A Man of Science and Engineering in Troubled Times Wandering in the Late Qing Dynasty

Chapter 684: The Dispute between Science and Xuan
In 1923, there were quite a number of students studying in the United States. There were more than 90 Boxer Indemnity students from Tsinghua University alone, and more than 60 students studied at their own expense. If Li Yu's education foundation is included, the total number exceeded .

Before leaving, there was a gathering in Tsinghua University as usual, and Li Yu was invited to give a speech again.

As for the content, we happened to talk about the previous article on dark matter.

Li Yu said: "From this kind of thing, we can see that there are still many unsolved mysteries in science that are worth exploring. Knowing the laws of the universe will also have a great impact on human society."

After continuing to talk for a while, several students began to raise their hands to ask questions.

Li Yu pointed at one of the girls and said, "Ladies first."

"Thank you, Mr. Academician. My name is Gu Jinghui," the girl said. "Recently, I saw some tabloids saying that the term 'dark matter' has a distinct mysterious connotation, as if we have returned to the age of astrology. Some people even came up with fallacies like the conjunction of five planets. How should we refute this argument?"

Gu Jinghui was the first female PhD in physics in Chinese history.

Li Yu said lightly: "Astrology? Five planets in alignment? These people must not know that there is no such thing as a five planet alignment, because the orbital planes of the major planets in the solar system are all at angles and can never be connected in a straight line."

Yang Wuzhi raised his hand again and asked, "What is inside the black hole?"

Li Yu spread his hands: "I still don't know."

Liang Shiqiu had been listening with great interest. Although he was not planning to study science, Tsinghua University had so many science and engineering courses that he must have reached the level of a middle school student. He was surprised and asked, "How come you don't know?"

Li Yu said: "Mathematically speaking, it is impossible to know what the inside of a black hole looks like. At most, we can speculate on some properties, such as its huge gravity will produce an infinite redshift surface, and its strong gravity will also produce a very obvious gravitational lens effect. If you can see the accretion disk of a black hole with your naked eyes, you may find that there is also a circle on its head, because that is the light emitted by the accretion disk behind it, which is twisted to the top of the black hole by the strong gravity."

Li Yu casually drew a very famous black hole picture on the blackboard, or should I say a rendering, which was the appearance of the Gargantua black hole in "Interstellar".

But after all, the scientific consultant of "Interstellar" is Nobel Prize winner in Physics Thorne. He led a team to spend two months conducting special calculations to give the appearance in the movie.

It should be said that it has a strong theoretical basis.

Of course, taking a picture of a black hole afterwards is another matter…

Li Yu continued: "In theory, time will also stop in a black hole. If you can survive falling into it, perhaps you can have a new understanding of time."

Yang Wuzhi asked: "You mean time stops and becomes eternal? Wouldn't that mean we can see the day when the universe is destroyed?"

"I don't know," Li Yu said with a smile, "but I think you should remember that a black hole is a celestial body, and it is not completely black."

If he wasn't afraid of being out of tune, Li Yu really wanted to sing "What kind of black is black you're talking about? The white in front of me is not white."

Li Yu's speech ended with a bunch of "I don't know". Next, Tsinghua University invited Zhang Junmai, a scholar who had studied in Europe, to speak.

His words will trigger the "science and metaphysics debate" that will spread throughout the academic community.

Zhang Junmai said: "The topic I want to talk about today is the outlook on life, which is a question that concerns one's entire life. I just want to explain the five differences between science and outlook on life, namely, 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 emphasizes synthesis, science obeys the law of causality while outlook on life obeys free will, science is committed to the unity of imagination while outlook on life originates from the unity of personality.

“…Based on these differences, we can conclude that no matter how advanced science is, the solution to the problem of outlook on life is not something science can do, but only depends on human beings themselves.”

Zhang Junmai's words immediately aroused opposition from the geologist Ding Wenjiang who was present. He questioned: "Mr. Zhang, do you also believe in such superficial sayings as 'the West is a material civilization, and China is a spiritual civilization'? Do you want to oppose science?"

