Ren Hongjun. “Science and Modern Culture” 科學與近世文化[Kexue yu Jinshi Wenhua], Science 科學 Vol.7 Issue.7 (1922.7): 629-640.
Translated by Shibin Zhang, Xin Qing, and Yuda Qin
Please see the PDF version of this text here for footnotes.
| Science and Modern Culture1 This note is left by the author in the source text to indicate the source of the reference: Zhongguo Kexueshe 中國科學[The First Spring Lecture of Science Society of China] (Nanjing: the Nanjing Science Society, 1922). | 科學與近世文化 |
|
“Science and modern culture” is a topic that is often spoken about.2This note is left by the author in the source text to indicate the source of the reference: See Prof. Metcalf’s lecture at Oberlin University in Kexue科學[Science], Vol. 4(3); Huang Changguo黃昌榖, Kexue Gaishuo科學概說 [The Introduction to Science]. Before I begin today, let me first make two points. Firstly, this talk, which is a general summary of this year’s Science Club talk, will therefore, inevitably, be a bit simple. Secondly, when I speak of modern culture, I do not include Oriental culture, which arose very early and does not belong to the modern era. Therefore, we are talking about the culture of the West after the Renaissance. There are at least a few common beliefs about such ideas in recent times. One is that modern culture is about material things, such as oil lamps in the past and electric lights in the modern era and travelling by horse and mule carriages in the past, and trains and trams in the modern era. Another says that recent culture is about power, such as the conquest of nature, the use of water and electricity, and conflicts between powerful states at the expanse of weaker states. There is still the belief that modern culture is about progress, for instance, the invention of machinery, and the advancement of academic thought in that the progress of the last few thousand years is no greater than the advancement of the last few decades. We acknowledge that each of these beliefs can represent part of modern culture, but not all of it. If we want to summarize it, modern culture is a scientific culture. We should be aware that the science I am talking about is different from the scientific inventions and scientific methods that characterize modern culture. The former is around the life of modern people, including thoughts, actions and social organizations that should be governed by science. The latter is about the existence and the products of science exert considerable influence on part of people’s lives in the modern age. |
“科學與近世文化”, 這個題目是近人時常講的。我今天開講之前，先有兩個申明。第一，這個講演，是本年科學社講演的總冒，所以不免普通一些。第二，我所講的近世文化，並不包括東方文化在內，因為我們承認東方文化發生甚古，不屬於近代的。那嗎，我們所講的是西方文藝復興以後發生的文化了。近人對於這種文化，至少有幾個普通觀念。一說近世文化是物質的，譬如從前人乘騾車、馬車，今人乘火車、電車，從前人點菜油燈，今人點電燈之類。一說近世文化是權力的，例如征服天然、驅水使電、列強相爭、弱肉強食之類皆是。一說近世文化是進步的，例如機械發明日新月異，學術思想變動不居，從前幾千年的進步，比不上近世幾十年的多。 這幾種意思，我們承認他都可以代表近世文化的一部分，但是不能說可以總括近世文化的全體。要一個總括全體的說話，我們不如說近世的文化是科學的。諸君注意，我說近世的文化是科學的，和近人所說近世文化的特采是科學發明、科學方法等等，有點不同。因為前者是說近代人的生活，無論是思想、行動、社會組織，都含有一個科學在內，後者是說科學的存在和科學的結果，足以影響近代人生活的一部分罷了。 |
|
We are now going to discuss what culture is. Culture and civilization have several differences. I like a quote by Liang Shuming (梁漱溟): “Culture is what human life looks like; civilization is what human life achieves.”3This note is left by the author in the source text to indicate the source of the reference: See Liang Shuming 梁漱溟，Dongxiwenhua Jiqi Zhexue東西文化及其哲學 [East-West Culture and Its Philosophy] . My mere thought here is that human life does not fully represent the meaning of culture, and it is only when the “attitude of human life” is added to encompass the ideological aspect that the full meaning of culture is accomplished. There are different types and degrees of culture, but there are no absolute criteria. We can evaluate what a culture looks like and how far it goes, but we cannot say that a certain culture is civilized and a certain culture is barbaric, which would go astray from the definition of culture we spoke of before. Yet, when we refer to the phrase “modern culture”, our definition is clear, and so are the way of life and the attitude of people in the modern age towards life. There is a clear divide between modern culture and pre-modern culture. I would therefore conclude the discussion of pre-modern culture and start the introduction of modern culture.
