[Editor's note] Exactly 100 years ago, a far-reaching "science and metaphysics debate" took place in the field of Chinese ideology and culture, also known as "the debate between science and outlook on life".

The debate lasted for two years. In February 1923, when the scholar Zhang Junmai delivered a speech on "Outlook on Life" and the geologist Ding Wenjiang had many heated debates with him, the debate between "science" and "science" represented by Liang Qichao and Hu Shih occurred more than a year later. The two factions of "Metaphysics" entered the battle one after another, until the end of 1924, the "Controversy between Science and Metaphysics" developed into an ideological debate among the three schools of Science, Metaphysics, and Historical Materialism.

In a land where the political situation is turbulent and ordinary people don't know "Mr. Sai", why is there such a collision of ideas that is somewhat advanced? Is the "scientific" faction the ultimate winner? How has the attitude of the ideological and cultural circles towards "science" had a profound impact on modern Chinese society in the past 100 years? With the rapid development of science and technology in the 21st century, do we have new thinking on the question "Can science solve the outlook on life" raised by Zhang Junmai?

This edition specially invites Liu Dun, a historian of science, to review and sort out this great collision of ideas.

Zhang Junmai

Ding Wenjiang

Liang Qichao

Hu Shi

Chen Duxiu

1. Dependence

On February 14, 1923, scholar Zhang Junmai was invited to give a speech at Tsinghua University. The audience was mainly foreign students who were about to study science and engineering in the United States.

The topic of the speech was "Outlook on Life", and the main point was to explain the five differences between science and outlook on life, that is, science is objective while outlook on life is subjective; science is dominated by reasoning while outlook on life is dominated by intuition; science emphasizes analysis while outlook on life Emphasis on synthesis, science obeys the law of causality while outlook on life follows free will, science devotes itself to the unity of imagination while outlook on life originates from the singleness of personality. The conclusion is that "no matter how advanced science is, the solution to the problem of outlook on life is by no means what science can do, and it depends on human beings themselves." The handouts were sorted out and published in Tsinghua Weekly No. 272 of that year.

Zhang Junmai's remarks aroused the resentment of geologist Ding Wenjiang (zi Zaijun), and the two argued face to face for two hours without any result. The latter then wrote an article "Metaphysics and Science——Comment on Zhang Junmai's "View on Life"" on April 12, 2011. The language was fierce and sharp, and it was published in the 48th and 49th issues of "Keep Hard Work Weekly". Ding Wenjiang criticized Zhang Junmai's superficial statement that "the West is material civilization, and China is spiritual civilization", and pointed out: "As for the cultures of the East and the West, they are by no means what can be summed up by such general terms as so-called material civilization and spiritual civilization." At the end of the article Said: "The subjective, intuitive, comprehensive, free will, and singular outlook on life is built on loose sand and cannot withstand wind and rain. We should not be fooled by him!"

The "Science and Mystery Controversy" thus began.

Afterwards, Zhang and Ding respectively published long articles "Re-discussing the Outlook on Life and Science and Answering Ding Zaijun" and "Metaphysics and Science-An Answer to Zhang Junmai", further expounding their own views and criticizing each other, and the flames of war intensified.

2. Generals and coaches

By the summer of 1924, in just over a year, nearly 30 scholars had successively participated in the debate.

On the side of the "science" camp are Hu Shi, Ren Hongjun, Sun Fuyuan, Zhang Yancun, Zhu Jingnong, Wang Xinggong, Tang Yue, Wu Zhihui, Lu Zhiwei, and authors signed by Mu and Songgao; on the side of the "metaphysics" camp are representatives Liang Qichao and Zhang Dongsun , Gan Zhexian, Tu Xiaoshi, Wang Pingling, Lin Zaiping, Qu Junong, etc. As far as China's ideological circles were concerned at that time, most of the former belonged to liberal intellectuals, while the latter tended to cultural conservatism. If Ding Wenjiang and Zhang Junmai were the vanguards of the two armies, then Hu Shi and Liang Qichao were undoubtedly the coaches of the two armies.

When the two factions were fighting fiercely, a group of men and horses were killed in the diagonal stabbing. The leading general was Chen Duxiu, followed by Qu Qiubai, Deng Zhongxia, Xiao Chunv and so on. They "cut left and right", fighting on both sides with the help of Marxist historical materialism. But as far as the debate between "science" and "metaphysics" is concerned, the school that upholds the concept of scientific progress generally belongs to the "science" camp.

