A World Question — What is Science?
Chengdu Longtan Hospital · Deng Wanfa
Abstract
This paper, from the concepts and content of the two sciences (structural science and relational science) and from many angles — science and human society, science and nature — proves the objectivity of multi-element science, and so criticizes the current scientific concept under the one-element monopoly of Western culture-science (structural science). The paper aims to establish a correct, broad scientific concept, and lay a rich scientific content for human society's high civilization and high development.
1. The earliest scientific concept and the philosophical relation
Engels, in his speech at Marx's grave (1883), noted: "In Marx's view, science is a force of revolution that drives history." In Dialectics of Nature, Engels also said: "Whatever attitude natural scientists take, they are still ruled by philosophy." I have leafed through several chapters of Marx and Engels seeking a clear scientific definition; apart from their quarrels with Dühring, Hegel and the like, I have not found what I sought. They worked in class struggle, in a premise that knew only Western culture-science as mode.
2. The current scientific concept
Because our country runs Marxism (socialist system and Western culture-science mode), the 1996 Xinhua Dictionary, Commercial Press, p. 501, glosses: science is "one form of social ideology. The knowledge system of the laws of nature, society, and the development of thinking. Built and grown on the basis of social practice, it is the summing of practical experience. It divides into natural science and social science; philosophy generalizes and sums both." On p. 1132 it glosses philosophy: "The doctrine concerning the world; researching the most general laws of nature, society, and thought; the general summary of natural and social knowledge. The relation of thinking to being is its basic problem; materialism and idealism are its basic factions. In class society, philosophy as a social form has strong class-character."
Both glosses put the scientific concept into the frame of class struggle — strong opposition, strong combat. To deduce the scientific concept from this stand is no doubt to distort it. Not destroying, no building: unless the other is knocked down, one cannot stand. This is hegemonic learning; it must hide the true inner content of science. Below, I will, by my own measure, explore the scientific concept on several levels. With my own shallow learning and slow thought, to give a correct definition of science that society generally accepts is hard. I respectfully request thoughtful figures who dare break the current scientific-conceptual thinking to seek with me the right scientific concept.
3. Problems with the current scientific concept
If we hold Marx's Capital and related doctrines as the representative of science, the symbol of truth, then at his time they had not yet become social consciousness — not yet accepted by all society. This fact does not fit the concept of science = social consciousness. Even in the minority of states today, where state machinery has set Marxism as the basis of scientific rule, not all of society accepts it. If Marxism's scientific character still holds under these conditions, we may draw the conclusion: science is not necessarily social consciousness. To become one form of social ideology, time is needed, and historical and social conditions are needed (this is taken up later in Culture-Science and Living Environment).
China's Confucius wrote the Yijing; Laozi the Daodejing; in Qin-Han the Huangdi Neijing appeared. The core question of these books is respect and follow nature. Philosophically, it is the Heaven and the human as one integral concept. These thoughts, generalizing the knowledge of millennia of Chinese civilization, have the objectivity of eternal truth. Yet since the word science came in, who has held these truths to be a science? In the two or three hundred years of Western culture-science's high growth, humanity has seen the bitter fruit of not respecting nature — humanity's living crisis. Yet humanity has not awakened, has not known the great meaning of Chinese science's objective existence. What does this show? It shows that for a science to become social consciousness, certain historical and social conditions are needed. Especially under Western culture-science's one-element monopoly, people find it harder to know, recognize, accept another science. So: real science is not necessarily social consciousness. What has become social consciousness is not necessarily the symbol of science — or not the only science.
4. Science deserves a clear definition
The Xinhua Dictionary mistakenly fixes the concept of science as "one form of social ideology" under the present power, and supplements it as "the knowledge system of the laws of nature, society, and the development of thinking." The error here is that it sees science only as a knowledge system, missing that different scientific modes (modes of recognition and practice) yield different knowledge systems in their recognition of things, and further missing that science is multi-element. The dictionary's concept plainly denies multi-element science. Because the Marxian materialist science-concept has, through history and power, become one form of social ideology, it can use class struggle's opposition to forcibly exclude other concepts that might become social consciousness. For example, in the late stages of the Cultural Revolution, the call was to seize class struggle in the ideological realm, opposing Marxian materialism against Chinese culture's metaphysics and feudal superstition (yin-yang five-phases); the call was for all-round proletarian dictatorship. Under such a state, how could there be a social consciousness outside the proletarian (Communist Party)? So science = one form of social ideology is, in essence, the despotic expression of Communist materialism. The scientific concept was distorted into ambiguity. Philosophy is the general summary of natural and social science; philosophy as a social form has strong class-character — and so on.
