Why did Western civilization become more advanced?

Status
Not open for further replies.
abradley said:
In what way?
Click to expand...

I don't hang in this forum much, so I'd like to know as well (even though I don't know this Fergusson from before)

Spoiler :
Anyway, answer to the question in the thread title is obv the protestant work ethic
 
He isn't bad at all when it comes to analysing economics - in fact, he's really quite a good economic historian. The problem comes when he uses worn-out arguments (he actually talks about the Protestant work ethic, for goodness' sake) to make the case that imperialism, with all that came with it, was inevitable. Not only is he simply wrong, but his argument takes all of the human decision out of it. If democracy and consumer culture made it inevitable that Britain would colonise and enslave large tracts of the world, then we can't place any moral responsibility on those who actually did it - it wasn't their fault, they were just following the inevitable historical law.

Owen and others have a greater grasp of the books in question, so they can probably answer in more detail.
 
Flying Pig said:
If democracy and consumer culture made it inevitable that Britain would colonise and enslave large tracts of the world, then we can't place any moral responsibility on those who actually did it - it wasn't their fault, they were just following the inevitable historical law.
Click to expand...

I don't wish to defend Fergusson, but that doesn't seem to me to be a good reason for thinking a historical claim to be false. It's only a good reason for wanting a historical claim to be false, and that's not the same thing. If the evidence really did suggest that the architects of imperialism were not to blame for imperialism, we shouldn't ignore that evidence simply because we want to blame them.

(I'm not saying that the evidence does suggest that, of course.)
 
Sorry, I was leaving as unwritten 'and that's wrong.' The fallacy is looking at how people make decisions today - as free choices, constrained and influenced by their circumstances - and assuming that people who are no longer alive had fundamentally different mental machinery. I don't think Fergusson believes, for example, that today's criminals could not have avoided committing crimes.
 
I don't think economists have any better view of Fergusson as an economic historian than other historians have of him on other subjects. But I don't have a source handy for that.
 
Ain't a historian, or even an amateur historian, just a guy whose read a lot of books. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, here goes my view.

"Why did Western civilization become more advanced?".

Fergusson claims it's because of 6 Apps that we westerners had and the rest didn't.

For me his failing is that he didn't explain why westerners had these Apps and not the rest.

First, let's look at science.

IMO it's because of our Judaeo-Christian culture plus the early Greek philosophers. Everybody knows the Greek philosophers were instrumental in our cultural development, but why the Judaeo-Christian bit, because it allowed/encouraged the transmission of the Greek Philosophy while other cultures didn't. How did it allow it, because of Wisdom 11:21 "but thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight." the Douay–Rheims Bible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niIAJC24zd4 (starting at 3:40 - 11:00) gives an explanation of the verse and why it was important. This is why the early Christian Church based it's interpretation of the Bible on science, like in the Galileo case:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event
All this means that the Church was quite capable of changing its interpretations of scriptures that seemed to say the earth was "fixed" etc if it could be shown that this was not literally the case. It just was not going to do so before this was demonstrated conclusively - something Galileo had not done. As Cardinal Bellarmine noted on his 1616 ruling on Galileo's writings:

If there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the centre of the
world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not
circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to
proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear
contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what
is demonstrated is false. But this is not a thing to be done in haste,
and as for myself I shall not believe that there are such proofs until
they are shown to me.

Bellarmine was no scientific ignoramus, since he had previously been a university lecturer in natural philosophy in Flanders and was well acquainted with the state of the cosmological debate. So he knew, as Galileo knew, that most scientists of the time still favoured geocentrism and heliocentrism was far from proven. As it happens, once heliocentrism was proven, the Church reconsidered and reinterpreted those scriptures precisely as Bellarmine proposed they should.
Click to expand...
Following the fall of Rome, the West was beset by invasions from 3 direction and had it's hands full and busy defending itself, but it still developed Universities:
http://jameshannam.com/medievalscience.htm
Science and Church in the Middle Ages
{snip}
During the Middle Ages, the education infrastructure of Europe was overseen, if not managed, by the Church. That role, which meant acting as both the guarantor of academic freedom and arbitrator of its boundaries, tended to be carried out with a light touch and by ensuring the right people were placed in the key positions. Combined with their status as self-governing corporations of scholars, this gave the universities independence from local influence and the freedom to speculate in a wide range of fields which also meant their declarations were highly valued.

The universities

The previously unknown notion of the university as a self-governing academic institution did not appear until the Middle Ages and it can be argued that it was one of the most important advances in the history of ideas. Previous models of education and research establishments had existed, such as the Museum of Alexandria answerable to the king, the schools of Athens answerable to a single scholar and the madrasas of Islam whose activities were rigidly limited by religious law and the wishes of their founders [NOTE], but none of these cases are equivalent to the new concept of the European university.

