Unconventional science

Author: Wan Yi. Liu Li
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2000-06-01
Features: To make wild grasses into cultivated plants and wild animals into domesticated livestock; to transform brittle, easily weathered, and unstable pottery into sturdy and waterproof containers; to invent soilless or waterless cultivation techniques, to turn toxic seeds or roots into food, or to utilize this toxicity for hunting, warfare, and certain rituals—undoubtedly, all of this requires a genuine scientific spirit. R. Schep, a reporter from France Culture Radio, interviewed some scholars in France about the impact of technology on society, a topic of great concern in French society. The interview transcripts were compiled into a series of small books that had a significant influence on French society. This book is one of them. Excerpt: In modern botanical research, the naming of plants clearly indicates their position in the classification system. Ancient China did not have this concept, although Chinese traditional culture is often seen as hierarchical. You may recall at the beginning of the introduction to Vocabulaire et Pouvoir, Michel Foucault described Borge's humorous imitation of "a Chinese encyclopedia," which wrote: "Animals are divided into: 1) Those belonging to the emperor; 2) Spiced; 3) Domesticated; 4) Piglets; 5) Mermaids; 6) Legendary; 7) Free dogs; 8) Included in this classification; 9) Restless as a madman; 10) Numerous; 11) Painted with extremely fine camel-hair brushes; 12) Etc.; 13) Just broken a water pot; 14) Looking like flies from a distance." In fact, upon closer examination, these classifications are not as absurd as Borge intended to portray. Traditional botany was often replaced by pharmacopoeias. Is traditional Chinese botany the same? Currently, there are over one hundred documents that can be considered pharmacopoeias, but the terms used by scholars of the history of Chinese science are not always consistent (some believe that the concept of "pharmacopoeia" is overly Westernized and prefer the term "medical materials," though this term is also controversial). In Chinese, these works—discussing minerals, plants, animals, and even human-derived products—were called "bencao." The oldest surviving bencao dates back to the 1st or 2nd century AD (though its name, the Shen Nong's Herbal, references Shen Nong, a legendary emperor who lived at least 3,000 years B.C.). This document laid the foundation for future works, was frequently cited, and gradually expanded as new content was added because the original text recorded only 365 items, most of which were plants. One per day? Yes! At a glance, we can see that this work almost functions like a ritual manual. On the other hand, it divides these items into three categories: non-toxic, essential for life and freely edible; slightly toxic, used to aid recovery in specific illnesses, taken only under very special circumstances; and highly toxic, usually fatal, and reserved only for patients in critical condition. This was the earliest classification system in pharmacopoeias, implemented at the structural level of the work. Within the text, there is also a second classification, dividing items into five categories corresponding to the French concept of the "five elements" (now sometimes translated as "five factors" or "five stages"), which draws on the celestial evolution theory related to the concept of yin and yang. At that time, the mythological world was also the world of knowledge. This bencao describes a legendary hero named Shen Nong, who spread civilization, transforming barbarians into civilized people: It was said that before him, people lived in trees, wore animal hides, and drank blood and ate raw meat, but when "Shen Nong" descended, he tasted all plants, distinguishing between poisonous and edible ones, and taught people to cultivate crops. Did this classification system for drugs later face criticism? From the 5th century onward, some doctors argued that everything should not be mixed together (a single book discussing both animals and plants), and that the sole broad classification into high, medium, and low categories was also unsuitable. Thus, this work distinguished medical materials into minerals, plants, and animals. Within minerals, stones and metals were separated; within plants, grasses and trees were distinguished; similarly, vegetables, fruits, and grains were differentiated. In animals, beasts were separated from what we call small animals (including insects, snakes, certain amphibians, and crustaceans, etc.). This classification basis dates back to the 5th century and remained largely valid until the 12th century. Later, the classification became increasingly detailed, especially in the 16th century, with the publication of Li Shizhen's Compendium of Materia Medica, which is still regarded today as one of the most important Chinese medical classics. During the Cultural Revolution, this book was still reprinted, indicating its near-universal recognition. From a natural history perspective, it is also one of the most important works in Chinese history. In this sense, Chinese historians of science seem to conflate "medical materials" and "natural history" (our own country experienced a similar phenomenon until the Renaissance, or even the 17th century). However, the way Chinese historians of science studied this document reflects the distinctive features of their thought methods; they identified early discussions of mineralogy, zoology, botany, and chemistry in it, whereas I believe this book is neither botanical, zoological, nor mineralogical, as it does not contain any systematic or theoretical research on plants, animals, or minerals. In introducing medical materials, the author references a wealth of knowledge from botany, mineralogy, and other fields. If a modern label must be attached to this book, I think "anthroposcience" is the most appropriate.