Adversaries and authorities: investigations into Greek and Chinese science

62 reads "Cooke (1936)", and p. 230 note 1 reads "Harrison (1982-1976)", but neither is to be found in the bibliography. In one instance (p. 47 notes 93 and 94) the footnotes are incomplete. Despite these shortcomings in the published volume, the author has in this study not only catalogued terms and texts relating to divination and magic from the ancient northwest Semitic world but also interpreted them within the context of what we know of the society and general world-view at that time and place. The practices that are to be seen emerging in this particular area of the ancient Near East are fundamental to our understanding of the role and practice of magic and divination to later centuries when they came to be viewed as competitors to more "rational" approaches to the maintenance of health. The collection of essays brought together here represents Lloyd's "preliminary forays" into the field of comparative studies of the development of science in China and Greece between 300 BC and 200 AD. The conclusions may be speculative and tentative, but Lloyd makes a highly persuasive case for the necessity of studying the two areas together, in order to counter any assumption by specialists in either subject that there is something inevitable in the way that that culture "did" science. In the process, he argues for a level of comparison which moves well beyond simply identifying a concept, such as Greek "humoral theory", then looking for a single equivalent in Chinese culture. Even where the two cultures may have studied the same things, they did so out of different interests, asking different questions. In using each to test conjectures about the other, Lloyd investigates such topics as the claims of science, the uses of methodology and epistemology in persuasion, and the concepts of cause and of the infinite. Throughout the book, Lloyd emphasizes the agonistic, confrontational character of Greek science. However, he resists setting this up against an opposed Chinese "irenic" science, always aiming at consensus, and instead looks at the style and social context of intellectual exchanges in both cultures. Because Greek scientists needed to attract followers-and paying pupils-they needed to create a climate of rivalry, to counter claims made by others, and to show that they were the best on offer. Individuals could move freely from group to group, in contrast with Chinese scientists who had a lifelong commitment to one group. …