Zhang Junmai quickly said: "I am not against science, I just think that the view of life is not scientific."

"If it's not a scientific outlook on life, can it still be considered an outlook on life?" Ding Wenjiang pressed on.

Zhang Junmai asked in return: "How can we discuss the view of life scientifically when it is so elusive?"

Ding Wenjiang said: "As you said, if science cannot control life, then what is the use of science?"

Seeing that they were about to quarrel, the principal Cao Yunxiang quickly came out to interrupt: "Today is a ceremony to send off students. If you have any academic disputes, you can discuss them in depth another day."

Cao Yunxiang was a president who made great contributions to Tsinghua University. Tsinghua National Academy was established during his tenure.

The two of them had to give Principal Cao face and did not continue arguing.

However, the very next day, Zhang Junmai’s “Outlook on Life” speech was published in Tsinghua Weekly.

After reading it, Ding Wenjiang immediately wrote an article entitled "Metaphysics and Science - Reply to Zhang Junmai" to refute it:
"The culture of the East and the West cannot be summarized by such general terms as material civilization or spiritual civilization. The subjective, intuitive, comprehensive, free-willed, and univocal outlook on life is built on very loose sand and cannot withstand the wind and rain. We should not be fooled by him!"

These two articles completely opened the curtain on the "battle between science and mystery".

Before long, more than thirty well-known scholars joined in.

Both sides had good lineups. In addition to Ding Wenjiang, the scientific camp also included Hu Shi, Ren Hongjun, Sun Fuyuan, Wu Zhihui and so on.

In fact, Ren Hongjun was more or less rational. He said very early on: "Mr. Zhang has never studied science and does not understand the nature of science, which is fine. But Mr. Ding is a scientist who studies geology, and he wants to use science to confuse Mr. Zhang's outlook on life. This is really 'irrelevant'. Science has its limits. Any vague and chaotic ideas or unanalyzed facts are not within the control of science. If the outlook on life is just a general concept, it is naturally not within the scope of science."

However, swept up in the general trend, he must stand on the side of science.

Later, the metaphysical school was led by Liang Qichao, Zhang Junmai, Zhang Dongsun and others.

Looking at the entire debate, most people are not actually specialized in science, but mainly people in the humanities.

In addition, there is no controversy about the word "science", but the word "metaphysics" was coined by Ding Wenjiang.

He said: "Metaphysics is really a rogue ghost. It has been fooling around in Europe for more than 2,000 years. Recently, it has gradually run out of places to make a living. Suddenly, it puts on a false front, hangs up a new sign, and swaggers to China to cheat people."

Metaphysics was originally a philosophical trend during the Wei and Jin Dynasties, which originated from Laozi's "Mysterious and mysterious, the door to all wonders".

However, the trend of pure conversation in the Wei and Jin dynasties was too negative, so later the term "metaphysics" often carried a strong derogatory meaning.

Some people suggested changing the word "metaphysics" to "philosophy", that is, "the debate between science and philosophy". However, at that time, the Chinese people knew too little about the foreign word "philosophy", so they still used "the debate between science and metaphysics".

Hu Shih was the first to leave, posting: "Since modern times, there is a term that has almost achieved a supreme dignity in China; no matter whether one understands it or not, no matter whether one is conservative or reformist, no one dares to express contempt or ridicule for it. That term is 'science'! Science and logic are both like the Tathagata Buddha, and no matter how many times 'metaphysics' turns, it cannot escape his control!"

Ding Wenjiang immediately expressed his support and directly mentioned the "omnipotence of science."

Wu Zhihui's article was a bit longer, but the final conclusion was "everything in the universe can be explained by science." Zhang Junmai was originally in a somewhat isolated situation, so Liang Qichao immediately stepped in and published a bland article, which only pointed out the value of this debate: "This issue is the biggest issue in the universe, and this kind of debate is unprecedented in our country. It is a great honor for the academic community to have such a grand wave of movement."