The identities of some authors are unclear, such as Xie Guoxin, Chen Daqi, and Zhang Yanhai. There are also some maverick figures, it is difficult to belong to which faction judging from their remarks, but their opinions seem very valuable today.

For example, Fan Shoukang, who was ridiculed by Chen Duxiu as a "fence-riding school", criticized Zhang Junmai's complete separation of life outlook and science as "too far removed from the facts", and Ding Wenjiang and others' view that "human beings are just like machines" is "not true". Dare to agree."

As a staunch member of the "science" camp, Ren Hongjun pointed out: "Zhang Jun is a person who has never studied science and does not understand the nature of science. It's really 'the bull's head is wrong with the horse'." The conclusion is that "science has its limits, and any general chaotic thoughts or unanalyzed facts are beyond the control of science." "If the outlook on life is a general Ideas, of course, are not within the scope of science.”

Wang Pingling opposed the abuse of "metaphysics", and believed that this debate should be called the "Battle of Science and Philosophy", pointing out that "if science progresses, philosophy will also progress; if philosophy develops, science must also develop in the same way. Then life will be completely advanced."

3. The debate on "metaphysics"

Metaphysics is a trend of philosophical thought that emerged during the Wei and Jin Dynasties. The word "xuan" comes from "Lao Tzu" "mysterious and mysterious, the gate of all wonders". Metaphysics is characterized by mysterious words and broad-minded actions. . Later generations regarded the exaggerated and vain talkative atmosphere as metaphysics, with a strong derogatory meaning.

Ding Wenjiang said at the beginning of the article, "Xuanxue is really a rogue. He has been fooling around in Europe for more than two thousand years. Recently, he has no place to make a living. He suddenly put up a fake cover, put up a new signboard, and swaggered to China. Come and cheat." In the following article, Zhang Junmai is simply named as a "metaphysics ghost". The "metaphysics" in Ding's pen is obviously not the proposition of He Yan, Wang Bi and others or the performance art of the Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove.

What is the "metaphysics" that Ding Wenjiang refers to? He himself gave a clear explanation in the fourth section of the article: "The term Metaphysics was coined by Andronicus, who edited Aristotle's posthumous writings." Then he changed the subject and said Metaphysics in a broad sense was never separated from theology in the Middle Ages. When Galileo studied the movement of celestial bodies, his opponents were the "representatives of metaphysics", that is, Roman Catholic theologians; "He also contended with science that "living things cannot be connected with one example (meaning cannot be presented and expressed according to laws)", "but Darwin didn't know what to do" and wrote "The Origin of Species", "Biology has become science again" . Although the text is ingenious and vivid, the "metaphysics" mentioned goes far beyond Zhang Junmai's original outlook on life.

Fortunately, there are far more Chinese people who understand English today than 100 years ago. Metaphysics literally means "after physics". The "physics" here is not the precise science studied by Galileo, but refers specifically to Aristotle A work of the same name on natural knowledge, the term Metaphysics was later used by the French philosopher and scientist Descartes to refer to "first philosophy", which mainly includes ontology and epistemology, and the so-called outlook on life is a part of ontology.

Tetsujiro Inoue, a Japanese philosopher in the Meiji era, borrowed the saying in "Book of Changes" that "what is above the metaphysics is called Tao, and what is below the metaphysics is called utensils" and translated it as "metaphysics". Yan Fu was dissatisfied with his translation, and once advocated "metaphysics" to replace it, but it was not accepted. Therefore, the term "Controversy between Science and Xuan" is not accurate enough. It is reasonable for some people to propose to change the name to "Battle between Science and Philosophy".

4. Background

When the "Controversy between Science and Xuan" happened, it was at the critical period of the transformation of modern Chinese society. Although the warlords of different factions continued to fight, after all, the imperial system was overthrown, party politics was emerging, and national capitalism began to develop. News, publishing, education, and ideological and cultural circles There was also relative prosperity. Within a 10-year limit, there are four major events that have had an impact on the "Controversy between Science and Metaphysics", and the four are not unrelated.

The first was the First World War in Europe from 1914 to 1918. In more than four years, about 70 million people were involved in the war, and tens of millions of people were killed or injured by machine strangulation, bombs or poisonous gas. Faced with the devastated situation after the war, some intellectuals began to reflect on the impact of science and technology on society, and asked whether they brought blessings or disasters to mankind.

