本文以徐復觀為中心，考察他在1950年代與當代學者如錢穆、胡適弟子等有關考據與義理的論爭。這一場在臺灣有關的考據與義理之論爭，可以說是清代版的漢學與宋學之爭，以及1920年代在中國引起熱烈討論的科學與人生觀論爭之延續。本文首先分析徐復觀與史料學派者有關（1）考據與義理的「定義」問題，以及（2）考據與義理的「本末」問題。（3）對整體中國的學術精神以及治學「方法」與「態度」的問題。其次比較徐復觀的「結構與發展的整體論」與錢穆的「會通的整體論」之治學方法，評議兩造之間的考據義理之爭。最後本文認為治人文學科的「方法」，並沒有一項完美無瑕的方法，考據與義理實不可偏廢，「義理中有考據，考據中有義理」，從兩造之間的這場論爭，實可啟發我們對人文學科的治學方法與意義。

This study of the dispute between Hsu Fu-kuan and other leading thinkers of the 1950s - including Ch'ien Mu and the disciples of Hu Shih - regarding textual criticism and the doctrine of righteousness focuses on Hsu Fu-kuan as the central figure. The dispute, which took place largely in Taiwan, can be thought of as an extension of the arguments between proponents of ”Han Studies” and ”Song Studies” in Qing Dynasty China, and of the passionate debates over scientism versus humanism in China in the 1920s. This paper begins by considering the stance taken by Hsu Fu-kuan and the ”Historical Materials” school towards: (1) the definition of textual criticism and the doctrine of righteousness; (2) the temporal relationship between textual criticism and the doctrine of righteousness; (3) the overall state of the academic spirit and scholarly research methods in China. This paper proceeds to compare the methodologies of Hsu's structural and developmental holism versus Ch'ien Mu's ”convergent holism,” examining how the differences in methodologies related to the dispute on textual criticism and the doctrine of righteousness. The final section concludes that there is no single perfect methodology for scholarly research in the humanities. Neither textual criticism nor the doctrine of righteousness should be rejected outright, since ”textual criticism is implied by the doctrine of righteousness, and the doctrine of righteousness is implied by textual criticism.” The dispute over these two approaches can help us develop a clearer picture of scholarly methodologies and their significance.