My motive was to respond to what you implied, that the 70 m wide road were a major achievement, and why knowing the true shape of the earth was more important than being able to build a 70m wide road. You said that you fail to see why, and I tried to explain why. You implied certain things, which I showed were not necessarily true, and they don't warrant personnel attacks.
This was what I said, and I quote:
Not everyone tries to score points and one up others. If that is your mindset when reading Needham, then it wouldn't matter what he writes. You've made your opinion already. I also fail to see how you would see this as more "significant" than 70 meter wide Han roads. The incredible width shows the scale of manpower and resources required to build such highways. On the other hand, whatever concept of the spherical earth made by the Chinese were shown by Needham to be made with incorrect reasoning, so how is this more significant? It shows nothing about Chinese astronomy at all. Needham himself mentions how such "round earth" concepts were insignificant to Chinese mapmaking.
Face it, your lie has been exposed.
Wrong. It is very necessary, since Needham is one of the main sources on ancient Chinese achievements. If he has a bias, then that is a significant fact and not irrevelant to the discussion. You cited the example of the 70m road to show he wasn't biased, and I cited other examples to show that he does have one. If Needham wasn't such a major source, it would all be irrevelant, but he is.
What you "showed" was an out of context quote proving that you never even read what you criticized. My quote again:
You either haven't read his work or you skimmed over it. Needham says that Zhang Heng's view of a celestial sphere contributed to the idea of the spherical earth, which he claimed to be first pointed out by "Yu His", not Zheng Heng. This was due to the fact that Zhang Heng's idea of a celestial sphere and a flat earth were seen as incompatible. In fact your quote from Zhang Heng was in the context of describing the Daoist creation of the universe, while Needham's quote came from another seperate work describing the present universe. What he "implied" is only the reader's opinion. Yet even if he did say Zhang Heng believed in a spherical earth, that is hardly an accurate picture of the thousands of pages he wrote, in which many inventions were labeled as achievements of other cultures, with none of the reluctant tone that you imply. It is only your mindset which skewed the tone of his work. If anything, Needham's weakness is that of being outdated, but you can hardly blame the deceased for that.
This is contrary your claim that Needham gave the impression that Zhang "believed the spherical earth". You've been caught lying. That's all there is to it.
On the screw, some comments accidently got left off. Despite acknowleging the Chinese lack of knowledge and use about the screw, Needham nonetheless still tries to to imply the Chinese contributed to the developement of the propeller in a very convoluted argument involving how European smoke jacks and Chinese zoetropes,.
Needham said "it was not impossible that Chinese contributed". And he has sources to show propeller-like instruments from Han times, as well as a contemporary European account set around 1780. He was talking about the "screw propeller", not just any propeller as you claim. If you think conjecturing that Chinese "might" have contributed towards something is "strongly pro-Chinese", then what does that say about you?
To give another example of where other scholars disagree with Needhamn, below is an article from Wikipedia"
"According to
Needham, the Chinese in the
Song Dynasty and continuing
Yuan Dynasty did make use of a dry compass, although this type never became as widely used in China as the wet compass.......
However, according to Kreutz there is only a single Chinese reference to a dry-mounted needle (built into a pivoted wooden tortoise) which is dated to between 1150 and 1250, but there is no indication that Chinese mariners ever used anything but the floating needle in a bowl until the 16th-century European contacts.
[16]
Wrong, the dry compass was in "The Meaning of Pharmacopeia Elucidated" as well as the "Guide through the Forest of Affairs". He also specifically said "The dry-pivot compass thus been invented, but although these primitive arrangements seem still to have been used as late as the +13th century, Chinese sailors did not (so far as we know) employ them".
He also stated : Chinese sailors remained faithful to the floating compass for many centuries. Although the dry pivoted compass had been described early in the twelfth century, it did not become common on Chinese vessels until reintroduced from the West four hundred years later"
and again: "This is of great interest because it indicates that the dry suspension from below was known during the Sung [Song] period. The reconstruction is given in Fig. 169. We shall later find that the floating compass remained more popular among the Chinese during the following centuries, however, and that when it was superseded by the dry suspension, this was connected with European maritime influence. Nevertheless the first dry suspension was Chinese."
Here is the quote from Kreutz: "There is one Chinese reference toa dry-mounted needle (built into a pivoted wooden tortoise) which is dated to between 1150 and 1250, but there is no indication that Chinese mariners ever used anything but the floating needle in a bowl until the 16th-century European contacts.
Thus, I really fail to see where Kreutz' claim was any different from Needham's. You made it sound like he disagreed with him, when in fact Kreutz did not and commonly used Needham as a source. You changed Kreutz' tone to fit your agenda. This adds just one more piece of proof that you haven't read Needham to the pile I have already collected. It also shows your definition of "strongly pro-Chinese", in which the tiniest hint that the Chinese contributed to a thing would be responded with blind accusation.
Additionally, it must be pointed out that, unlike Needham, other experts on the history of the compass make no mention of an indigenous dry compass in China and reserve the term for the European form which became later worldwide standardorm which became later worldwide standard"
Here is all the more proof you haven't read him. Needham was clear the "European form" displaced local ones, so whatever motive you have for your statement is unnecessary. Your need to prove European superiority is blinding you to what Needham said.
On a side note, I found a site that compared Roman and Han China
Comparison between Roman and Han Empires - Wikiversity
Stop pretending. Your link allows me to conclude you're Gun Powder Ma, a wikiversity/wikipedia editor, who expounded his inferiority complex on wiki and now brings his sinophobia here. Your phrasings, word choice, and views(Everything from Roman superiority over Chinese to anti-Needham attitude) are cloned copies. And to think you yourself are the one who gave the link. You didn't "find" it so much as created it. A quick search would also reveal you to be "Gun powder ma" in All Empires forum, where you expounded the same thing about Chinese inferiority. From there posters revealed you to be "Tibet Libre" on China History Forum(in which I myself occasionally visit), and it doesn't take a genius to know your sinophobic tendencies would make you unwelcome there. Obviously whatever you feel for 'Tibet Libre' (Tibetan independence) stems more from sinophobia than any benign care for Tibet. And who knows where else you've been preaching your tasteless sermon. It's great to know where your genuine interest in history comes from. Maybe I'm too harsh in revealing you for who you really are, but I'm tired of this innocent pretense you put on. It couldn't fool a toddler, and it's insulting my intelligence. If you are willing to criticize an author whom you never read, over things he never said, then there's not much to complain about when people criticize you over things you did do.
