「知」為荀子學說的核心，歷來亦因而引發相關對於「荀子」與「科學」二者之間的論述。基於李滌生先生所言：「他的思想方式是科學的，卻沒有開出科學來」。的共識下，以〈天論〉一篇做為討論的基礎，利用語言邏輯的方法，就該言的語意進行分析，可得知，所謂「他的思想方式是科學的」，係指稱荀子的思考方法深具「科學精神」，此一精神與西方素有的懷疑精神可相呼應，而荀子〈天論〉中對自然意志的批判，甚可視為針為「絕對」而懷疑的絕佳示範，因而可確定，所謂「他的思想方式是科學的」，應詮釋為「荀子的思考方法是具備科學精的思想方法」。 而後句「卻沒有開出科學來」顯然是評論者對於荀子在科學領域的評價，故此「科學」應釋為狹義的自然科學。而就荀子思想的特質、荀子批判名家墨家的行為，以及西方自祭科學的特質等面向探討，可得知荀子之思考方法雖具科學精神，但其思想根底卻是傾向「人文」的，就此而論，則荀子無能開出自然科學領域的成就便是既定的成果論。但此一既定結果不應用以評價荀子能否開出科學的功過，若想對荀子做成就式的是非評價，則應運用歷史式的考察方法，同時論述主客觀因素，才能涉及，也才算公允。

“Knowing/Knowledge,” the core of Xunzi’s philosophy, has long stimulated discourses about “Xunzi” and “science”. Based on Di Li, who said “His(Xunzi’s) style of thinking is scientifically based but does not create science”, and based on “the Discussion of the Sky”, I analyzed Xunzi’s philosophy with linguistic logicality. I found that “his style of thinking is scientifically based” resonates skepticism in the west. In “the Discussion of the sky”, the way that Xunzi criticized the Nature is a best example of speculating about “the Absoulate”. Therefore that “his style of thinking is scientifically based” can be interpreted as “Xunzi’s style of thinking is equipped with the spirit of science.” The latter part of what Di Li said “but does not create science” is obviously how critics view Xunzi in the field of science; hence “science” in the sentence should be narrowly defined as nature science. However, after studying Xunzi’s philosophy from three different perspectives: the features of his philosophy, his criticism of Ming and Muo, and the features of western science, I found that though Xunzi’s thinking style is scientific, his root of thinking tends to tilt toward humanity. That is, the fact that Xunzi did not have achievements in that field of science. If any one wants to evaluate Xunzi, then he/she need adopt historical methods of investigation and discuss the results both subjectively and objectively.