|
我們現在要說什麼是文化。文化和文明少許有點不同。我很喜歡梁漱溟先生說的“文化是人類生活的樣子，文明是人類生活的成績”。不過吾想單說人類生活的樣子，還不能盡文化兩個字的含義，我的意思，要加入“人類生活的態度”的幾個字，來包舉思想一方面的情形，文化兩個字的意思才得完備。 照這樣說來，文化有種類和程度的差別，但是沒有絕對的標準。我們可以說某種人的文化是甚麼樣，程度是甚麼樣，但是不能說某種是文明人，某種是野蠻人，因為照我們上面所說的文化的定義，是講不通的。但是我們提出近世文化，我們的意思卻很明白的確，因為近世人生活的樣子和對事物的態度是很明白的確的。近世的文化和近世以前的文化，是極有分別，極容易看得出來的。所以我想把一切文明野蠻的話頭打掃凈盡，再來觀察近世的文化。 |
|
The era that sets the modern age apart from the previous ages is the Renaissance, a very important period in European history. The original meaning of “Renaissance” is “rebirth”. The Middle Ages are also called the Dark Ages by historians as European culture in the Middle Ages was plain and had nothing to brag about. In the thirteenth century, a variety of reasons were attributed to the sudden awakenings of human minds. Subsequent reforms took place in literature, art, religion and politics, hence starting a new phase. The revival of science was one result of the Renaissance. Though other reforms and innovations affected the lives of people in the modern age, and became an integral part of their life, such reforms and innovations were overshadowed by the impact of science on people’s lives. Science influences the human mind; science is based on facts; scientific methods can be broadly applied. For these reasons, it is not an exaggeration to claim that the culture in the modern age is scientific because it is built on science. |
說到近世與前代分界的所在，我們曉得歐洲史上有一個極重要的時代，就是文藝復興時代。文藝復興這個字，英文是Renaissance, 本來是“復生”的意思。歐洲的文化，在中古時代，簡單沒有甚麼可言，所以歷史家又叫中古時代是黑暗時代。到了十三世紀的時候，為了種種的原因，那黑暗沉沉的中古人心，忽然蘇醒過來，文學、美術、宗教、政治都先後起了一個大改革，開了一個新面目。科學的復興，也就是文藝復興的一個結果。但是別的改革和開創，自然也影響近世人的生活，並且為生活的一部分，可是終沒有科學的影響和關係於近世人生的那麼 大。這有個原故。這個原故，就是科學的影響，完全在思想上；科學的根據，完全在事實上；科學的方法，可以應用到無窮無盡上。有了這幾層原因，我們說近世文化都是科學的，都是科學造成的，大約也不是過甚之言。 |
| The culture in the modern age is so complex that it is rather difficult to cite a few examples to prove the relationship between science and culture, and it cannot escape from being mocked for incomplete and irrelevant quotations. But if we can give one or two examples of the thoughts and methods of study in the Middle Ages, a comparison of them with those in the modern age can further clarify the relationship between science and culture in the modern age. |
近世的文化，可謂複雜極了，要舉出幾件來證明科學和他們的關係，可不容易，並且不免有掛一漏萬之譏。但我們可以把中世紀的思想和研究學問的方法，舉一兩件，和近世的比較，科學和近世文化的關係，就愈加顯明了。 |
| First, people in the Middle Ages believed that God had a fixed plan of creating things in the universe, and people in the universe were also a part of that plan. Therefore, it was determined by God that some people were born to be princes and some slaves. People assumed few responsibilities for their own social status. Because of this, people of that time were all religious, desiring only pleasures from heaven after death. They cared little about their sufferings in life. The most powerful thought that broke our view of the universe was heliocentrism from Copernicus. His theory had two meanings at that time. First, it meant that people of the time dared to be skeptical about the religious belief of Geocentrism. Second, the final triumph of heliocentrism marked the beginning of the triumph of science over religion.4 Heliocentrism (also known as the Heliocentric model) is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the universe. Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. Rushkin, Ilia. “Optimizing the Ptolemaic Model of Planetary and Solar Motion”. History and Philosophy of Physics. (6 February 2015): 1. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1502.01967. The shaky minds of people tended to be more open and liberal because of the confidence gained from science. |