At the end of 1918, Liang Qichao went to Europe as an informal advisor to observe the Paris Peace Conference. He was accompanied by six people including Zhang Junmai and Ding Wenjiang. He arrived in Paris on February 18, 1919 by sea. During the Peace Conference, China's diplomacy was humiliated, and the May 4th Movement broke out in China. Liang Qichao and others traveled to many European countries and met with Western philosophers such as Bergson and Wo Yikeng. Published in Shanghai "Current Affairs News". The book points out that the theory of evolution, utilitarianism and will to power in Western culture has led Europe to fall into power worship, and the superstitious belief in "scientific omnipotence" has shaken the foundation of religion and morality. long.

The second is the New Culture Movement that started in 1915. On September 15th of this year, Chen Duxiu founded "Youth Magazine" in Shanghai. In September 1916, it moved to Beijing and changed its name to "New Youth". Together with Peking University, where Cai Yuanpei was the president, it became the main front of the New Culture Movement. The progressive intellectuals at that time rallied around New Youth, held high the two banners of science and democracy, shouted the slogan "Down with the Confucian family shop", and launched a full-scale attack on traditional feudal thought. In 1917, Hu Shi and others raised the banner of "Literary Revolution", advocating vernacular writing and abolishing classical Chinese writing. In 1919, student leaders such as Fu Sinian and Luo Jialun who emerged from the May 4th Movement founded Xinchao to continue to promote the "Literary Revolution".

In 1922, Hu Shi withdrew from the editorial department of "New Youth" and founded "Effort Weekly", which gathered a group of like-minded liberal intellectual youths, hoped for a "good government", advocated bourgeois reformism, and continued to criticize the Beiyang government and imperialism. The communist powers called on "the people to work hard for the reconstruction of China without fear of resistance or force."

On the other hand, cultural conservatives founded "Liberation and Reform" (later renamed "Reform") in 1919, with Liang Qichao, Zhang Dongsun, and Zhang Junmai as the main contributors. In 1922, another group of European and American students who flaunted "neo-conservativeism" founded the "Xueheng" magazine, with Professor Babbitt of Harvard University as their mentor, adhering to cultural ethics and at the same time advocating the replacement of "human law" with "human law". The new humanism of the law of things.

The third is the October Revolution in Russia in 1917. Li Dazhao, Chen Duxiu and others used "New Youth" and "Weekly Review" as their fronts to spread Marxism, historical materialism and dialectical materialism. Marxists believe that the laws of social development are as definite and knowable as the laws of nature. In the classic Marxist writers (and Hegel), "dialectics" appears as the opposite of "metaphysics", which is synonymous with a static, isolated, one-sided way of thinking, far from the original meaning of Metaphysics, unfortunately This misunderstanding has not yet been eliminated.

The fourth is the May 4th Movement in 1919. In order to protest against the Paris Peace Conference's damage to China's sovereignty and the compromise of the Beiyang government, Beijing students took to the streets to march and petition. Workers, citizens, and businessmen joined in one after another, and soon spread throughout the country. The "May 4th Youth" held high the banner of patriotism, science and democracy, shouldered the mission of enlightenment and national salvation, and became an important symbol of the awakening of the Chinese people.

5. Origin of thought

Interestingly, Ding Wenjiang and Zhang Junmai, the pioneers of both sides of the debate, were born in the same year (1887).

Zhang Junmai was a talented scholar at the age of 15. At the age of 19, he entered the Department of Political Economy at Waseda University in Japan. After returning to China, he passed the Qing government’s appraisal examination and was awarded the Shujishi of the Imperial Academy. He went to Germany in 1913 and studied abroad for 3 years. .

Ding Wenjiang went east to Japan at the age of 15, and transferred to England two years later. He studied zoology and geology in Cambridge and Glasgow successively. After returning to China in 1911, the Qing court on the eve of its collapse gave him the title of Gezhi Ke Jinshi. In 1916, he founded the Geological Survey He also acts as the director of the institute.

When Ding and Zhang visited Europe with Liang Qichao in 1918, they also had the experience of living in the same room, and they also met and even had dinner many times during the "Controversy between Science and Xuan". Although Ding wrote sharply, at the end of the second "Metaphysics and Science", he said playfully: "I apologized to Junmai again and again: 'Little brother is always naughty, please don't get angry!'"

