余英時認為：戴震「由訓詁而通經以明道」，章學誠則代之以「由校讎而通文 史以明道」，二者皆落在「道問學」的模式之內，而分別與宋學之「鑿空言理」相 抗衡。二者看似殊途同歸，同樣使經學或經典研究引向余氏所謂「智識主義」 (intellectualism) 的道路，而揚棄宋學中的「反智主義」(anti-intellectualism) 傳統。 本文的目的在指出：無論是戴震的訓詁方法之實質運用，或章學誠的歷史方 法之具體運作，皆非如余氏所謂「經驗的研究」(empirical studies)，純以語言證 據和歷史事實而作之論斷，而無形上的思辯或主觀的想像。 本文要論證：二者皆被余氏誤套在知識化 (intellectualization) 的膺假論旨 (pseudo-thesis) 之中，而余氏並不知此乃欲去哲學化 (de-philosophicalization) 而 去不了的兩個神話 (two myths)。

Yu Ying-shih 余英時 thinks that Dai Zhen’s approach of “using philology to interpret Confucian classics for understanding dao” and Zhang Xuecheng’s idea of “using jiaochou 校讎 (collation) to explicate literature and history for understanding dao” are different methods for the same goal. That is, both give up the unsubstantial metaphysics of Song learning 宋學, have an approach of “daowenxue” 道問學 (following intellectual knowledge), and make an academic shift of classical studies to “intellectualism” and thus reject the “anti-intellectualism” in the tradition of Song learning. This paper aims at demonstrating that, actually, both Dai Zhen’s using of philological method and Zhang Xuecheng’s using of historical method are not the so-called “empirical studies” merely based on linguistic evidences and historical facts and thus without metaphysical speculations and subjective imagination, as claimed by Yu Ying-shih. In this paper, I will argue that both Dai Zhen and Zhang Xuecheng’s theories are misinterpreted by Yu Ying-shih as an approach of “intellectualization.” I think this is a pseudo-thesis. They are two myths of classical studies which are unsuccessful approach to de-philosophicalization.