Real science is the knowledge system standing for a certain cultural mode (a thinking mode). Its main embodiment is in the modes of recognition and practice under the rule of a certain philosophy. Science's purpose is to lay bare the laws of motion and change of things, to serve human survival and growth. Hence any mode of recognition and practice that can lay bare such laws may be called a scientific mode. This is the sole standard for judging and testing truth.
Noteworthy: different scientific modes can lay bare the laws of motion and change of things from different angles. Though the aim is one, content and results differ. Hence different scientific modes have different knowledge systems.
Example: Chinese medicine and Western medicine, both studying the human, both aiming to lay bare the laws of human life, to serve human health and long life. But TCM stands for the thinking mode of Chinese national culture, belonging to TCM science under Chinese science (relational science). Western medicine stands for the thinking mode of Western culture, belonging to Western medicine science under Western science (structural science). TCM philosophically holds: every thing has broad linkage to others; in the cosmos no thing exists in isolation. Western medicine philosophically holds: in the cosmos, outside matter's motion, there is nothing. TCM from the integral angle of human-and-nature, with yin-yang five-phases as bond, focuses on the mutual relations among things to lay bare physiological-pathological laws. Western medicine from the material angle, with structure and function as path, focuses on the physico-chemical data of structure and function to lay bare physiological-pathological laws. So for the same disease, the content and result of TCM and Western medicine in diagnosis (recognition) and treatment (practice) differ. (See On Atypical Pneumonia from the Two Sciences below.)
These facts show: science is multi-element. Different cultural modes give different knowledge systems. TCM science roots in Chinese culture-science; Western-medicine science in Western culture-science. Because Chinese science focuses on relations, it is relational science in short; because Western science focuses on structure, it is structural science in short. Both can lay bare the laws of motion and change of things from different angles, and each has a complete knowledge system.
5. Faceing the multi-element character of science
I agree that philosophy is the doctrine of the worldview.
In Taiwan's Natural Therapy, issue 114, Two Medicines, Two Sciences, I noted: whichever worldview, all share one basic point — they come from conclusions reached by a mode of recognition and practice. Different modes stand for different worldviews and yield different conclusions. And different worldviews guide and constrain recognition and practice.
Chinese science views the world by relation; Western science views the world by matter. These two worldviews form the watershed of the two sciences — two great scientific systems.
Different worldviews — different philosophies. Every science runs under some philosophy; each is relative and partial. No science is perfect. Different sciences lay bare the laws of motion and change from different angles.
Hence only a society of multi-element sciences in joint development is a highly civilized, highly developed society.
To represent only one science and suppress others makes a deformed, savage, backward society.
6. Two sciences, two systems
Science is born of and grows within the regional culture of time-and-space conditions. Different time-and-space cultures decide different modes of recognition and practice — hence different scientific concepts and features.
That is, people's modes of recognition and practice are bounded by time-and-space. Different conditions yield different modes, forming different cultural and scientific bases. The world has many countries and peoples — almost all with their own cultural and scientific modes. But those that have been tested by practice, have an enduring guiding role in social development, with definite content and a complete theoretical system, are at present only the two: Chinese science (relational science) and Western science (structural science) — two great camps.
6.1 Concept and content of structural science
Structural science is the short name for current Western culture-science. It is the experimental science built on Western culture. Experiment is its practice mode: to verify, by definite form and content, whether a definite consciousness-thought is correct. Experimental science is built through ceaseless recognition, ceaseless verification, ceaseless lifting — a mode focused on material structure, microscopic and concrete. The mode is tied closely to Western culture. Western culture focuses on the individuality of things, skilled at recognition from the depth of structure, hence: every thing's motion and change has its inner law; only experiment can give a verifying answer. Structural science is a new science built on this cultural system. Western culture forms its feature and strength.