Once cathedral schools moved beyond just training the clergy, they found themselves needing to hold on to respected teachers in order to attract fee-paying students. The result of this was a shift in power from the cathedral chapter to the scholars themselves. By the late eleventh century they were using new developments in civil and canon law to form a universitas or corporation (the actual term for an academic university was studium generale) in a similar manner to the craft guilds also appearing at this time [NOTE]. The vital concept was that a corporation had a distinct legal personality separate from its members that allowed them to show a single face to the outside world while independently being able to govern the workings of the corporation from within.

By the fourteenth century, the university had become the centrepiece of European intellectual life with new foundations appearing as kings and bishops attempted to enhance their own prestige. They were even willing to try and lure away scholars in established universities with the promise of safety and privileges such as when Henry III tried to tempt the masters of Paris over to England. [NOTE]

{Snip}

The legacy of medieval science

Traditional positivist histories of science have tended to either ignore or denigrate the achievements of medieval natural philosophers and, to be fair, there certainly seems to be a radical difference between the scholastics and the proponents of the new philosophy of the seventeenth century. Historians have yet to agree on how this change came about but there is an increasing awareness that its roots can be found in the Middle Ages. The analogy of the universe as a machine, typical of the mechanistic philosophy of Descartes, appears in Western Europe as early as Hugh of St Victor in the eleventh century [NOTE]. As we saw above, Pierre Duhem saw in the condemnations of 1277 the rejection of the idea that the universe had to be the way Aristotle thought it had to, and the birth of the realisation that the workings of the universe had to be empirically determined. The neo-Platonism of Copernicus and Kepler had developed in Italy through the late Middle Ages while the insistence on an intelligible and rational universe is found throughout scholastic natural philosophy.

As is the often the case, the debate has been characterised as polarised between two positions - the continuity of science through the Middle Ages and into the early modern period, and the scientific revolution marking a decisive break from the earlier traditions. AC Crombie is a leading member of the continuity school, tracing the experimental method back to Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon. Edward Grant sees modern science built on the solid medieval foundations of the separation of science from religion, rationality and university education. The great temptation for the proponents of continuity, which not all of them successfully resist, is to read modern scientific ideas into the work of earlier ages. For instance, Grant perhaps sees too much in Gregory of Rimini’s work on infinity and tries to make it a precursor of the nineteenth-century Georg Cantor’s theories of transfinite numbers [NOTE]. The comments of Roger Bacon on experiment have also tended to be overemphasised, especially as there is little evidence he ever did anything much in that direction himself. One does not want to take these criticisms too far, however, as the academic framework of the universities certainly produced most of the individuals who worked on science in the early modern period even with the essentially medieval syllabus [NOTE].

Despite the huge volume of modern scholarship on the scientific revolution, there is no agreed answer to the question of why it happened in Western Europe in the seventeenth century and not elsewhere or earlier. Some theories include: sociologist Robert Merton’s suggestion of Puritanism provided the conditions for science, Thomas Kuhn’s system of normal science and revolution, Frances Yates claiming credit for hermetic magic, Duhem and Stanley Jaki for Catholic theology and Lynn White’s contention that the driving force was provided by technological change. No single theory has proved entirely satisfactory or convincing, as they tend to look either at internal or external causes rather than a combination. For the external environment, the medieval contribution might have come from the institution of the university, the reception of Greek and Arabic thought and the worldview of a rational creator God. Internal to medieval science, there is the work of developing, criticising and discarding hypotheses begun by scholastic natural philosophers and still ongoing.

(Continued)
Click to expand...
This is my view of how science grew in the west, it didn't just spring up overnight in spite of the church. Without the Church Schools and Universities what would science have looked like in the 17th century. If the church had been anti-science how far could it have developed. That doesn't mean the church was perfect in it's backing of science, it was always watching, looking for heresies, but it wasn't the enemy of science.

More later on the other Apps.

PS

Why the Douay–Rheims Bible for the quote, because it's a translation of the Vulgate Bible that was used in the Middle Ages, since the reformation there have been Bibles with different translations and some omitting 'Wisdom' from the Bible.
 
This is all terribly simplistic garbage history and I really don't feel like explaining why at length.

Yes the old adage that the Church stifled scientific development or whatever is incorrect. However

1) How doesn't that distinguish the Western world from other regions.
2) If it does go back to some sort of theological or philosophical tradition, why did the solitary predominance of the Western world only truly emerge at the early 18th century, at the very earliest?

