What part of the view is hard to establish? Is it (1) that Western Europe dominated the rest of the world, or (2) that Western Europe needed science and traditional rationality to effect this dominance?
Thanks. A followup: Is it hard to establish (1) that technology is responsible for Western dominance, or (2) that science is responsible for technology?
Science has mostly trailed technology until very recently. Thermodynamics, for example, developed largely from observing and explaining the already invented and fairly highly developed steam engines. Once the theory was developed it helped suggest improvements, but its original development relied on the already existing technology. Many other examples exist, partly I think because technologies are easier to see clear relationships in and explanations for, than the messy, complicated real world.
tech was necessary, but to call it “responsible” is to think of it as a more autonomous process than it is. And Bill is right, science has usually gained more from tech than vice versa.
I strongly agree that science gained much (more?) from tech, but disagree about tech being “autonomous”. Islam and China had more impressive tech in 1200 than Europe had in 1650 but Europe in 1650 had spectacularly more impressive science, and oddly, art. In 1650 though, Europe was still generally a minor global player while a century later they were far the dominant player and in 1850 their dominance was utterly unprecedented.
What part of the view is hard to establish? Is it (1) that Western Europe dominated the rest of the world, or (2) that Western Europe needed science and traditional rationality to effect this dominance?
(2), that “science” was responsible for Western dominance.
Thanks. A followup: Is it hard to establish (1) that technology is responsible for Western dominance, or (2) that science is responsible for technology?
Science has mostly trailed technology until very recently. Thermodynamics, for example, developed largely from observing and explaining the already invented and fairly highly developed steam engines. Once the theory was developed it helped suggest improvements, but its original development relied on the already existing technology. Many other examples exist, partly I think because technologies are easier to see clear relationships in and explanations for, than the messy, complicated real world.
tech was necessary, but to call it “responsible” is to think of it as a more autonomous process than it is. And Bill is right, science has usually gained more from tech than vice versa.
I strongly agree that science gained much (more?) from tech, but disagree about tech being “autonomous”. Islam and China had more impressive tech in 1200 than Europe had in 1650 but Europe in 1650 had spectacularly more impressive science, and oddly, art. In 1650 though, Europe was still generally a minor global player while a century later they were far the dominant player and in 1850 their dominance was utterly unprecedented.