Lectures on the General History of Science 12: Discussion Session

This week was the long-anticipated discussion class, so there was no lecture script~

There are 15 students enrolled in this course, but in practice only about half can usually make it. This time was the same: a total of 7 students came, and only 6 actually took part in the discussion. Even so, the discussion turned out pretty well. At least everyone had something to say, and we used up the whole class period.

What is somewhat regrettable is that I feel my course has had very little impact on the students. For example, one student asked why ancient Greek science, which also originated in a tendency toward theory, eventually led to experimental modern science. In my lectures, I talk about the Hellenistic period, Christian culture, printing, alchemy, and so on—precisely to show that the elements of modern science did not all come from ancient Greece, and that the experimental tradition had many other sources. That student’s question made me feel as if all these topics I had been discussing were for nothing……

As for the midterm assignment, so far I have received three papers: two reading notes and one essay. The students who handed in assignments also all participated in the discussion class.

My point is that this course does have a participation grade. The basic requirement is one reading report for the midterm and one short paper for the final. But I also said that the midterm reading report can be negotiated: it can be written as a paper, or even not written at all—but that would mean taking a gamble and having the grade determined entirely by the final paper. If the final paper is not well written, then the students who turned in fewer assignments will definitely end up with lower scores. This discussion class was another way to earn extra points. If you neither submit a reading report nor take part in the discussion class, and also do not ask me for leave, then your participation grade is bound to be quite miserable.

But it seems that in fact everyone does not care very much about grades, so the result is that I only received three assignments. Judging from these three papers, they were all written pretty well. One person read Lloyd’s *Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle*, and another read Lindberg’s *The Beginnings of Western Science*—both good choices, and both showed their own thinking as well.

Still, if I were to be stricter, there are also serious shortcomings. The student who wrote the essay had clear ideas but not enough substance, and lacked evidence. The students who wrote reading notes, on the other hand, all lacked a clear line of thought or narrative thread. As a result, what they produced was merely a kind of “note,” not a “report.” A reading report, unlike an ordinary set of reading notes, is different: notes are written for oneself, whereas a report is meant to be spoken to others; an article still needs a certain structure. For instance, one student’s reading notes ran to more than 3,000 characters divided into only four paragraphs. What does that mean? It means something like a high school essay with no paragraphing at all, which is really hard to read…… What I want to say is that many students lack a certain awareness of the reader when writing. In fact, a paper is a way of communicating with others, or even challenging them, not merely a private record.

What I most hope to see in the final paper is that it can challenge me. That does not mean the paper must formally be written as an article “discussing matters with Teacher So-and-so.” In form, a paper should be written in an objective style. But the effect it ultimately should achieve is to make it so that I can learn something from the paper.

Throughout this course I have tried to emphasize that the narrative of “history” has no absolute standard. Studying or researching history is not merely about memorizing a set of objective facts; more importantly, it requires understanding and thinking. Some students may have questions about my strategy for telling history, and that is good. Why talk about these things and not those? There is my own criterion behind it, but everyone may also have his or her own judgment. Even I myself, if I teach the course again next time, may not end up saying the same things. Each student may also have his or her own understanding. What I hope students gain from this course is not just “historical knowledge,” but also a “historical outlook.”

But when I actually teach, most of the time what I am of course still talking about is historical knowledge and historical stories. This thing called “outlook” cannot be transmitted; one can only gain something from it through active, spontaneous reflection and reading.

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