Really the emergence of Western Europe as the "preeminent region" (however you want to define that) in the world comes down largely to luck, happenstance, and context. There's a lot to unpack, and in my opinion the mere nature of the question "why is the West 'better' than the other regions of the world" belies a wrongheaded or at best extremely dated approach to history, particularly in a post-linguistic turn environment, from the very start implying

a) that "the West" is some kind of monolithic cohesive entity in competition with other monolithic cultural entities, rather than a diverse and ever shifting array of individual actors often operating at odds with one another.
b) the question by its very nature is a teleology: "we are so great - why are we so great? well clearly because x, y, and z". Rather than operating within the context of the actors and their contemporaries, you're starting from your position with an answer already made up and then trying to go back and cherry-pick justifications for why that answer is the case. This is not good history. And one of the major failings Ferguson makes.
 
Owen Glyndwr said:
This is all terribly simplistic garbage history and I really don't feel like explaining why at length.

Yes the old adage that the Church stifled scientific development or whatever is incorrect. However

1) How doesn't that distinguish the Western world from other regions.
2) If it does go back to some sort of theological or philosophical tradition, why did the solitary predominance of the Western world only truly emerge at the early 18th century, at the very earliest?

Really the emergence of Western Europe as the "preeminent region" (however you want to define that) in the world comes down largely to luck, happenstance, and context. There's a lot to unpack, and in my opinion the mere nature of the question "why is the West 'better' than the other regions of the world" belies a wrongheaded or at best extremely dated approach to history, particularly in a post-linguistic turn environment, from the very start implying

a) that "the West" is some kind of monolithic cohesive entity in competition with other monolithic cultural entities, rather than a diverse and ever shifting array of individual actors often operating at odds with one another.
b) the question by its very nature is a teleology: "we are so great - why are we so great? well clearly because x, y, and z". Rather than operating within the context of the actors and their contemporaries, you're starting from your position with an answer already made up and then trying to go back and cherry-pick justifications for why that answer is the case. This is not good history. And one of the major failings Ferguson makes.
Click to expand...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niIAJC24zd4 11:00 and on.
 
Owen Glyndwr said:
Yes the old adage that the Church stifled scientific development or whatever is incorrect.
Click to expand...

It's complicated. The church did play a major role in disseminating philosophy to the wider Western world. Monastaries were often sources of sciences, especially when universities didn't exist or weren't mature institutions.

Christian churches did play a role in directly suppressing the natural sciences, though most of the time, it were Protestants, not the RCC. Calvin had numerous scientists burned for heresy. The RCC did not promote Creationism to the same degree as Evangelical Christians do and Catholics were one among the forefront to make attempts at reconciling evolution theory with Christian faith.

Catholicism did significantly hamper economic growth with its bans on usury and in so doing indirectly hampered scientific funding as well. Calvinist theology tolerated lending on interest between Christians, which amplified the build up of capitalist institutions in countries like the Netherlands and Scotland. The Protestant doctrine of universal priesthood arguably institutionally weakened Christianity, as most Protestants weren't as authoritarian as Calvin or Luther personally were. The adoption of Calvinism in the Netherlands was arguably a political move to weaken the Catholic church rather than motivated by a sincere belief in Calvinist theology.
 
Owen Glyndwr said:
b) the question by its very nature is a teleology: "we are so great - why are we so great? well clearly because x, y, and z". Rather than operating within the context of the actors and their contemporaries, you're starting from your position with an answer already made up and then trying to go back and cherry-pick justifications for why that answer is the case. This is not good history. And one of the major failings Ferguson makes.
Click to expand...

Excellent post on the whole - can I unpick this point a little? Are you saying that we can never ask questions of the form 'why is the world as it is today?' Answering questions like that seems to be a large part of the reason for studying history in the first place.
 
Owen Glyndwr said:
Nope. If you have a rebuttal you can tell me yourself. I'm not going to an external site to listen to someone else with whom I'm not speaking tell me.
Click to expand...
As should be obvious, I ain't very good at writing, and know it, so when possible I use other people's words.

But basically it sez, compare Islam's still born science with the West's.
 
Flying Pig said:
Excellent post on the whole - can I unpick this point a little? Are you saying that we can never ask questions of the form 'why is the world as it is today?' Answering questions like that seems to be a large part of the reason for studying history in the first place.
Click to expand...

Ehhh no. It's more that an important facet (perhaps the most important in postmodern historical research) of studying history is divorcing yourself from your modern tendencies and sensibilities and studying historical events and figures in the context of their time. The easy and obvious example is WWI where our modern baggage colors it as some tragic inevitability rather than a contingent contextual event.

