扫码分享
中国科技术语 ›› 2020, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (6): 100-107.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8578.2020.06.020
• 探讨与争鸣 • 上一篇 下一篇
钱斌(), 李彦燃()
收稿日期:
修回日期:
出版日期:
发布日期:
作者简介:
QIAN Bin(), LI Yanran()
Received:
Revised:
Online:
Published:
摘要：
长期以来,学术界一直使用西方的观念体系来研究中国古代科技,将其纳入经验科学的范畴。而对所谓“李约瑟难题”的解析,也简单地认为是中国缺少实验科学的基础。对指南针的研究表明,使用西方概念来研究中国问题,既不客观也很不恰当。中国古代科技的特点与欧洲迥乎不同,亟待依照本国的文化体系传承、科技发展路径,并借鉴西方研究成果,建构自己的一套观念体系,以便树立文化的自尊和自信,并梳理出民族文化和科技传统,促进当代中国科技的发展。
关键词: 经验科学, 李约瑟难题, 指南针, 沈括, 古代科学技术
Abstract:
For a long time, academia has used Western concept systems to study ancient Chinese science and technology, and included it in the category of empirical science. The analysis of the so-called “Needham problem” is also simply regarded as the lack of experimental science in China. Research on compass shows that using Western concepts to study Chinese problems is neither objective nor very appropriate. The characteristics of ancient Chinese science and technology are very different from those in Europe, and it is urgent to build a set of concepts based on the inheritance of the country’s cultural system and the development path of science and technology, and learn from Western research results, in order to establish cultural self-esteem and self-confidence, and sort out cultural and scientific and technological traditions, and promote the development of contemporary Chinese science and technology.
Key words: empirical science, Needham Problem, compass, Shen Kuo, ancient science and technology
中图分类号:
G32
N04
钱斌, 李彦燃. 中国古代科学技术归属的悖谬[J]. 中国科技术语, 2020, 22(6): 100-107.
QIAN Bin, LI Yanran. The Fallacy of Ancient Chinese Science and Technology[J]. China Terminology, 2020, 22(6): 100-107.
0 / / 推荐
导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
链接本文: http://www.term.org.cn/CN/10.3969/j.issn.1673-8578.2020.06.020
http://www.term.org.cn/CN/Y2020/V22/I6/100
), 李彦燃()
), LI Yanran()