第一，中世紀的人，相信上帝創造宇宙事物，都有一定的計劃，人在宇宙間，也是計劃的一部分，所以有的生而為王公，也有的生而為奴僕，都是天命有定，人對於己身的地位，是不負責任的。因為這樣，當時的人心，都歸向宗教，只想求死後天堂的快樂。生前的痛苦，他們略不在意。打破這樣的宇宙觀，最有力量的，是哥白尼 (Copernicus) 的地動說。哥白尼的地動說，在當時出現，有兩種意思。第一，表示當時的人心，對於宗教上地為中心的說法，已敢於起懷疑的念頭。第二，地動說的最後勝利，是科學戰勝宗教的起點。那已經動搖的人心，得了這種自信力，自然愈趨於開放與自由方面了。 |
|
Secondly, in the Middle Ages, only two books were revered as patriarchs in the academic world－the Bible and Aristotle’s philosophy. Before the Renaissance, Aristotle’s books had only been translated from Arabic to Latin and were inevitably fragmented and confusing. The scholars of that time took advantage of the fragmented excerpts and created sophistry. Thanks to the Renaissance, scholars began to read the original Greek texts and searched for remnant manuscripts. As a result, the ideas of Aristotle and other Greek and Roman scholars were gradually refined. On the other hand, what is of particular importance is that scholars in the Middle Ages obstinately did their study from books rather than from real objects. For example, they would claim that the Bible had described a kind of animal, but they never realized that the Bible had named Palestine hundreds of years ago. How could they make quotations when the description and sayings about Palestine thousands of years ago in the Bible were different from Europe in the Middle Ages in terms of time and region? Roger Bacon (1214-1294), a prominent scientist of that time, was most opposed to this method of research. It was remarked by him, “A day’s study of natural objects is better than a decade of reading Greek books.” Furthermore, he argued that “We cannot entirely believe in what we hear and read. By contrast, it is our duty to examine the opinions of the ancients with the most careful mind. Although Roger Bacon advocated and applied this theory, the people of his time did not believe in him. Later, Copernicus’s theory of geodynamics was also the result of this method. Copernicus wrote to his friends that his theory of geodynamics had been established through five stages:
|
第二，中世紀的時候，學術界所崇奉為宗主的，只有兩部書, 一是《聖經》, 一是亞里士多德的哲學。亞里士多德的書，未經文藝復興以前，還是從阿剌伯文翻到拉丁，殘缺不完和晦亂屏雜的弊病，是不可免的。當時的學者，正要利用他的殘缺晦亂，來造成一種糾繞詭辯的學問。後來文藝復興，學者都講究讀希臘原文，又竭力去搜求遺稿，亞里士多德及許多希臘、羅馬的學術，才漸漸彰明起來。還有一層尤為重要的，中世紀的學者，凡研究什麼學問，都是根據書本，絕不去研究實物。比如說到一個動物，他們只說《聖經》上是怎樣怎樣，卻不想《聖經》上說的在千百年前的帕勃斯坦(Palestine), 他們所說的與當時的歐洲，時間和地域都不同，何以見得可以引證的? 當時有個首出的科學大家，叫羅皆· 培根 (Roger Bacon, 1214—1294), 最反對這種研究法。他說：“研究一天的天然物，勝讀十年的希臘書”。又說：“我們不可盡信所聞所讀的。反之，我們的義務，在以最仔細的心思，來考察古人的意見，庶幾於其缺者補之，誤者正之，但不必粗心傲慢就好了。” 羅皆 ·培根雖然這樣的主張和實行，但當時的人還不肯聽信他。後來哥白尼的地動說，也是用這種方法的結果。哥白尼寫信給他的朋友，說他的地動說成立的經過，歷了五個階級。這五個階級是: |
|
1. 對於陀倫密 (Ptolemy) 舊說的不滿意。
|
| This is currently known as the scientific method. Although people of that time, such as Roger-Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo and others had already made substantial contributions by studying natural phenomena, they were just taking different approaches in their individual investigations. Only Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was strongly in favor of two fundamentally important concepts, among which one was the conquest of nature, and the other was inductive reasoning. “Knowledge is power”, “The responsibility of humans is to take control of the natural world and establish a new state there.” and “Obeying nature is the prerequisite to conquer nature. In other words, we must use scientific methods to discover the natural laws.” were all the quotes of Bacon. He also divided the learning of that time into three categories, including Fantastic, Contentious, and Delicate learning. He said that these three categories were improper learning strategies, which could not lead to true knowledge. In addition, only by