6.2 Concept and content of relational science
Relational science is the short name for Chinese culture-science. Chinese science is the verification-science built on Chinese national culture. Verification is its practice mode: under certain conditions, applying experience and thought to objective things and phenomena, to test whether a definite logic is correct. For instance, our ancestors, in gathering food, found certain foods to have a purging effect; thereafter they used such foods to treat the relevant disease. The verification relation: ying is the link from objective to subjective; yan is from subjective to objective. Verification-science is built on the mutual linkage of objective and subjective — focused on the relations among things, with following nature as the spine, abstract and macroscopic. The mode is tied closely to Chinese national culture and cannot be separated. Chinese national culture's basic feature is the integral concept; theoretical core is the yin-yang doctrine (detailed below). Relational science is the science built on this culture, distinct from structural science. Relational science holds: the human corresponds to Heaven and Earth. Heaven, Earth, and the human are one whole; nothing escapes the natural laws of yin-yang motion. Yin-yang can explain every correspondence. The Yijing's five-phases, bagua, the Hetu Luoshu — all are demonstrations and uses of yin-yang. The Daodejing speaks of nature and yin-yang philosophy. The Huangdi Neijing applies yin-yang to medicine as the canonical example. Chinese culture runs through the whole Chinese-science theoretical system and forms Chinese science's feature and strength.
6.3 Dialectical relation of two cultures and two sciences
Cultural features of different time-and-space conditions give matching philosophical views; different philosophies rule corresponding modes of recognition and practice, forming different scientific systems and features.
The relation of national culture to science is mainly in the modes under philosophical rule. (Below, the SARS example shows two cultural sciences' different results on the same thing.) Both have philosophical strengths and weaknesses, their own thinking modes, principles, and constraints.
Relational science: under integral philosophy, focused on relations among things, with verification as means and form, with following nature as principle. Aim: on the premise of knowing and following nature, lift human capacity to fit nature's changes. Strengths: broad practicality and constancy. Weakness: blurry thinking, hard to grasp quantitative change. Dialectical: restrains desire — social progress slow; but maximally safeguards the living environment.
Structural science: under materialist philosophy, focused on material structure and function; principle is verification. Aim: lay bare the secret of matter for use. Strengths: lifts intelligence, brings out active recognition. Weakness: greatly limited and relative. Dialectical: satisfies desire to the maximum, pushes social progress; but gradually destroys the living environment and leads humanity toward ruin.
6.4 Theoretical structure and principle of the two sciences
6.4.1 Relational science
Under integral philosophy, no thing in the cosmos exists in isolation; every thing has broad linkage. Yin-yang change reflects the basic laws of motion and change of things. Recognize yin-yang and you recognize all. To verify yin-yang motion against the motion of things is the basic mode of relational science. This forms its theoretical structure and basic principle.
6.4.2 Structural science
Under materialist philosophy, in the cosmos, outside matter's motion, there is nothing. The whole cosmos is built of matter; matter is built of molecules, atoms, protons, neutrons — to infinity. Recognize their physico-chemical laws and you recognize all. But these microparticles are not directly sensed; only matching experimental conditions give a verifying answer. So structural science's principle can only be verification built on the laboratory. Hence structural science is also called experimental science. Experiment is its means and mode of practice; the physico-chemical data form its basic content.
7. Culture-science and the living environment
Chinese culture-science holds: follow the laws of nature, flourish; reverse them, perish. The force of nature cannot be defied. Though Chinese culture-science is ancient, her Heaven-and-the-human-as-one integral concept, her yin-yang five-phases drawn from nature and used in nature, her verification-thinking — for following the laws of nature, lifting human capacity to live, and safeguarding the human living environment to the maximum — will keep building merit.
Chinese science has thousands of years; she left humanity vast spiritual wealth. Only because this culture-science cannot build high-energy killing weapons did the Chinese nation lose initiative in inter-national struggle, lack combat power. There she suffered a stretch of being cut by others. To live, the Chinese nation could only use the foe's road against the foe — bring in Western culture-science as the winning charm, cast Chinese culture-science aside as refuse. So Chinese culture had no scientific name and standing; suffered shame; was finally replaced by Western culture-science's one-element monopoly. Yet:
When humans hold ever-rising high-energy killing weapons, enjoy structural science's material prosperity — in only a little more than a century they have come to face the bitter fruit of three-wastes pollution: damage to the living environment, climate deterioration, indirect threat to humanity. Worse: the rising killing weapons and high-level killing methods can wipe out humanity at any time, leaving humans living in terror. We must ask: what has structural science brought us — blessing or curse? We must again recognize the value of Chinese science (relational science).
