Though human reason and therefore science contain something universal, they are also culture bound, for reason has diverse modes of expression and realization in different cultures. For example, modern Western science contains something universal, but with Martin Heidegger we should say that it also is a choice made by the Western culture since the time of Parmenides. Should we not agree with Heidegger that Western science is determined by a metaphysical vision of reality focused upon grasping and dominating the beings present to man--the outcome of what Heidegger calls the onto-theo-logical constitution of metaphysics--nevertheless, we should say that this focus was a choice which arbitrarily set aside many other possibilities. In contrast, Chinese traditional science, though it has its weakness in neglecting the scientific rationality concretized in the Western modern science, nevertheless has the advantage of taking into account the holistic and organic relation between man and nature.

If we compare Chinese science with European science, we could say that the rationality of the latter consists in a controlled way of interaction between logico-mathematically formulated theoretical propositions, on the one hand, and empirical experimentation, on the other. But in Chinese traditional science we do not find any attempt to formulate theories in logico-mathematical propositions. Theories in Chinese traditional science were proposed through a speculative insight, grasping the global situation and organic relation between the object in question and its environment. No empirical experimentation was conducted in order to elaborate technically controlled perception. Observation and experimentation were done in traditional Chinese science, not with a view to controlling the perception of the object, but rather to letting things happen in their own way and according to their own nature. We could say, therefore, that instead of modern Western scientific rationality, Chinese tractional science possesses a kind of reasonableness which, in understanding man and the world, refers always to the dimension of totality: the totality of human existence, the totality of nature, and the totality of man's situation in the world.

In saying this, I intend not simply to compare, but to point out that science is culture-bound and that in philosophy of science we need not only to inquire into the structure of theories, the validity of experiments, and the relation between them, but also to philosophize upon the principles implied in the rationalities concretized in different cultures.

In current philosophy of science there is a danger of having nothing to do with what scientists actually do and of having no impact upon them. There is also the danger that current scientific practice seldom reflects at a philosophical level. The separation between philosophy and science is harmful for both. Especially given today's interdisciplinary way of doing science, there is need of a more comprehensive philosophy of science. In this spirit I see new possibilities in the "realism" a Viennese School which proposes a strategy for relating different scientific disciplines. If each scientific discipline is seen as constructing its own micro-world by its own disciplinary discourse, it could be reasonable sometimes to go out of one's own language and to appropriate other languages in order to see more clearly the limits of one's own micro-world and to reflect upon its principles. This strategy of alienating inter-disciplinarity (sometimes referred to by the awkward neologism, "strangification" after the terms "verification", "falsification," and the like) moving between different micro-worlds seems helpful both for science and philosophy.

Beyond this, I would suggest that a similar process can take place between different cultural worlds. This could be true especially of the philosophy implied in traditional Chinese science, which could offer new light for the future of science. I believe also that a mutual enrichment of Chinese and European sciences could give birth to a new vision of science which will have natural implications for future education.

In a time of radical change, science is also in a process of radical modification. An attitude of coordination among disciplines and cultures-- searching for complementarity while respecting differences--is now especially needed in order to reach a more constructive way of doing science and philosophy of science. May this cooperation between Western and Chinese scholars in reflecting upon philosophy of science and education contribute to the great common intellectual enterprise of mankind.

Vincent Shen

Department of Philosophy

National Cheng Chi University

Taipei, Taiwan