applying inductive reasoning was there a way to discover the truth. In brief, inductive reasoning was a way to infer a general rule based on facts, and then prove the correctness of the general rule through observation and experiments. This gives an overview of the scientific method. Nowadays, although there are multiple disciplines in science, the methods of research remain within this framework. Bacon’s claim has laid science on a well-defined foundation. Though not a natural scientist, Bacon is often referred to as the father of science. | 這個方法，就是現在所說的科學方法。但當時的人，如像羅皆·培根、哥白尼、蓋理略 (Galileo) 等，雖是用了這種方法，研究天然界的現象，已經有了許多貢獻，他們不過是自辟蹊徑，各行其是，到了弗蘭西斯 ·培根 (Francis Bacon, 1561—1626) 才大聲疾呼，主張兩個根本的重要觀念。一個是征服天然，一個是歸納方法。他說： “知識即權力。”又說：“人類的責任，是要把他的權力推廣擴大到天然界上去，在天然界上建一個新國家。”又說：“要征服天然必須先服從天然，就是用 科學的方法，發明天然的律令。”他又把當時的學問分成三類， 一是奇術(Fantastic learning), 二是辯論(Contentious learning), 三是文采(Delicate learning)。 他說這三類都不是學問的正當方法，都不能得真知識。要得真知識，只有一個方法，就是用歸納方法。歸納的方法，簡言之，是用事實作根據，推出一個通則，再用觀察和試驗證明那通則的不錯，這就是科學方法的大概。現在科學的門類雖多，研究的方法，總不出這個範圍。培根這種主張，算是給科學一個很好的基礎。所以培根自己雖然不是科學家，我們說到科學的創造者，總要數他呢。 |
| What has just been discussed in this article is a little content about the origins of science. This era, the Renaissance, has two meanings. Firstly, it represents the emergence of science or the revival of science. Secondly, it represents the division between the modern age and ancient times. These two points do not coincide by chance; it is with the first that the second comes into being. We turn next to the relationship between science and modern culture. | 上面所說的，是科學的一點起源，就是對於文藝復興這個時代，我們覺得有兩個意思。 一個是科學的發生，或者說是復興； 一個是近代和古代的分界。這兩件事情並不是偶然遇合的，是有第一件才有第二件的。 我們現在要看科學與近世文化的關係是怎麼樣。 |
| As has already been said, the word “culture” is hollow. What we say about material and spiritual culture is also hollow. When we talk about modern culture, we need to give concrete examples. As Marvin puts it, there are three things that can adequately represent the progress of mankind: knowledge, power and organization.5 This note is left by the author in the source text to indicate the source of the reference: Marvin, The Living Past. Let us now explore how these three things are related to science. |
前面已經說過，文化這兩個字是空洞的，就是我們說什麼物質的文化、精神的文化，也是空洞的。所以我們要談近世文化，最好拿幾件具體的事體來說。瑪爾芬 (Marvin) 說得好：有三件東西最足以表示人類的進步。一是知識，二是權力，三是組織。我們現在就拿這三樣來看科學有什麼關係。 |
| The first is knowledge, and what we know about modern knowledge is not only broad in its scope but also precise in its inherent nature. Things that are very common now, such as the use of steam, the generation of electricity, biological evolution, and the transmission of infections, were not things that people in the Middle Ages could have dreamed of, let alone been talked about. Even though the inventions of the philosophers in ancient times and the accounts of scholars through the ages, such as the ancient Greek theory of the origin of matter and the Chinese Five Elements Theory, have been handed down for many years and can be taken as the foundation to explain all matters, they are considered as knowledge by science either. When we compare the eighty elements now found in chemistry with the four elements of water, fire, air and earth proposed in ancient Greek culture, it is easy to see that the Greek concept of the elements was not precise. 6The ancient Greek concept of four basic elements, these being earth, water, air, and fire, dates from pre-Socratic times and persisted throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, deeply influencing European thought and culture. Curd, Patricia. “Presocratic Philosophy”. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.). If we compare the Chinese Five Element Theory with the present composition and decomposition reactions in chemistry and the law of causations in physics, we realize the absurdity of Five Element Theory. Why? It is because with science our knowledge can be tested through two touchstones. Those that have been tested we can call them knowledge, and those that have not passed the tests cannot be called as knowledge. The touchstones I am referring to are facts and the explicit relationships of cause and effect. The ancient Greeks claimed that substances were made up of the four elements, which we know is not true. In the age of alchemy, people believed that water could be turned into earth, which is also not true. We can deny these results because we have done experiments. When it comes to relationships, many superstitions arise from a lack of clarity about the relationships of cause and effect. For example, we say “when the rocks are moist, there will be rain.” We know the rocks do not bring the rain, but the rocks are wet due to condensed moisture before the rain. Therefore, wet rocks can be a precursor to rain because there is a connection in between. However, Five Elements Theory says that a good location of the grave will promise good fortune for the descendants, and inappropriate numbers of gates in the capital of the country will bring wars. Where on earth do such relationships lie? The contribution of science is to replace imaginations with facts and superstitions with reason. This is precisely how knowledge progresses. | 第一講到知識，我們曉得現代的知識，不但是範圍比較的廣，就是他的性質，也比較的精確些。現在很平常的事理，如像蒸氣的應用，電力的製造，生物的演進，疾病的傳染，都非中世紀以前的人所能夢見，固不消說了。就是古時聖哲所發明，歷代學者所傳述，如希臘人的物質起源論，中國人的五行生剋說等，雖是沿習多年，並且用作說明一切事理的根據，但是照現在看來，還是不算知識。我們拿現在的化學上所發見的八十餘元素，和希臘人的水、火、氣、土四元質相比較，自然看得出他的籠統不精。拿現在化學上物質的變化分合和物理學上因果相生的定律，和中國人的五行舊說相比較，才曉得他的糊塗無理。這是因為甚麼?因為有了科學而後我們的知識得了兩個試金石，要經得這試驗的，我們才承認他是知識，所以那些不夠成色的，都立不住腳了。我所說的試金石，一個是根據事實，一個是明白關係。希臘人說什麼東西都是由水、或火、或氣、或土變成的，但是我們曉得他並非事實。在煉金化學(Alchemy)的時代，大家都信水可變土，但是我們曉得並非事實。我們曉得他不是事實，也是從實驗得來的。講到關係一方面，我想許多迷信都是由不明白關係發生。比如我們說“礎潤而雨”,我們曉得礎潤並不是雨的原因，不過因為雨還未降以前，濕氣先在礎石上凝聚了，所以有潤的現象。照這樣說來，礎潤雖不是雨的原因，卻也可做一個雨的先兆，因為他中間是有共同的關係的。但是信那風水五行的說法，說祖墳葬得好，後人就會發跡，京城多開一個城門，天下就有兵亂，請問那關係在什麼地方呢?科學的貢獻，就是把事實來代替理想，把理性來代替迷信，那知識的進步，也正是從這點得來的。 |
|
Secondly, when it comes to power, it refers to the power we can harness and how much of that power can do things. Historians say that people in the stone age could still stone and kill wild animals from a few meters away, which shows that its civilization is quite an improvement on previous generations, for his power could extend to a few meters away. In this way, the human power in the modern age is greater, in several ways, than that of previous generations. First of all, it is the conquest of nature, most obviously in the reduction of distance. The ancient people of China saw the Yangtze River and said that “the country is separated into the north and the south because of the river”; now as ships and trains can travel everywhere, even crossing mountains and seas, human communication will never be impeded. Second, the application of machinery and the overcoming of natural obstacles have brought an increase in production, also a phenomenon of the modern age. For example, between 1810 and 1862, the annual production of coal in the world had increased from nine million tons to fourteen million tons. From 1850 to 1882, the world’s iron production had risen from 4 million tons to 20 million tons per year. From 1830 to 1880, the trade volume between Europe and the United States surged by 800 times. 