When Western medicine, of structural science, is helpless before the development of disease; when Chinese medicine, of relational science, gradually enters the people of the world through cultural exchange, we must acknowledge the greatness of Chinese science.
When the many religious phenomena, human special-ability phenomena (including qigong, magic), and the objectively existing strange phenomena of nature cannot be reasonably explained by structural science, people must doubt structural science's credibility. They must recognize: things exist in many ways, broadly linked; the mechanical verification of structural science does not fit the complexity of nature. The isolated, static, partial verification cannot fully and truly explain the objectivity of things. People must concede that structural science has serious defects; needs the macroscopic, dialectical thinking of relational science to complement it.
Though structural science satisfies human material-desire to the maximum and pushes social progress, Chinese science long ago warned:
Letting desire run is suicide.
Desire is the engine of social progress; it is also the chief murderer of humanity.
Water can carry the boat — and overturn it.
Nature's force cannot be defied. Human development must follow the laws of nature, for all human development must run under conditions of normal living.
So humanity's living-desire will be the first desire from now on. Whatever blocks the normal living of humanity will become humanity's enemy. Chinese science will become the new century's mainstream science. The integral philosophy of human-and-nature will guide every science.
8. Atypical pneumonia and the two sciences
Atypical pneumonia, in short feidian, is a Western-medicine disease-name under structural science, an infection by a coronavirus. Under Chinese science, TCM has no such disease-name. By clinical presentation it falls in TCM's category of warm-disease (including pestilence). Past TCM books have various records. The most professional, most comprehensive work on warm-disease is the Qing physician Wu Tang's (Jutong) Wenbing Tiaobian (Systematic Discourse on Warm-Disease).
Western medicine, as the product of structural science, requires that for the human physiology and pathology, the pathogenic factors, the drugs, the structure and function be all known. Only when these physico-chemical data are clear in the lab does Western medicine recognize a thing as scientific. In practice, if treatment must wait for these data to be clear, who knows how much disaster the disease (especially pestilence) will bring.
In this 2003 SARS outbreak, Western medicine could only show its helplessness, and the one thing it managed was to make terror — for it could not in time understand what this pestilence was, what relation the virus's structure and function bore to human pathology, much less make a drug. SARS came like wind and rain; the Western-medicine believer had no shield.
But Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine's 87-year-old Professor Deng Tietao, using TCM only — no Western drugs — created a zero-death record, with full recovery and no sequelae. (See Chengdu Commercial Daily, 21 May 2003.)
This shows: before sudden disease, TCM remains superior to Western medicine. But why, during SARS, did our country require feverish patients go to designated (authoritative Western) facilities? Because our country recognizes only Western medicine as scientific — for Western medicine, of structural science, can name structure and function.
In truth, TCM cannot name structure and function — yet her greatness is that she does not need to. As the representative of relational science, TCM needs only to know the relation between pathogenic factor and the human body. Whatever the cause — bacterium, virus, or other — once it enters the body and produces effect, TCM can judge the disease nature by the body's response. If the body responds yang-pattern (heat, sweat, thirst, etc.), TCM judges the cause as yang evil and uses yin-cool medicine to treat. Treat the hot with the cold; treat the cold with the hot; yang disease with yin medicine, yin disease with yang medicine (see Neijing · Discourse on the Correspondence of Yin and Yang). This is the principle. Before any disease, this relational science of TCM is always ahead of structural science's Western medicine. That is the secret to Deng Tietao's brilliant outcome with TCM alone while Western medicine was helpless.
Think: if TCM could not lay bare the laws of human life, could TCM correctly diagnose and treat? No. Since TCM can, TCM can lay them bare. As a science distinct from Western medicine, TCM has a complete theoretical system that fits the laws of growth, tested by millennia of practice. We must change the error of treating Western culture's modes of recognition and practice as the only scientific mode. TCM, focusing on the relations among things and following nature, is also scientific. We must adjust our vision and thinking, and seek the true, fitting scientific concept. The Western culture-science one-element monopoly must end!
We must promote TCM with full force in China — and push this relational-science TCM to all of humanity, contributing to humanity's health, turning our spiritual wealth into material wealth. This is the right choice for China's science-and-technology-revive-the-state.