Someone summed up the ideological origins and tendencies of the two "returnees" and summarized the following game (the former is Ding Wenjiang's and the latter is Zhang Junmai's): Lockian Empiricism vs. Kantian Dualism (Lockian Empiricism vs. Kantian Dualism), Mach-Pearson's Epistemology vs. Drieschean Vitalism (Mach-Pearsonian Epistomology vs. Drieschean Vitalism), Huxley's Agnosticism vs. Euckenian Spiritualism (Huxleyean Agnosticism vs. Euckenian Spiritualism).

Looking at the whole polemic, it might be possible to add some contrasting images, such as Laplace's determinism against Bergson's vital impulse, Condorcet's scientific progress against Spengler's historical cycle; the Marxist After joining the war, there were also historical materialism and dialectical materialism against all kinds of idealism.

A close inspection of the "soldiers" on both sides of the war found that most of them were scholars of literature, history, philosophy, politics and economics: Needless to say, the "metaphysics" side was on the side of the "science" camp, except for Ding Wenjiang who studied geology, Wang Xinggong and Ren Hongjun studied chemistry, Hu Shi studied agronomy, Lu Zhiwei and Tang Yue studied experimental psychology, which can be counted as "science", and the rest of you are also liberal arts people.

However, the "liberal arts" training in famous European and American schools in modern times is not about reciting scriptures and doing stereotyped essays, but practicing the concept of liberal arts education, focusing on cultivating talents with comprehensive cultural accomplishment. Take Hu Shih as an example. He first studied agriculture at Cornell University in the United States, and then transferred to Columbia University to study philosophy. Admired Western liberalism.

6. Political Genealogy

After the victory of the Revolution of 1911, the Kuomintang, founded in 1912, became an important force in China's political arena. The composition of the early Kuomintang was very complicated. There were members of the old Tongmenghui who followed Sun Yat-sen to overthrow the Qing government, anarchists such as Li Shizeng and Wu Zhihui, as well as all kinds of careerists and opportunists. Most of them actively participated in anti-imperialism and anti-feudalism A passionate young man who struggles. After the victory of the Northern Expedition in 1927, the Kuomintang became the dominant ruling party. Liberal intellectuals, represented by Cai Yuanpei and Hu Shi, took the position of cooperating with the ruling party on most occasions.

The Communist Party of China, established in 1921, was consistent with the Kuomintang in the general direction of fighting imperialism and feudalism and establishing an independent, prosperous and powerful country. Until the early period of the Northern Expedition, the KMT and the Communist Party had always been political allies, and it can also be said that they were both revolutionary parties. In the "Scientology and Metaphysics Controversy" from 1923 to 1924, Communists and liberal intellectuals responded with the same voice and sought the same spirit in defending the dignity of science and criticizing retrogression.

The situation of the "metaphysics" faction is more complicated. After the failure of the Reform Movement of 1898, Liang Qichao went into exile in Japan, advocating a constitutional monarchy and "enlightened autocracy". Because of his contact with some modern western thoughts, he parted ways with Kang Youwei, who advocated the restoration of Confucianism. In addition, his knowledge was profound and his writing was vigorous, so he had a greater influence than "Kang Shengren" in the intellectual circles in the early years of the Republic of China. He also had strong political ambitions. The Progressive Party, which he founded in 1913, later evolved into the Research Department. The news of the humiliation of the Chinese delegation at the Paris Peace Conference was revealed through Lin Changmin, a general of the Research Department, which ignited the May 4th student movement.

After Liang Qichao returned from his visit to Europe in 1920, he organized the Gongxue Society and the Lecture Society. The former was a non-governmental academic society without a clear political program, and the latter aimed to invite famous foreign scholars to give lectures in China, focusing on enlightening the wisdom of the people. Both Zhang Junmai and Zhang Dongsun were close followers of Liang Qichao from the Progressive Party, the Research Department to the Gongxue Society and the Lecture Society, and they were also important representatives of the "third force" in the 1930s and 1940s. However, Liang's original sin of being a "royalist" is difficult to eliminate. In the eyes of the "May Fourth New Youth", they are all conservatives and reactionaries.

Therefore, the "Scientific and Metaphysical Controversy" was more or less partisan. The three main currents of thought in China's intellectual circles today—Marxism, liberalism, and cultural conservatism—can also be found in the "Controversy between Science and Metaphysics."

