The Grand Titration: Science and Society in East and West

by Joseph Needham

First published in 1969.

The historical civilization of China is, with the Indian and European-Semitic, one of the three greatest in the world, yet only relatively recently has any enquiry been begun into its achievements in science and technology. Between the first and fifteenth centuries the Chinese were generally far in advance of Europe and it was not until the scientific revolution of the Renaissance that Europe drew ahead. Throughout those fifteen centuries, and ever since, the West has been profoundly affected by the discoveries and invention emanating from China and East Asia.

In this series of essays and lectures, Joseph Needham explores the mystery of China's early lead and Europe's later overtaking.

Genres: History, Science, China, Nonfiction

368 pages, Hardcover

First published October 28, 1969

About the author

Joseph Needham was a British biochemist, historian and sinologist known for his scientific research and writing on the history of Chinese science and technology. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1941, and a fellow of the British Academy in 1971. In 1992, Queen Elizabeth II conferred on him the Companionship of Honour, and the Royal Society noted he was the only living person to hold these three titles.

Reviews

[William Connolley · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a collection of essays by Joseph Needham about science in China and the West. The nominal question to be answered is "why, given that in ye olde dayes China was more tech than the West, how come it didn't invent modern science?". But in practice much more space is given to convincing us that the antient Chinese were great. If what you're interested in is stuff about antient Chinese science and tech, then that's great (although the disparate essays could have been better edited to remove redundant repetition); but what I wanted was him to make good on the title.

His answer is, fundamentally, that China got bureaucracy, Europe got merchantile democracy (as far as I noticed he doesn't take one further step back to ask why that happend). But he is uneasy in his explanation: is it democracy, is it merchants? And why are all of his "applications" military? A quote: "There is probably no other culture in the world where the conception of the civil service has become so deeply rooted... Instead of stories about heroes and heroines becoming kings or princesses, as in Europe, in China it is always a matter of taking a high place in the examinations and rising in the bureaucracy" From which it really doesn't take much to realise that a society where the highest ambition is to be an arts-side bureaucrat isn't going to get scientific flourishing.

There's a pretty scathing review in Science from 1970 which says quite a bit of what I wanted to say, but perhaps more authoritatively.

Let me say a bit about how badly he establishes his core concern, which is (I am paraphrasing, I hope you understand) that "everything" in the West was really invented in China. His method of doing this is to notice that the Chinese had, say, clocks, quite early on; that the West had better clocks later, and then to say or imply or infer that Western clock tech comes from China. But what he never does is prove any transmission; or really make any effort to demonstrate.

There's another issue, which is that in most cases he is talking more about tech than science. Bureaucracy isn't greatly threatened by tech; people making better ink or an improved lock-gate aren't a threat; it's the people wondering about the stars who need to be controlled.

You can't trust him on the details. He asserts that "astronomy had been brought to quite a high level in China" but what he means is observations. Their theory was utterly deficient; they weren't even interested enough to ask.

And that's a good place to segue into a congruent but distinct view, which I get from Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: that the Key Insight, which the antient Greeks provided, was criticism. The idea that you created theories of how the world was, but others were allowed to criticise and scutinise, and propose better. You see immeadiately that kind of attitude fits well with merchantile democracy, and very poorly with bureaucracy of any stripe.

In a way, we're back to the similar "why poverty?" question. The answer is "you don't need to explain poverty; it is the natural state". Similarly "why ignorance?". And so "why no science?" gets the same answer: that's the default. You have to be special to get science.

Full review, with quotes, at https://wmconnolley.blogspot.com/2025...

[Boogie · Rating 3 out of 5]

A collection of essays written at different times and on different topics, although their core is the same - how did it happen that China was ahead of the West in some respects, and why did the transfer of inventions discovered in China stir the social structure of Western countries, when no such changes occurred in China?
It is definitely worth reading the first few chapters, but by the end of the book the facts and conclusions begin to repeat.

[Iris Shu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yellow fever patient zero right here. nevertheless he is kind of awesome. attempts at least to demystify the myths of the Orient when nobody else in the academy was much successful at it

[Nina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amazing insight into the fundamental difference between western and eastern cultures!