But a few people in the scientific faction were obviously blinded by bloodshed. They could not fail to support science, let alone an academic giant like Liang Qichao.

Hu Shih did not give in at all and wrote: "Confucius and Mozi both came into being one after the other. Mr. Liang, please tell me, if you think Confucius represents China, then is Mozi a Westerner?"

It is easy to understand why Hu Shi and others were so excited, because in their view, this debate was related to the foundation of the country.

As a representative of the New Culture Movement, Hu Shih held both the banners of "science" and "democracy" in his hands. So he said, "Science has not yet shown its benefits in China, but it has been attacked. We must fight against the 'metaphysical ghosts', and people of insight must come out to 'defend science'."

Lin Zaiping of the metaphysical school (who later joined Tsinghua University) quickly responded by saying, "Ten years ago, there was no need to refute the 'omnipotence of science'. It was better to exaggerate because otherwise it would not attract many people's attention. But now, precisely because everyone knows the importance of science, we need to thoroughly reflect on the areas in which it plays a role and its true value."

In fact, if you think about it carefully, these views of the metaphysical school are based on a philosophical perspective and there is nothing wrong with them.

However, Lin Zaiping's status was indeed not as good as Liang Qichao's, and Hu Shi was waiting for Ren Gong's reply.

Ten days after Hu Shi published his article, Liang Qichao responded: "In the past, I had the same idea as Mr. Hu Shi, but after the European War, I went there to investigate in person, and the result was not what I expected.

"At that time, those people in Europe who sang the praises of the omnipotence of science were full of hope that science would succeed and a golden age would soon appear. Now the work has finally been accomplished. The material progress in the past 100 years has increased several times more than that achieved in the previous 3,000 years. Not only did we humans not gain happiness, but we have also brought many disasters upon ourselves. ... Europeans dreamed of the omnipotence of science, but now they are saying that science has gone bankrupt. This is a major key to the recent changes in thought.

"As for the life problems you are discussing, I think most of them can and must be solved by scientific methods. However, a small part - or the most important part - is beyond science.

“No matter how far science develops, ‘love’ and ‘beauty’ will always be beyond science. No matter how much the territory and authority of the scientific empire expand, this ‘Mr. Love’ and that ‘Mr. Beauty’ will always maintain their status of ‘not being loyal to the emperor above, and not being friends with the princes below’.”

Liang Qichao had decades of rich experience in debate. Back then, he could single-handedly withstand the siege of a group of bigwigs including Zhang Taiyan, Mr. Sun, Hu Hanmin, and Wang Zhaoming, and it was difficult to break through his attack.

However, Hu Shi and others still objected: "With China in decline, what else can we hope for except science and democracy? You blame science and material civilization for the severe setback of European civilization caused by the war. What else can you do but substitute one thing for another?"

This argument is also very sharp. It does not attack Liang Qichao's conclusion, but directly points to Liang Qichao's arguments.

Zhang Junmai was not to be outdone and continued, "You believe that science is omnipotent. Haven't you read Icarus, or the Future of Science, by Mr. Bertrand Russell, who just visited China?"

This is another very powerful argument of the metaphysical school.

Less than a month ago, Russell had just had a debate with geneticist Haldane in the UK.

Haldane first published an article, using the Greek mythological craftsman Daedalus as a metaphor, claiming that science would challenge traditional morality and that there was no need to have any scruples on the road of scientific exploration.

The main point is "no need to worry about anything". Haldane cited many seemingly shocking ideas, such as the clinical application of psychedelic drugs to enhance people's courage or endurance through drugs (to cultivate brave soldiers and tireless workers), prolonging women's youth through chemical methods, using physiology instead of prisons to deal with evil instincts, asexual reproduction, test-tube babies, eugenics control, and even hinting at human-animal hybrids and euthanasia.

(I have to say, many things were actually realized later...)
Russell opposed his views and wrote "Icarus, or the Future of Science" in response.