7. Who is the winner

For a long time (and in the contemporary context), most people have been accustomed to distinguish right from wrong according to the dichotomous framework of "progressive-backward" or "revolutionary-reactionary". Abandon armor. As Hu Shi said in "Sun Xingzhe and Zhang Junmai", science and logic are the Tathagata Buddha, and "metaphysics" can't escape his grasp no matter how many somersaults.

The "metaphysics" faction blamed science and material civilization for the serious setback of war on European civilization, which is obviously Li Daitao's rigidity, but Hu Shi's above-mentioned analogy reveals the trump card of "science is omnipotent", and there is no essential transcendence in the depth of thought. No wonder Chen Duxiu sighed, "It's a pity that the people who attacked Zhang Junmai and Liang Qichao seemed to be victorious on the surface, but in fact they did not break through the enemy's stronghold. have surrendered." This is really an ironic judgment.

As Mr. Li Zehou said, "If you look at it purely from an academic point of view, the questions raised by the metaphysical school and some basic conclusions made, such as the belief that science cannot solve the problems of life, there is a fundamental difference between value judgments and fact judgments, psychology, Biology, especially the historical and social fields, are qualitatively different from the causal fields of the inorganic world, and the importance and emphasis on irrational factors, etc., are far more profound than the optimistic but simple determinism arguments of the school of science. In line with the trend of thought of the 20th century".

Can science solve the outlook on life? As far as the question raised by Zhang Junmai is concerned, the "scientific" school has no chance of winning, and no scholar has given a comprehensive and convincing positive answer.

But the "May 4th Youth" believed that they had strong capital. They used "science" and "democracy" as weapons to declare war on the old system and old traditions. Faced with the reality of the sinking of China and the influx of various new ideas, he firmly believes that science will bring eternal benefits to mankind. In their eyes, any criticism of science is tantamount to provoking the banner of the May Fourth Movement, and they must be attacked head-on.

As far as the "metaphysics" camp is concerned, they are really born at a bad time. There is too much contrast between talking about sex and the harsh reality of China. Questioning the applicable standards of science is tantamount to opposing science. As a result, this "science and metaphysics debate" with the participation of many top thinkers and scholars, which could have been a higher-level theoretical confrontation, failed to achieve the effect of shaping a more forward-looking cultural form, and hidden behind it involved material civilization and value. The profound significance of the judgment has not and is impossible to attract the full attention of the people of the country.

In a land where the political situation is turbulent, people's livelihood is insecure, and ordinary people don't know why "Mr. Sai" is sacred.

8. Significance and impact

No winner doesn't mean no point. Ding Wenjiang contributed a lot to instigating the debate. He borrowed the word "metaphysics" to expand the scope of the debate many times, leading to this big debate involving many academic experts. The focus of the debate is not only science and outlook on life, but also the complex relationship between science and philosophy, rationality and intuition, objective facts and value judgments, matter and spirit, science and humanities.

"For China, its traditional culture is essentially a humanistic culture, and the scientific spirit in the Western sense is relatively lacking. Therefore, there is less worship of science in Chinese history than in the West. However, the 'two cultures' The other extreme has also appeared in China in this century: For example, regarding the "Keyan War" in 1923, from the New Youth influenced by the May Fourth Movement to the mainstream public opinion in the contemporary ideological and cultural circles, all "metaphysics ghosts" Sneering, but few people have seriously considered whether science alone can solve the problem of outlook on life."

The above nonsense comes from a short article "History of Science, Technology Strategy and Innovation Culture" written by me in 2000, and I have publicized this idea many times on different occasions since then. Although the proposition of "two cultures" was formally put forward in 1959, the separation between "scientific culture" and "humanistic culture" has a long history. Renaissance Florence (poet-painter) versus Padua (doctor-scientist), Enlightenment Rousseau versus Voltaire, Romanticism versus rationalism, utilitarianism, and empiricism in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, Arnold in the Victorian era For Huxley (see my article "The Origin of "Two Cultures" in Past Life", published in "China Science Daily" on April 19, 2019), it can be said to be the harbinger of "Snow's proposition", but no one uses it. Snow's diagram-like clear proposition is only expressed. The fact that the "Science and Metaphysics Controversy" can be examined from the perspective of "two cultures" itself highlights the significance of that ideological debate.

