Raymond W. K. Lau – författare

This book explores how and why exchanges across civilizations have come to enrich science today. The dialogical dimension of the history of science has long been marginalized by an excessive concern on why modern science emerged in Europe, but not in any of the advanced civilizations of the East. This focus upon what has been called Joseph Needham''s "Grand Comparative Question" ignores his other project, focused on showing how dialogues between civilizations have nurtured science. Needham''s "Grand Dialogical Question" – if we may call it that by parity – has directly or indirectly inspired a vast body of literature showing how interconnections of civilizations over the last three thousand years, and exchanges of cosmological, mathematical, geographical, physical, biological and medical technologies, techniques, practices and knowledge, have been woven together to produce current science. Bringing together scholars whose research range across multiple civilizations and disciplines, this book investigates the scope and limits of Needham''s dialogical vision for science.

This book offers a new investigation of the Needham Question. Why did modern science emerge in Europe, but not in any of the advanced non-European civilizations? Eurocentric accounts attribute it to certain ‘qualities’ said to be ‘unique’ to Europe. Opposed to the Eurocentric view is a position known as the ‘dialogical perspective’. Dialogism argues that Europe borrowed heavily from non-European scientific knowledges, and that scientific exchanges were key to the development of modern science. Neo-Eurocentric arguments have emerged in response to the challenge of dialogism, and the debate between Eurocentrism/neo-Eurocentrism and dialogism currently stands at a stalemate.

In this book, Raymond Lau brings a new theoretical-methodological framework to finally settle this debate. The historical analysis developed here shows that to secure the non-Eurocentric case, and decisively rebut Eurocentrism and neo-Eurocentrism, it is necessary to go beyond dialogism both theoretically and methodologically.