Ancient Greece Vs China

Geoffrey Lloyd and Nathan Sivin, relying on their respective expertise in the history of Greece and China, present a comparative study on the paths and patterns followed by the ancient Greek and Chinese to form their early sciences and medicines within distinct social and cultural contexts. Their investigations are confined to the period from 400 B.C. to 200 A.D. for the reason that “both China and Greece passed through analogous transitions and left records of comparable richness in these six hundred years” (p. 10). Focusing on the social and institutional framework as well as the fundamental issues, they devote two chapters to Chinese science and another two to Greek science symmetrically. They try to display “a cultural manifold” (p. xi)
To summarize the answers, they list the superficial similarities and fundamental differences between the two counterparts from seven aspects by claiming that during the specified period: 1) the concepts used by the Greeks were more similar to modern science than those by the Chinese (which is obvious); 2) individual thinking and speaking were stimulated in Greece but restricted by the political authority in China (which only applies to the end of that period with inevitability and necessity); 3) the Greeks saw the cosmos, the state and the body as analogous while the Chinese saw them as a complex whole (actually also analogous); 4) pluralism was mandatory in Greece but rather impossible in China (which depends on the interpretation of “pluralism”); 5) the reputation of a philosopher, scientist or physician depended on his own abilities in Greece rather than a ruler’s preference in China (which is arbitrary and unfair seeing the well-known tales of many skilled physicians in that period) ; 6) the Greeks encouraged argument and competition while the Chinese pursued consensus and harmony (which is true); 7) the Chinese disliked open disagreement and confrontation but the Greeks favored them zealously (which is also