In 1965, Chinese-American scholar Guo Yingyi wrote a book "Scientism in Modern Chinese Thought", in which he focused on analyzing the "Controversy between Science and Metaphysics". He believes that whether it is liberal intellectuals, anarchists, or Marxists, many arguments in the "science" camp have a strong scientism tendency, which later had a profound impact on modern Chinese society. Influence.

Scientism (Scientism) seems to be translated into "scientism" literally. Some Chinese scholars also think that there is no need to add the word "only", and they call themselves "scientists". In fact, this is just as the name suggests. Mr. Fan Dainian pointed out: "Scientism is a derogatory term in foreign countries. It is a derogatory term for the idea that natural science is regarded as the most valuable part of culture. Interestingly, there are Some scientists advocate this as a good name. Domestic scholars have made many detailed introductions to the definition of scientism. Strong scientism refers to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and technology. '. Weak scientism refers to 'a claim that the methods of natural science should be applied to all research fields including philosophy, humanities and social sciences'." (Fan Dainian, "Scientism in China - A Historical Review and Criticism", published in "China Science Daily" on October 21 and November 18, 2005 (then named "Science Times").

Hu Shi's comparison of science to Tathagata Buddha is a typical example of the theory of "science is omnipotent". He also wrote: "There is a noun that has almost achieved the status of supreme dignity in China; no matter whether people who understand it or not, no matter whether they are conservative or reformers, they dare not express contempt or insult to it. That noun It is 'science'." Ding Wenjiang directly mentioned "the omnipotence of science". Wu Zhihui has seven firm beliefs, and the last one is "everything in the universe can be explained scientifically". These are strong scientism remarks.

Wang Xinggong believes that, "Science is constructed on the basis of the two principles of causality and unity; life problems, whether they are the concept of life or the attitude of life, cannot escape the diamond circle of these two principles, so science can solve them." problems of life". Deng Zhongxia claimed, "Historical materialism, they are also based on science and apply scientific methods, and they are no different from the previous school (referring to science). The only difference is that they believe that material changes (to be honest, economic changes) affect human thought. They have to change accordingly, which is why they are more knowledgeable and thorough than the previous school." It seems to be an expression of weak scientism.

In contemporary life, there are many strange things that endow empty "science" with value judgments. For example, to say that someone or something is "unscientific" means that the person or thing is not correct. Another example is calling a particular doctrine or policy viewpoint "scientific", and contradicting it is "unscientific" which is incorrect. This approach of equating scientific judgment with logical truth and political correctness is actually a more harmful scientism. There are countless lessons in this regard.

At the beginning of this century, some active and vigorous scholars played the banner of "anti-science". They criticized the theory of "science is omnipotent", opposed the endowment of science with value judgment and ideology, and advocated the strengthening of humanistic quality education, which played a critical role in criticizing scientism. role. But the banner of "anti-science" is not only able to attract the public's attention for a while, it is easy to cause misunderstanding and arouse the disgust of scientists. I don't agree with this, let alone those radical slogans and propaganda methods that pretend to be amazing.

9. Is Russell a "metaphysical ghost"?

On February 4, 1923, 10 days before Zhang Junmai’s speech at Tsinghua University, Haldane, the “Warrior” who later became a famous geneticist, delivered a speech at Cambridge University entitled “Daedalus, or Science and "Future", using the metaphor of Daedalus, the craftsman in Greek mythology, declares that science will challenge traditional morality, and there is no need for any scruples on the road of scientific exploration.

Haldane's presentation included some outrageous ideas, some of which have become reality today, some of which are subject to social or ethical constraints, and some of which may be surreptitiously being pursued in a laboratory somewhere.

Such as the clinical application of psychedelic drugs, the enhancement of guts or endurance by drugs (to make brave soldiers and tireless workers), the prolongation of women's youth by chemical means, the use of physiology instead of prisons to deal with evil instincts, asexual reproduction, Test-tube babies, family planning and eugenic control even hint at human-animal hybridization and euthanasia.

Haldane also believes that biologists are "the most romantic people on earth now", "destroyers of decaying empires and civilizations, doubters, shakers and god-killers", declaring that "future scientific workers will be more and more More and more like a lonely Daedalus, because he is aware of his terrible mission and takes pride in it".

Russell, a well-established philosopher, was very dissatisfied with his remarks, and published "Icarus, or the Future of Science" in response to his remarks the following year. The article borrows the story of Icarus, the son of Daedalus, who fell from the sky to warn mankind that the abuse of science will lead to devastating disasters.

