G. E. R. Lloyd: Early Greek Science—From Thales to Aristotle

G·E·R·Lloyd: Early Greek Science—From Thales to Aristotle, translated by Sun Xiaochun, Shanghai Science and Technology Education Press, December 2004

pp. 62–63
Even so, one fundamental difference did in fact set most medical writers apart from philosophers, and this difference lay not in the kinds of theories they proposed, nor in the methods they used, but in the different motives behind their investigations. ………… Unlike philosophers, doctors ultimately had a practical goal before them, as the author of On Ancient Medicine says: medicine is a craft, and practitioners vary in their skill. The final aim in doctors’ minds was in fact to cure illness.

p. 121
As I said at the beginning of this book, there is no single word in Greek that is fully equivalent to what we call “science.” … The theories that can be classified as “Greek science” were extremely diverse. Their contemporaries did not call the people who put forward these theories “scientists,” but philosophers or physicists or mathematicians or doctors or sophists. Even within these roughly defined groups, different individuals had different attitudes toward the studies they pursued.

p. 123
The importance of the flourishing “profession” of medicine for Greek science is obvious. Throughout antiquity, those whose primary occupation was medicine made important contributions not only to the biological sciences, but also to discussions of physics, cosmology, and general questions in scientific methodology.

p. 123
Teaching was important, or came to be important, for the development of Greek science for two reasons. First, like medicine, teaching could also provide a livelihood; second, institutions such as Plato’s Academy and the Lyceum offered opportunities for collaborative research.

p. 128
Plato and Aristotle believed that the pursuit of knowledge was an end in itself, indispensable to the perfect life, for two reasons: first, humans differ from animals in that humans possess reason, so the cultivation of rational capacity is essential to true happiness and true virtue; second, the study of nature reveals the beauty and order of the cosmos, and reflection on this helps human beings develop an ordered, noble character within themselves. Although other ancient authors held the same ideas, it cannot therefore be assumed that Plato’s and Aristotle’s beliefs and attitudes were shared by their contemporaries, or even by all those engaged in the study of nature.

First, there is plenty of evidence that many ordinary people (who certainly were not scientists) valued practical skills. ………… (p. 129) Second, to take those who themselves engaged in scientific research, there was a whole group of doctors whose main motive was clearly not to live the ideal of a contemplative life.

p. 131
Historians of ancient science often argue that one important difference between ancient science and modern science is that ancient scientists sought only to understand nature and were not interested in controlling or using it. In general, this is probably right, but this view fails to note that authors in antiquity who studied nature also differed from one another. Although the philosopher’s ideal was to sink into the ease of a “contemplative” life, many early Greek doctors took pride in practicing a craft.

////——

One feature of this book is that the author does not discuss ancient Greek “science” merely around the natural philosophers of ancient Greece; in particular, he examines some special fields such as “medicine.”

Indeed, medicine and natural philosophy were different from the very beginning: medicine was a craft, and it existed to cure illness. From a modern perspective, the distinction between ancient Greek medicine and natural philosophy is like the distinction between technology and science, though the two were intertwined and mutually influential.

By bringing in a discussion of ancient Greek medicine, the author tries to show that Greek “science” was not simply the pure pursuit of knowledge itself represented by Plato and Aristotle, but took on other diverse forms as well. Yet I want to ask: what, exactly, in ancient Greece is the true source of modern science? What was the main contribution of Greek civilization to the rise of modern science?

This has strengthened that particular thought that suddenly occurred to me yesterday when I was pondering whether traditional Chinese medicine is scientific—I had previously always started from the “Chinese” in “Chinese medicine”; if I could prove that there was no science in ancient China, then naturally I would have shown that traditional Chinese medicine is not science. But why shouldn’t I start from the other angle—from the “medicine” itself? If “medicine” itself is not science, then naturally traditional Chinese medicine cannot be science either!

In fact, though this line of thought may sound a bit perverse at first, it may well be logically defensible. For medicine was never, from the outset, driven by curiosity and a desire to seek truth. Medicine is of course inseparable from the natural sciences; even in ancient Greece, medicine also pursued objectivity, generalization, systematization, theorization, and so on. Yet the source of the “scientific spirit” was natural philosophy rather than medicine. The rise of modern science was nurtured in the medieval and Renaissance rediscovery of Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, whereas Hippocrates probably had no decisive influence, at least, on the rise of modern science.

In modern times, experimental science has greatly influenced the development of “medical science,” but what is called medical science is still mainly physiology, human science, pathology, microbiology, chemistry, and so on; there is no distinct, specialized “medical science” as such. Medicine itself still emphasizes more “technology,” the application of science. Even Western modern medicine, which has been thoroughly “penetrated” by modern technology, is fundamentally still “technology”—if we need to distinguish science from technology in our analysis.

As for whether traditional Chinese medicine, as a traditional craft, should absorb modern technology, or whether modern technology should absorb its essence while removing the “dross,” and how to handle the relationship between traditional Chinese medicine and modern technology—these are also topics worth discussing. But when we are discussing “philosophy of science” in the classical, narrower sense, and are exploring what science actually is, then it is necessary first to distinguish clearly between “science” and “technology” — even if in the end the two always have to be considered together. Against the backdrop of this topic, if one asks, “Is traditional Chinese medicine scientific?” then my answer can be: “Medicine” itself is not science! Let alone traditional Chinese medicine?

March 1, 2006

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.