At most, it can only be said that science will end or has ended in this sense, and it can never be said that science will end as a whole. We can't completely deny the rationality of the continued existence of the whole scientific understanding just because some conventional scientific form has been replaced. Just as our science today denies modern metaphysical science, it continues to exist and develop with more advanced morphological characteristics.
Thirdly, from the perspective of human existence, cognition and practice are two indispensable fields of human activities. To survive, people must engage in practical activities, and to engage in practical activities, we must first know the object. Only by mastering the nature and laws of the object can our practical activities succeed. It can be seen that human cognitive activities are closely related to human existence. Science is mainly engaged in understanding various objects and exploring the world. Obviously, it is also necessary for human practical activities. Therefore, there must be cognitive activities if there are human beings; Where there is cognitive activity, there must be science. In this sense, as long as human beings exist for one day, scientific understanding cannot stop and end, but must continue.
Fourthly, from the perspective that human cognitive ability is the unity of supremacy and non-supremacy, because of the non-supremacy of human cognitive ability, it is impossible for human beings to fully grasp all the laws in the universe, and there are always things that are not recognized in the world. In today's highly developed science and technology, it seems that human beings have mastered some of the most common laws in the world, but in essence, there are still many objective things that have not been recognized. For example, human beings still don't know enough about themselves. The purpose of science is to know the unknown and grasp it. Since there will always be unknown things in the world, science will not stop and there will be nothing to do. As Engels pointed out: "Truth is included in the process of understanding itself and in the long-term historical development of science. Science has risen from the low stage of understanding to the high stage, but it can never be achieved by discovering the so-called absolute truth. At this point, it can no longer take a step forward, and there is nothing to do except stand by and watch the absolute truth that has been surprisingly obtained. Not only in the field of philosophical cognition, but also in any other field of cognition and practical action "[8]. According to its nature, human knowledge is infinitely developed. "The truth boundary of every scientific principle is relative, and it expands and shrinks with the increase of knowledge" [9]. And every scientific progress is bound to be denied by newer progress. Therefore, we must not absolutize and fix scientific achievements at a certain stage and deny their further development. In essence, the "final conclusion of science" is to absolutize the scientific achievements that human beings have made, and thus draw the conclusion that science has come to an end. Lenin once pointed out: "All milestones in the understanding of nature in the developing human science are temporary, relative and approximate" [10].
In a word, according to Marxist philosophy, scientific understanding as a whole can never end, and it will never end. As long as there are human beings, the end of science cannot happen. What can and must end is only a specific scientific form, not the whole science.
I hope the answer will help you! !
Have fun!