Introduction

Why had Europe been able to breakthrough into modern science? Eurocentric accounts attribute it to certain ‘qualities’ said to be ‘unique’ to Europe. Opposed to Eurocentrism is a position known as the dialogical perspective. Dialogism argues that Europe had borrowed heavily from non-European scientific knowledges without which it could not have made the breakthrough into modern science. However, dialogism is unable to explain why, based upon such borrowings, Europe was able to make the breakthrough itself. In response to the challenge of dialogism, Eurocentric scholars have advanced various arguments since known as neo-Eurocentric arguments. Dialogism has not been able to respond to them. Hence, the debate between Eurocentrism/neo-Eurocentrism and dialogism currently stands at a stalemate, with the former enjoying a slight edge over the latter. Underpinned by a specially designed theoretical-methodological framework, we show that to secure the non-Eurocentric case and decisively rebut Eurocentrism and neo-Eurocentrism, whereas dialogism serves as a valid and important starting point, it is necessary to go beyond it theoretically and methodologically.