7This note is left by the author in the source text to indicate the source of the reference: Seignobos, History of Contemporary Civilization.These were the statistics accumulated from the past forty or fifty years, and the figures of increase in recent years are bound to be larger. Third, the discoveries of germs have extended life expectancy, a good example of the conquest of nature. From 1851 to 1900, the average life expectancy of the British increased from 26.056 years to 28.09 years, and the average life expectancy of a US citizen increased from 23.01 years to 26.33 years. Isn’t it amazing that we have the power to conquer nature? We can not only conquer nature, but also find ways to make up for our natural inadequacies. There are two other examples here. Are flying and immortality not what we have desired? How can we imagine that in 1896, Langley of the United States used mechanical power to lift up an airplane a thousand times heavier than air on the Potomac River in Washington, D.C.? Since then, flying has progressed and grown to be a public transportation industry. As to rejuvenation, Austrian doctor Eugen Steinach recently reported that he had discovered a physiological method for rejuvenation, which had proven to be effective through tests. 8The original name in the source text is misspelled. It should be Steinach, an Austrian doctor who developed the “Steinach operation” or “Steinach vasoligature”, the goals of which were to reduce fatigue and the consequences of ageing and to increase overall vigor and sexual potency in men. Christopher Turner. “Vasectomania, and Other Cures for Sloth”. Cabinet Magazine. (Spring 2008). Such a power to make up for our natural inadequacies has never existed since the beginning of mankind, but all the powers we possess now are derived from the organization and application of knowledge, and naturally the products of science. |
第二，講到權力，自然是就我們所能駕馭的力量和那力量所及的遠近而言。歷史家說石器時代的人能擲石子在幾丈外的地方去擊殺野獸，他的文化已經比石器時代以前的人高了許多，因為他的權力，已經遠到幾丈外了。照這樣看來，近代人的權力，比從前的人大的地方，至少有幾處。一為征服天然，最顯著的例就是距離的縮短。我們古人看了長江，就說“固天所以限南北”, 現在輪船火車到處通行，就是重海連山，也不能隔人類的往來了。再則，物產的增加，因為機器的應用和天然障害的戰勝，也是近世的一種特別現象。如1810到1862五十年間，世界上煤的產額，由每年九百萬噸增到一萬四千萬噸。由1850到1882三十二年間，世界上鐵的產額，由每年四百萬噸增到兩千萬噸。又由1830到1880五十年間，歐美的商務，增加了八百倍。這都是前四五十年的統計，到近年來，增加的數目必定更要大了。再次，則各種病菌的發明，人類生命的延長，也是征服天然的一個好例。 由1851年到1900年英國人的平均壽數由二十六歲零五六增到二十八歲零九，美國人的壽數由二十三歲零一增到二十六歲零三三，我們戰勝天然的權力，不是可驚嗎? 又不但戰勝天然，我們並且能補天然的不足。再舉兩件事為例。我們平常所希望不到的，不是插翅而飛和長生不老的兩件事嗎?不曉得到了1896年，美國的藍格列 (Langley) 竟在華盛頓頗陀瑪克(Potomac)河上，用機械的力量，把一個比空氣重一千倍的飛機，飛升起來，從此空中的飛行就逐漸進步，現在竟成了普通的交通事業了。返老還童的問題，據最近奧國醫士斯坦那黑 (Steinlach) 的報告，也從生理學上，尋出了可能的方法，並且屢試有效。我們這種權力，豈不是自有人類以來所未曾有的嗎? 但是這些權力，都是由知識的組織和應用得來，自然又是科學的產物。 |
| The third point is on social organizations. It is known that the organization of modern society is far more complex than those organizations in previous ages. Besides, some other features cannot be ignored. The first one is that the involvement of the common people, or so-called democracy, has two levels of meanings: one is the overthrow of the political dictatorship and the popularization of suffrage (the right to vote); the other one is the equal opportunities in society and the abolition of the class system. The occurrence at these two levels can be attributed to two factors. One is that the industrial revolution came into being owing to the invention of machinery. After the industrial revolution, there has been an enormous increase in the production of goods. As common people owned property and labor, they naturally demanded rights. On the other hand, people in the modern age opt to think rationally; since they have not yet been so hasty to submit themselves to the forces of nature, they were inclined to have human organizations with reasonable solutions and throw off the shackles from the divine right of