Under that model, nothing was ever certain or stable, which was deeply offensive to the Chinese mind.

As a result, flat-Earth dogma persisted in some circles in China beyond the 17th century - perhaps in part because flat and square symbolized virtue and righteousness - concepts deeply embedded in Chinese culture and cognition.

While the Greeks had launched modern science based on logic and human reasoning, the Chinese valued something more immutable. Western reasoning was uncomfortable because of the limits of human intellect and understanding, and so it was the Chinese scientists' job to discover and follow fixed natural rules.

Ruan Yuan, a prominent Chinese scholar during the first half of the 19th century, lamented that Western astronomers were constantly altering their explanations for celestial phenomena.

"The laws are always changing ... I don't know where the real reason lies," he said. "Heavenly laws are so profound and subtle that they lie beyond human ability."

For Ruan, scientific theories should express certainties that "last forever without error", according to Liu Shuchiu in an online periodical from the Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching.

What all this history has to do with the two sessions of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference National Committee is simply this: Legislators considering proposals to improve the country have a choice. They can cling to old notions simply because they are old, perhaps even venerated, or they can reason their way to new approaches that promise greater benefits - whether that's a re-examination of family planning concepts, or deciding whether or not to raise the retirement age.

Choices abound, but be warned: The answers to many questions are backed by dogmatic constituencies.

It is not that long-held ideas are wrong because they are old, but merely that they ought to be moved from the realm of dogma into the realm of reason.

Once stubborn dogma is rooted out, along with the tribalism that usually comes with it, progress inevitably follows.

The collision of competing ideas is healthy for individuals, organizations and even states. When the clash produces light and not merely heat, we are rewarded with livelier understandings of the world and can choose the way forward with greater confidence.

That is the basic task of the two sessions.