李約瑟(Joseph N eedham) 在其巨著〈中國科學技術史> (Science and Civilisationin China) 第二卷中，認為先秦兩漢陰陽家所代表的中國思維方式，是一種「關聯性的」(correlative) 或「聯想J性的J (associative) 思維方式，與西方的「從屬性的J (subordinative)和「因果性的J (causaI)思維方式有本質上的差異。他並認為古代中國的陰陽、五行的概念模式，將天和人理解為一有機的整體，並以天地萬物與人之間有一種相互感應的關係，其問顯示為一種自然的秩序，乃是自然主義(naturalism) 。李約瑟認為這種機體主義(或有機主義organism) 或自然主義可提供一些前科學或原始科學的(protoscientific)論述，並對中國科學技術的發展具有積極推動的作用。本文的目的主要是要分析李約瑟對所謂中國古代的自然主義觀點，評論論據的有效性，並對中國古代運用陰陽、五行概念模式及氣化觀點的論述作一整體而簡約的檢討。在最後附論中，本文進一步析論李約瑟對道家思想詮釋之合理性，從而展示道家思想的性格基本上是非科學的，亦不屬於李約瑟所主張的生物機體式的「自然主義」。

Joseph Needham, in the second volume of his masterpiece, Science andCivilization in China, makes a great effort to promote the thought of theancient Yin-yang School. He believes that, in contrast to the subordinativeand causal mode of thinking in the West, the Chinese way of thinking in thisperiod is correlative and associative. He also recognizes that the thinkers ofthe Yin-yang School, especially of the Han Dynasty, are naturalists in termsof organism. His view is that, through the conceptual scheme of yin-yang andwu-xing (five powers or agents), these thinkers (a) understand tian (heaven)and ren (human beings) as an organic whole; (b) claim that there is a correspondencein terms of gan-ying (mutual understanding) between heaven,earth, and all things, on the one hand, and human beings, on the other; and (c)maintain that there is natural order exhibited in between. Needham believesthat this organism or naturalism can provide some kind of proto-scientificdiscourse and make a contribution to the development of science and technologyin China.The aim of this paper is first of all to analyze the arguments of Needham'sview. 1 discuss both the heuristic and exaggerated portions of his viewand examine the discourses using conceptual schemes of yin-yang and wuxingand the view of qi-emergence in ancient China. 1 show that, althoughthis kind of operation of ideas has generalizations based on limited empiricalphenomena, most of these ideas are speculative and not based on empiricalground and thus cannot be recognized as either standard or alternative science.Finally, in the last section, 1 demonstrate the inaccuracy of Needham'sinterpretation of Daoist thought and show that Daoist thought is fundamentallyunscientific and thus should not be labeled as “naturalism."