kings. Franklin’s epitaph that “He snatched lightning from the sky and the scepter from tyrants” best illustrates this meaning.9 This sentence was not written by Franklin himself but was coined by Anne- Robert-Jacques Turgot (1727-1781), a French statesman and economist, who invented this motto in Latin “Eripuit Coelo Fulmen Sceptru Que Titannis”. It was often quoted about Benjamin Franklin, although he protested that the phrase gave him too much credit. https://philamuseum.org/collection/object/50130. In consequence, populism and science are directly or indirectly related. The second feature of social organizations lies in their vast scope. In the past, social organizations were limited to a single area or a small number of people, but now they are not even confined by national boundaries. For example, the recent international organizations of various groups and the world alliance of various doctrines are all signs of large organizations. There are several reasons for the grand scope of these organizations: first, the progress in transportation has shortened the distance both in space and time. Second, people all over the world confront similar problems owing to their convergent lifestyles. Third, academic experience has demonstrated the benefits and possibilities of large organizations. These three reasons are largely related to science. The third feature emphasizes efficiency. We are aware that the organization of industry and the application of machines in the modern age is to exert less effort to create more productivity. High efficiency is defined as utilizing little effort to get a large volume of results, and vice versa, low efficiency. This emphasis on efficiency is not only applied to industry, but also to all organizations in society. For those efficiency-oriented organizations, we probably refer to them as new organizations. Otherwise, despite the newness of the cause, the organization is still out of date. However, understanding the efficiency of a cause requires research at a very small scale. The scientific method is how we analyze and conduct our research. Therefore, the so-called newly established scientific workshop management is the result of this feature. | 第三要說社會組織。我們曉得近代的社會，除了組織複雜，遠非從前所可比擬之外，還有幾個特采，是我們不能不注意的。一是平民的特采，就是所謂德謨克拉西。這平民的傾向，有兩個意思：一是政治上獨裁政制的推倒，與參政權的普及；二是社會上機會的均等，和階級制度的打消。這兩個意思的發生，一方面因為機器的發明，生了工業革命，又因工業革命過後，物產增加，一般的人有了產業和勞力，自然發生了權利的要求；一方面也因近代的人心，趨於合理的；對於天然的勢力，尚且不肯貿然服從，要求一個征服的方法，對於人為的組織，自然也有一個合理的解決，那些“天賦君權”的說話，自然不能管束他們了。弗蘭克令 (Franklin) 的墓誌說他“一隻手由自然界搶來了電力，一隻手由君主搶來了威權”, 最能表明這一種意思。可見平民主義和科學是直接間接都有關係的。第二個特采，是他範圍的廣大。從前的社會組織，僅限一地一域或少數人的，現在的組織，不但非一地一域，就是國界種界，也不能限制了。如像近來各種團體的國際組織，各種主義的世界同盟，都是大組織的表示。這有幾個原因：一是交通進步，空間時間的距離比從前縮小了好些。二因各處的生活有趨於一致的傾向，因此他們的問題也有些大同小異。 三因學術經驗的證明，知大組織的利便與可能。 這三種原因，又是大半和科學有關係的。第三個特采，是效率的講求。我們曉得近世工業的組織和機器的應用，是要用力少而成功多。以少量的用力，得多量的結果，就是高的效率，反之，效率就低了。這種講求 效率的意思，不但用在工業上，就是社會上一切組織，也都是這個意思所貫注。大概做到這一步的，我們說他是新組織，不然，事業雖新，組織還是舊的罷了。但是一件事業效率的高低，非從那件事業極小的部分加以研究，不會明白。這種分析研究的方法，也就是科學方法。所以現 在有所謂科學的工場管理法，就是這種特采結晶了。 |
| Now we can draw a conclusion that the progress in the modern age is far more significant and unique than before in these three aspects as knowledge, authority and organization. In other words, can we suggest that these three advancements represent the signs of modern culture? Since these three advancements are direct products or indirect impacts of science, if we use them to symbolize modern culture, has the relationship between science and modern culture been illustrated? Regarding the aforementioned concerns, my response is that knowledge, authority, and organizations—as already mentioned—are the attitudes of life. Attitudes towards life are