This dissertation explores particular techniques of philosophical analysis, methods of problem, formation of the main concepts, principles, methodology and theoretical conclusions of the "Joseph Needham's school". This evaluation is presented as an important development in Western philosophy and the history of philosophy. The specificity of the rationalist humanism associated with the approach of the "Joseph Needham's school" to the study of social processes and the resulting synthesis of biology and humanities research. It is presented the application of biological research's methodology to describing the social processes. It was shown how the evolution theory was applied for understanding the progress within the human society. The author analyzes Needham's view of nature of the traditional Chinese society, which was formed, based on the Marxist methodology, K.Wittgofel's conceptions, and an understanding of the historical development of capitalism, modern science and democracy in Europe and in China. The research studies the hypothesis and theoretical propositions of historical dynamics and sociocultural factors in the development of the Chinese science in social epistemology "Joseph Needham's school" as way to struggle against Eurocentric approach. The special attention is paid to the place of Needham's comparative approach within the comparative History of Philosophy and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Besides this, it critically assesses Needham's hypotheses and theoretical conclusions on nature and peculiarities of scientific development and cultural connections. The work explores the development of the humanities which became a foundation for such fundamental statements of Needham's concepts as the Problem of a Scientific Revolution (Needham Question), which external and internal factors impeded the development of scientific knowledge in traditional China, and, finally, general sociocultural hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. It specifies the key position in the sociology of knowledge of historical and cultural reconstruction of "Joseph Needham's school" in the definition of the theoretical principles of traditional Chinese science. It analyzes Needham's concept of the Chinese scientific philosophy, its methodological approaches and conceptual instruments, as well as peculiarities of his understanding of the historical and philosophical process. The special attention is paid to the social bases of natural science, that provides an analysis of Joseph Needham's interpretation of the social and cultural base for the Chinese science and technology, which is connected with his initial question (Needham Question). The study shows how to overcome the J. Needham's methodology of scientific knowledge in new models of reconstruction of the Chinese science and civilization (D. Bodde, N. Sivin, J. Lloyd, B. Elman, T. Huff, J. Hobson and Qian Wenyuan). The author presents main ideas of the "Joseph Needham's school" and its opponents as part of history of science and philosophy and their significant influence on the intellectual life not only in Europe, but also in the whole world in the 20th century. Thus D. Bodde analyses historical development of the Chinese science relating to the intellectual and social factors that have favorable or unfavourable impact. B. Elman emphases on the role of the imperial courts and the Chinese scientists in obtaining the European scientific knowledge from Jesuit missionaries in the early modern period and Protestant missionaries in the 19th century. G. Lloyd's comparative epistemology refers to ancient Greek and Chinese scientific approaches in various intellectual fields (primarily mathematics and medicine). T. Huff's institutional theory of science defines the specific nature of civil law in the European, Islamic and Chinese civilization, and makes the assertion that only the European legal tradition paved the way for formulation of laws of nature in modern science. Qian's critique challenges some of Needham's fundamental assumptions and, thus, becomes the prolegomenon to a different history of traditional Chinese science. J. Hobson's comparative history of science and civilizations is an extreme anti-Eurocentrism approach, which ignores many classic and modern conceptions of history of science and civilizations.
