A supernova occurring on July 4, 1054 formed the Crab Nebula, a well known supernova remnant in Taurus. The ancient Chinese recorded detailed observations. It was a previously unseen star that became for a time bright enough to be visible in the daytime. Some Native American Tribes also made records of the event.
Around the same time, Venice, Genoa, and the Byzantine Empire (or the Eastern Roman Empire) were near their full power. Yet strangely, none of these Christian nations of the time made any observation of the visible event, which lasted almost 2 years.
Historians attributed this to the problem of “paradigm” in scientific theories, where upon the scholars of the Western world were simply unable to break some basic assumptions of their theories, and thus consciously or subconsciously decided to ignore ALL data that does not fit their assumptions.
Western nations of the time, because of the Christian Church, believed in the “Immutable Heaven”, ie. the “celestial sphere” cannot change.
Some historians have explained also, that Chinese astronomers were not bound by any theoretical assumptions, and therefore, they were able to make very detailed and accurate observations of the stars, without worrying about running into contradicting “Holy assumptions” of their times.
On the same explanation, there was a general argument that ancient Chinese were less interested in “theoretical causes”, ie. they didn’t bother to formulate too many theories about “why”.
Afterall, with the volumes of astronomical data in the Chinese historical archives, and the amazing astrological clocks built by the ancient Chinese, why is it that the Chinese never bothered to make many models for the solar system??
Some have also theorized that the Chinese version of the “scientific theory” is more about systematic “trial and error” rather than a “Method and test” (as in the Western and modern scientific methodology).
Indeed, many Chinese inventions and discoveries were often more based upon “accidents”, rather than any methods of search.
Of course, now we assume that the “Method and test” scientific method is the better way to get at the truth.
But we also know that historically, the “method and test” method has ran headlong into the “paradigm” problem over and over again.
On the parallel of Political theories, analogous systems are seen in modern China and the West.
China, with its “trial and error” method of political reforms and leadership selections. Versus the West, “Method” is always right, regardless of the actual results.
Which one is better?
But let us challenge another basic assumption, Is the Chinese system really simply “trial and error”???
One could argue that one can develop mathematics and algebra by simple “trial and error”. Afterall, if one count the results of “1+1”, one can easily arrive at 2 as the answer.
One can reach “result oriented theories”, ie. 1 star will be at this location at this particular time of the year, just by repeated detailed observations. Without ever having known the composition or actual location of the star itself.
Given the problem of “paradigm”, I would posit that the “Western Method” of “democracy” is in a problem of “paradigm”, that its assumptions of “correctness” is simply another way for the adherents to ignore unwanted data.
In actuality, all political systems are based upon “trial and error”. Trying to develop a method to explain the correctness of own’s “accidental choice” is rather like explaining why one rolled a 5 in craps. Yes, you rolled the dice, but it’s not really a choice.
This is an interesting argument. However, I saw the fallacy of a grand generalization. This argument eventually comes down to pragmastism vs. fundamentalism. People in both the West and China experieced periods of spiritual fundamentalism.
Pragmastism believes in theroies, but also know their limitiation, thus make verification by and observation of facts an important aspect of mental guidance. Fundamentalism, on the hand, believes strongly the pureness of theroies, thus may either reject or ignore facts that do not fit well with a model.
Yes, quite right, Shane,
There is such a thing as a “democratic fundamentalist”, and such a person is wholly irrational about alternative systems