also our perceptions of objects and motivation for our actions. It is acknowledged that the spirit of science is to search for the truth, whose function is to guide humans to aesthetics and goodness. Can our philosophy of life truly progress this far? It is unnecessary to give science praise that is unworthy of the name, and there is no need to be pessimistic about the future of humankind. We could say that the impact of science on our attitudes towards life is to demand reasonableness in all situations. Utilizing rationality to explore nature, to guide the behaviors of humans’ lives and to regulate human relationships is not only the feature of modern culture, but also the greatest contribution and value of science. |
我們現在把上面所講的總結起來，在知識、權力、組織這三方面，近代的進步，都比較從前最為顯著、最為特別，那麼，我們就說這三種進步是近世文化的表現，可不可呢? 又因為這三種進步都是科學直接的產物或間接的影響，我們若是拿他們來代表近世文化，我們要說明的科學和近世文化的關係，是不是可算做到了呢? 我對於這些問題的答案是：我們上面所說的知識、權力、組織都是生活的樣子，我們還有一個生活的態度。生活的態度，是我們對物的主要觀念和作事的動機。我們曉得科學的精神，是求真理。真理的作用，是要引導人類向美善方面行去。我們的人生態度，果然能做到這一步嗎?我們現在不必替科學邀過情之譽，也不必對於人類前途過抱悲觀，我們可以說科學在人生態度的影響，是事事要求一個合理的。這用理性來發明自然的秘奧，來領導人生的行為，來規定人類的關係，是近世文化的特采，也是科學的最大的貢獻與價值。 |
|
Some also argued that modern culture was also the culture of authority and competition, which triggered the Great War in previous years. Since science is the origin of modern culture, it should also take responsibility. In terms of this blame, we could quote a speech by a French doctor named Pasteur at the inauguration ceremony of Pasteur Institute as a conclusion for my speech. He reckoned that there were two laws competing with each other. One commanded blood and death, causing endless destruction and preparing nations for sending soldiers to the battlefields. The other law brought peace, productivity and health, providing ceaseless solutions for healings and savings. |
再有一些人說近代的文化是權力的文化、競爭的文化，所以弄到前幾年的世界大戰爭。科學既是近世文化的根源，也應該負這個責任。對於這個非難，我們可以引法國大醫學家巴士台 (Pasteur) 在他的巴士台學社開幕時候的一段演說來解釋，也就作我這次講演的結論。他說： 眼前有兩個律令在那裡爭為雄長，一個是血和死的律令，他的破壞方法，層出不窮，使多少國家常常預備着在戰場上相見；其他一個是和平、工作、健康的律令，他那救苦去痛的方法，也層出不窮。 |
| The former seeks the conquest of strong power, and the latter pursues the salvation of humanity. The latter regards a person’s life as more significant than any other victory in the war, while the former sacrifices the lives of millions to satisfy one person’s ambition. The law we pursue is the latter one. In this age of rampant killings, we also hope for a little remedy for the sins of the former law. The antiseptic medicine we used saved a large number of the injured. Except for God, nobody knows which one of the laws can be the final winner. But from our perspective, what French science is working on is to follow the law of humanity and to promote the health of humans. | 一個所求的是強力的征服， 一個所求的是人類的拯救。後者看見一個人的生命，比甚麼戰勝還重大，前者犧牲了千萬人的性命，去滿足一個人的野心。我們奉行的律令，是後一個，就在這殺人如麻的時代，還希望對於那前一個律令的罪惡，略加補救。我們用了防腐的葯，不曉得救活了多少受傷的人。這兩個律令中那一個能得最後勝利，除了上帝無人知道；但是我們可以說，法國的科學是服從人道的律令，要推廣生命的領域的。 |
|
“Follow the laws of humanity and promote the health of humans.” This holds true for both French science and science around the globe. |
“服從人道的法律令，推廣生命的領域”,不只法國的科學是這樣，世界真正的科學是無不這樣的。 |
References
- Christopher Turner. “Vasectomania, and Other Cures for Sloth”. Cabinet Magazine. (Spring 2008).
2. Curd, Patricia. “Presocratic Philosophy”. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition).
3. Gérard, Marguerite. “To the Genius of Franklin”. https://philamuseum.org/collection/object/50130.
4. Rushkin, Ilia. “Optimizing the Ptolemaic Model of Planetary and Solar Motion”. History and Philosophy of Physics. (6 February 2015): 1. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1502.01967.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.