Human and nature

Author: Ding Dong, Wang Li
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2003-08-01
Features: Excerpt:
The purpose of studying science is that science knows no borders, and scientific and technological achievements are the common wealth of all humanity. When we study the history of science and technology, we look down on this chessboard, sometimes it's advanced here, sometimes it's advanced there, all on this chessboard. If it's advanced, it's the common pride of all humanity; if it's backward, it's the common regret of all humanity. We often cite examples of ancient China's Four Great Inventions to illustrate the greatness of our nation and use them to educate the masses in patriotism. Some comrades believe that introducing the scientific and technological achievements of ancient China can enhance national self-esteem and boost national confidence, which is undoubtedly correct, with both good intentions and effects. However, sometimes a different situation arises: whether China really invented something decades ago is still being debated and discussed among scholars of the history of science and technology, yet some uninitiated comrades (unfortunately, sometimes even famous scholars) casually quote statements that highlight the greatness of our ancestors as definitive conclusions, promoting them without considering the other evidence and reasons, resulting in ridicule. One reason for this is that these comrades mistakenly regard the examples of how great our ancestors were as the purpose of studying the history of science and technology, or one of its purposes. In their view, scholars of the history of science and technology have an obligation to provide people with a "record of merits" of our ancestors in science, technology, culture, and other aspects, which can be cited for patriotic education; as for whether this record is accurate or not, they are not interested. They express this idea as: "The study of the history of science and technology serves patriotic education." While this may not be a major issue if uninitiated comrades hold this view, it is a cause for concern if scholars of the history of science and technology themselves, consciously or unconsciously, accept this idea to some extent. We believe that we must be clear in our thinking: it is not only possible but also necessary to cite certain achievements of the study of science and technology for patriotic education, but when conducting research on the history of science and technology, we must absolutely not make patriotic education the goal. Making patriotic education the goal of studying the history of science and technology, though with good intentions, is harmful to the study of science and technology itself and does not align with the true purpose of conducting patriotic education. First, it is harmful to the study of science and technology itself because it hinders the factual attitude of scholars of the history of science and technology. Studying history requires being factual. Although there are many schools of thought in history, and the methods they advocate are not the same, there is no disagreement that it is essential to strive to restore history as it was. And to conduct patriotic education, of course, one must talk about the greatness and glory of our ancestors and cannot do otherwise. Therefore, if we take conducting patriotic education as the goal,