In Greek mythology, Daedalus was the father of Ikaros.

After committing murder in Athens, Daedalus fled to Crete for refuge. He built a labyrinth for the local ruler King Minos to imprison the Minotaur, and made wings for himself and his son Ikaros with bird feathers and beeswax. During the flight, Ikaros ignored his father's instructions, flew too high, and the sun melted his wings, and he eventually fell into the sea and died.

Russell thus said:
"Ikaros learned to fly under the guidance of his father Daedalus, but was destroyed because of his recklessness. I am afraid that after humans learn to fly under the guidance of modern scientists, they will suffer the same fate.

"Science has not given to mankind more self-control, more love, or greater power to restrain its passions before acting. It has given society greater power to indulge its collective passions...

"Therefore, everything that now gives man the power to indulge his passions is evil. This is why science may lead to the destruction of our civilization."

However, Russell's article mainly discusses the warning that human abuse of science will lead to devastating disasters. Although the arguments and thesis are also very tenable, it is somewhat irrelevant to the issue of outlook on life in the current debate between science and metaphysics.

In fact, it is easy for the scientific faction in China to oppose: "We would rather be destroyed by science as you said than stand still and be destroyed by the great powers because of backward science! At least if our science is strong, we can keep pace with the great powers."

When the two sides were fighting fiercely, another faction emerged, the historical materialism school represented by the unique Chen Zhongfu. But judging from their main viewpoints, they can generally be considered to be on the scientific side.

But Mr. Zhongfu has a more thorough view: Although the conclusions of the metaphysical school are not wrong, the First World War should not be blamed on science, because the Renaissance in Europe was originally due to the emphasis on people after the Black Death swept across Europe, and the development of science was initially intended to free human power through machines because too many Europeans died.

However, Hu Shi and others placed too much emphasis on the trump card of "science is omnipotent" and did not make any essential breakthrough in terms of ideological depth.

Therefore, Mr. Zhongfu sighed: "It is a pity that those who attacked Zhang Junmai and Liang Qichao seemed to have won on the surface, but in fact they did not break through the enemy's base camp. They only broke up several detachments. Some of them were still fighting there on the surface, but had surrendered secretly."

——This is an ironic judgment.

After all, everyone thinks that Li Yu is at the top of science, and they want to ask for his opinion.

Li Yu had been watching the situation for a while and had accumulated a lot of requests for manuscripts from editorial departments.

It's time for a brief summary.

Judging from the results, the scientific side clearly won the debate.

The main reason is that the metaphysical school was born at the wrong time. There is too great a contrast between their discussions on the mind and nature and the harsh reality in China. Questioning the applicability of science is tantamount to opposing science, which is why they aroused strong rebuttal from the scientific school.

But if we take the metaphysical school's question alone, that is, can science solve the outlook on life? The "scientific" school has no chance of winning, and no scholar has given a comprehensive and convincing affirmative answer.

After careful consideration, Li Yu wrote:
“For thousands of years, both science and humanities have been inseparable from certainty. Everything seems to have its own rules.

"But the progress of science in recent years has clearly shown uncertainty, whether it is physics that explains the laws of nature or rigorous mathematics. This uncertainty quickly spread to areas such as culture and art.

“Many questions don’t seem to have definite answers. The world seems to be unpredictable and full of chaos.

“If we look at it from a higher perspective, science and humanities are not separate.

"So I think that the cooperation between metaphysics, or philosophy, and science is indispensable for both knowledge and life. Forcing the two to separate will only cause both to suffer. From the historical perspective of the development of human knowledge, it is a remarkable fact that science promotes metaphysics and metaphysics helps science. This is also the proudest thing in the intellectual world.

"As I have said many times,
“Humanities without science are sentimental;
“Science without the humanities is arrogant.

"Only by complementing each other can we achieve mutual success, right?!"

At the end of this somewhat "muddy" article, Li Yu also playfully added: "Isn't it enough to just discuss the outlook on life? What about the world view and values?"

(End of this chapter)