The article wrote: "Icarus learned to fly under the guidance of his father Daedalus, and was destroyed because of his recklessness. I worry that after humans learn to fly under the education of modern scientific people, they will also suffer the same fate." In In conclusion he added: "Science has not given man more self-control, more love, or greater power to restrain his passions before deciding to act. It has given society greater power to indulge own collective passions, but through the greater organization of society, science has reduced the role of individual passions. The collective passions of man are primarily a criminal passion, the strongest of which is hatred and rivalry against other groups. Therefore, now Everything that gives man the power to indulge his passions is evil. That is why science may lead to the destruction of our civilization."

In Greek mythology, Daedalus fled to Crete after committing murder in Athens. He built a labyrinth for the local ruler King Minos to imprison the Minotaur, and used bird feathers and beeswax for himself and his son Icarus. Made flying wings. During the flight, Icarus ignored his father's instructions, flew too high and was melted by the sun's wings, and finally fell into the sea and died.

In the context of the debate between Haldane and Russell, Daedalus is not only a symbol of science and invention, but also bears the brand of "original sin" of technology; Icarus shows the courage and ambition of human beings to fight against nature, and is a flying hero. , is also a representative of retribution for despising nature.

Shortly before the confrontation with Haldane, Russell visited China in 1920, arrived on October 12, left on July 11 of the following year, and stayed in China for 9 months. He delivered five series of speeches and more than ten single speeches in five cities in Beijing and Beijing, met with all kinds of intellectuals, and made suggestions to different people on the topic of transforming China. The invitation and reception of Russell to China were presided over by the research department led by Liang Qichao, and several units headed by the Lecture Society went out to the outside world.

Liang Qichao had always been regarded as a conservative or even a reactionary by the pioneers of the New Culture Movement. At this time, his "Ou You Xin Video Record" had just been published. The invitation campaign initiated by him received far less enthusiastic response from the "May Fourth New Youth" side than expected. Hu Shi once warned Zhao Yuanren not to act as an interpreter for Russell. Chen Duxiu also published an open letter in "New Youth" questioning Russell's views on prioritizing the development of education and industry.

Here I ask a question in a whimsical way—if Russell came 3 years later and witnessed the whole process of the "Scientology and Mystic Controversy", which side would he stand on? In the Chinese context at that time, would he be denounced as a "metaphysics ghost"?

10. Reflection of Luo Jialun

In reviewing the narrative of the "Controversy between Science and Xuan", there is a person who is often overlooked. He is the student leader of the May 4th Movement, Luo Jialun (Zhixi). The "Manifesto of the Academic Circles in Beijing" was written by him, and the term "May 4th Movement" was also first seen in his article published on "Weekly Review" on May 26, 1919 under the pseudonym "Yi".

When Luo Jialun graduated from Peking University in 1920, Cai Yuanpei asked the Shanghai textile giant Mu Ouchu to provide a scholarship to send him and four other student leaders to study in the United States. Luo Jialun went to the United States in September of that year and successively studied at Princeton University, Columbia University, and many famous schools in Britain, Germany, and France, majoring in history and philosophy. He traveled in the West for 7 years and joined the Northern Expedition after returning to China. In 1928, he became the first president of Tsinghua University.

When the "Controversy between Science and Metaphysics" was in full swing, Luo Jialun was sitting in the library of Columbia University studying and thinking hard, and wrote a manuscript called "Science and Metaphysics". During his trip to Europe, he also carried the manuscript with him. He had discussions with Zhao Yuanren, Yu Dawei, Fu Sinian and others. After revision, he sent it back to China and published it in 1924, signed by Luo Zhixi. According to Roche's academic pedigree and domestic connections, he should be a fan of the "scientific" school, but he is not.

The author said at the beginning of the preface: "The content of this book has nothing to do with the so-called 'science and metaphysics debate' launched in China in the past, although the author was somewhat affected by that debate when he initiated the writing of this book." "Irrelevant" means that I did not participate in the domestic debate, and confessed the motivation for writing this book after being "shocked".

Due to being out of the way, having a rich collection of books, and being able to consult Dewey and other masters nearby, this "Science and Metaphysics" has a clear and clear atmosphere of looking at the mountains from outside the mountains. The first monograph on fair judgment.

