Dr Yin Gao

Building a Bridge between the East and West

Dr. Yin Gao is a researcher endeavoring in building an intellectual bridge between the Western and Chinese philosophical and scientific traditions so that a meaningful dialog among these traditions becomes possible.

Dr. Yin Gao came to Australia in 1993 after worked in both civil engineering industry and a university in P. R. China. She was strongly influenced by her father, a research fellow of public health education, and her grandfather, a classic scholar and high school teacher of Chinese. Both of them were educated in old fashioned private school and had a passion for classical literature and poetry. She grew up memorizing and chanting classical texts and poetry by well-known writers and poets as well as poems composed by her father and grandfather and inherits their passion and acquired extensive knowledge of Chinese classics. While conducting her PhD research on philosophy of science, her passion for classical Chinese philosophy and its roles in Chinese science and technologies were ignited by the radically different philosophical presumptions underpinning modern science and the so-called “Needham Question”, as phrased by the great historian of Chinese science and technology Joseph Needham, “the essential problem [is] why modern science had not developed in Chinese civilization (or Indian) but only in Europe”.

Although her PhD thesis did not directly address the “Needham Question”, it has one chapter devoted to a comparative study of the theoretical framework and organizational infrastructure of western scientific practice to those of Chinese scientific practice. The particular subject-matters under investigation are the Human Genome Project and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) respectively. This work and subsequent research into evidence-based medicine (EBM) and the theories and practice of TCM suggested that the “Needham Question” is rather misleading because it assumes a linear progressive view of science and technology. Perhaps the question is not “why modern science had not developed in China?”, but “what kind of science had developed in China?” or “what lead to different kind of science in China?”

Informed by contemporary history and philosophy of science especially the work of Thomas Kohn and others, Dr. Yin Gao and her colleagues begin their inquiry into the philosophic foundation of Chinese science. They initiated their investigation on theories and practice of TCM starting with a literal reading of classical Chinese philosophical and medical texts followed by an enriched reading of these texts informed by modern research into TCM and complex adaptive system theory. Their research suggests that there is a set of metaphysical, epistemological, as well as derived ontological presumptions about human perception, knowledge, skills, human body, health and disease, and the natural and human world presented in these texts that are radically different from those underlying modern science of the West.  Some of these works have been published in the last decade and more is to come in a cluster of related subjects including:  the philosophical foundation of TCM, TCM and complex adaptive system, philosophy of complex adaptive system, comparative philosophy, military metaphors in medicine, and modern history of modern medicine and TCM in China, etc. Her published works focus on:

1. Constructing a set of conceptual tools borrowed from complex adaptive system theory to interpret TCM theory as presented in classical texts including Daodejing, Zhuangzi, Huainanzi, the Yellow Emperor Inner Canon and other philosophical and medical texts;  
2. Articulating the concepts of human perception, knowledge/skill, human body, health and diseases in these texts ;
3. Interpreting the philosophical framework of TCM using concepts borrowed from complex adaptive system theory so that the theories and practices of TCM became accessible to western audience in general and researchers and practitioners of biomedicine;
4. Critically analyzing the current research and practice of TCM in PRC and introducing a new approach in assessing TCM research in PRC and in the West;
5. Analyzing the philosophical presumptions underlying the current debate about TCM in PRC.  

She also published works in other area related to the applications of complex adaptive system theory:

1. Analyzing the conceptual and physical infrastructure of scientific practice in the West from a complex system perspective;
2. Constructing a conceptual frameworks of research for analyzing ecosystem ecology;
3. Articulating a new conceptual framework for architectural design and town planning policy informed by complex system theory.  

Her current work continues to explore the philosophical basis of Chinese science in general and TCM in particular and investigates conceptual constructs in the theories of TCM such as key metaphors and key metaphysical and epistemological assumptions presented in classical Chinese philosophical and medical texts. She is also collaborating with colleagues to introduce a comparative philosophy branch to her research as well as the current debate on TCM in both China and Australia. Her current research projects include:  

1. A comparative study of military metaphors and other metaphors in biomedicine and TCM
2. The philosophical issues in the current debate on TCM
3. Comparative study of human perception, knowledge, and skill in the Daoist tradition and phenomenology  
4. The rise of western medicine and the fall of TCM in China since 1894
5. Key metaphysical presumptions made in Daoist tradition and TCM

Dr. Yin Gao’s published works and current research projects will provide a critical bridging device connecting the philosophical and scientific traditions in the East and West. They would also provide an access point for anyone who is interested to learn alternative frameworks of metaphysics, epistemology and related ontology to those defined by mainstream western philosophical traditions. These works would contribute to the general understanding of Chinese philosophy and its roles in the development of Chinese science and technology. In a sense, they would address not the “Needham Question” but the related question “what kind of science had developed in China?” and perhaps the more precisely defined question “why this particular kind of science and technology have developed in China?”.