The book is divided into four parts. The first part, "Wedge", explains the reason, and believes that "the debate between Zhang and Ding Erjun... is a sign that the vitality of the academic world will disappear." At the same time, it points out that "the Zhang and Ding Er schools are not enough to represent metaphysics and science." The middle two parts discuss science and metaphysics in detail respectively, with four sections each.

The science part includes: (1) brief history of science, Hume's problem, causality, empirical generality; (2) description and explanation, universal problem, precision and certainty, exclusion of value judgments, mathematization; (3) limits of science, Subject-object relationship, misunderstanding of science; (4) Historical schools of science (the author notes, it is actually a school of philosophy of science), purity and application.

The part of metaphysics includes: (1) Debate on nouns, basic issues, epistemology and ontology; (2) metaphysics is more critical than science, change of concept of time and space, induction, law of contradiction; (3) metaphysicians should not go beyond knowledge (4) Various misunderstandings of metaphysics and the author's defense.

The last part, "The Epilogue", discusses the relationship between science and metaphysics, talks about "the contribution of metaphysics spirit into science" and "good signs that modern science approaches metaphysics problems", and points out that "the cooperation between metaphysics and science, whether for knowledge or for life , are indispensable. Forcing separation, not only will the two suffer the same disaster, but also lose the true meaning of the two aspects." "From the perspective of the history of human knowledge development, it is obvious that science promotes metaphysics and metaphysics helps science. It is also the most proud thing in the intellectual world."

11. Today is a big question

The revolution in physics at the beginning of the 20th century overturned the traditional view of space and time, and the golden laws of science, such as the law of causality, the law of identity, and certainty, were all questioned, and the "scientific" faction in the "Scientific and Mystical Controversy" knew little about it. In the West, people who have just experienced the catastrophe of World War I would never have imagined that World War II would happen more than 20 years later, and that human beings would invent and use atomic killing weapons that are far more ruthless than yellow powder gas bombs.

Over the past 100 years, China and the world have undergone earth-shaking changes. While economic prosperity, social progress, and high-tech emerge in endlessly, human beings are also facing survival crises caused by ecological deterioration and resource depletion. The unfair distribution of wealth, the rampant terrorism, the ravages of viruses, and the ebb tide of globalization constitute new serious challenges. challenge. A rational response to these challenges requires both science and humanity.

When I was writing this short talk, news like ChatGPT kept coming to my ears, but a few old big questions came to my mind again and again. The answers to them far exceeded my intelligence and education, and I wrote it out to share with readers. Fang family.

Has human society always evolved? Is the Middle Ages in Europe backward compared to ancient Greece and Rome? Is the Renaissance more progressive than the Middle Ages? Whether progress or regression, what is the objective standard? Furthermore, will contemporary society suffer major setbacks?

If the left and the right are distinguished according to their attitudes toward social change, the "science" side in the "Scientology and Mystic Controversy" can be classified as the "leftist"; 100 years later, the contemporary Western leftists are allied with populism, cultural relativism, and radical environmentalists. The vanguard of critical science and Western culture, how did this mirror transformation happen? How relevant is it to the development of contemporary science and technology?

Whether in the physical world, the world of life or in human society, it is an indisputable fact that modernity and certainty coexist and co-prosper. However, since the end of the 19th century, there has been a tendency to lose certainty in many fields, not only science and mathematics, but also visual and auditory arts, certain literary genres, and even the evolution of human society. Some people think that this is a sign of a "post-modern" (or post-industrial) society. After turning over the "post-modern" article, will human beings witness a deterministic return to the "Meta-Postmodernity" (Meta-Postmodernity) Woolen cloth?

Is there a limit to the reductionism embraced by many physicists? Is the "dream of the ultimate theory" expected to come true? What is the ontological basis of generative theory (or self-evolutionary theory)?

Will machines evolve by themselves? Will the human-machine hybrid "Cyborg" become the master of the future world? Does the metaverse world leave room for mind-matter dualism?

Can artificial intelligence and bioengineering create life individuals such as "the strongest brain" and "the strongest iron man"? Can future technology realize the complete equality of human beings in intellectual and physical strength? Without geniuses and heroes, without ideals or ambitions, will the world become mediocre and reach the "end of history" in the sense of scholar Fukuyama?

I would like to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the "Controversy between Science and Metaphysics" with this article.

(The author, Liu Dun, is a Distinguished Professor of the Department of History of Science, Tsinghua University and former Director of the Institute of History of Natural Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences. The original title is "The Centennial Memorial of the "Controversy between Science and Metaphysics"")