I mean really the question of the OP is problematic because
a) it's overly broad (more advanced when, relative to whom?)
b) presupposes a fact that hasn't necessarily been established

Which allows people to make teleological arguments (pointing to things which we, with hindsight and modern context, place undue significance upon). The West (us) is obviously better - why? Well Plato is great and Plato is from the West, so clearly Plato must have been a reason. We are protestant (and obviously Protestantism is great), and Protestantism is a Western Thing so clearly Protestantism had something to do with why we are so great. So let's go back and look at why Protestantism is so unique and therefore great and therefore the reason why we are great. All of these assumptions are made without really justifying them. And the assumptions come because these things are prominent/important to our modern mind so therefore they must have been prominent/important back then too.

Rambly - anyway the answer to your question is that there's nothing particularly wrong with trying to understand the impact past events have had on our modern world, but it's important to divorce your modern context from your research and look at history in the context of its own time - because otherwise you make the damning mistake of going into research with a conclusion already formed which will cause you to place undue importance on things that weren't really all that important at the time.

abradley said:
But basically it sez, compare Islam's still born science with the West's.
Click to expand...

This is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about.
 
abradley said:
:lol: What is?
Click to expand...

Ok:

1) science when, relative to whom?
2) what are you defining as science
3) What are you defining as "The West" and what are yo defining as "Islam" - keeping in mind that Islam is neither a person nor a polity and thus cannot do "science".
4) this statement is teleological in nature - you're bringing in all of your modern baggage about "science" as an institution, including a) the notion of technological/scientific advancement as a Thing (in a Civilization-like way; wheel->pottery->writing->etc.) and b) the very modern concept of "tech/arms advantage" and state-funded R&D.
 
Owen Glyndwr said:
This is all terribly simplistic garbage history and I really don't feel like explaining why at length.

Yes the old adage that the Church stifled scientific development or whatever is incorrect. However

1) How doesn't that distinguish the Western world from other regions.
2) If it does go back to some sort of theological or philosophical tradition, why did the solitary predominance of the Western world only truly emerge at the early 18th century, at the very earliest?

Really the emergence of Western Europe as the "preeminent region" (however you want to define that) in the world comes down largely to luck, happenstance, and context. There's a lot to unpack, and in my opinion the mere nature of the question "why is the West 'better' than the other regions of the world" belies a wrongheaded or at best extremely dated approach to history, particularly in a post-linguistic turn environment, from the very start implying

a) that "the West" is some kind of monolithic cohesive entity in competition with other monolithic cultural entities, rather than a diverse and ever shifting array of individual actors often operating at odds with one another.
b) the question by its very nature is a teleology: "we are so great - why are we so great? well clearly because x, y, and z". Rather than operating within the context of the actors and their contemporaries, you're starting from your position with an answer already made up and then trying to go back and cherry-pick justifications for why that answer is the case. This is not good history. And one of the major failings Ferguson makes.
Click to expand...
;) It emerges in the 15th Century, remember this:
The Poem: In 1492

In fourteen ninety-two

Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
Click to expand...
and:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_the_Navigator
Infante Henrique of Portugal, Duke of Viseu (4 March 1394 – 13 November 1460), better known as Henry the Navigator (Portuguese: Henrique, o Navegador) was an important figure in 15th-century Portuguese politics and in the early days of the Portuguese Empire. Through his administrative direction, he is regarded as the main initiator of what would be known as the Age of Discoveries. Henry was the fifth child of the Portuguese king John I and responsible for the early development of Portuguese exploration and maritime trade with other continents through the systematic exploration of Western Africa, the islands of the Atlantic Ocean, and the search for new routes.
Click to expand...
and:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macau

As Portuguese Macau, it was administered by the Portuguese Empire and its inheritor states from the mid-16th century until late 1999, when it was the last remaining European colony in Asia under Portugal.[7][8] Portuguese traders first settled in Macau in the 1550s. In 1557, Macau was rented to Portugal from Ming China as a trading port. The Portuguese Empire administered the city under Chinese authority and sovereignty until 1887, when Macau became a colony. Sovereignty over Macau was transferred to China on 20 December 1999. The Joint Declaration on the Question of Macau and Macau Basic Law stipulate that Macau operate with a high degree of autonomy until at least 2049, fifty years after the transfer.[9]
Click to expand...
As Ferguson points out in his book, China didn't send a fleet to Europe, Europeans sent 'Fleets' to Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Did they do that without science? Not even talking about the other 5 Apps.
 
Owen Glyndwr said:
Ok:

1) science when, relative to whom?
2) what are you defining as science
3) What are you defining as "The West" and what are yo defining as "Islam" - keeping in mind that Islam is neither a person nor a polity and thus cannot do "science".
4) this statement is teleological in nature - you're bringing in all of your modern baggage about "science" as an institution, including a) the notion of technological/scientific advancement as a Thing (in a Civilization-like way; wheel->pottery->writing->etc.) and b) the very modern concept of "tech/arms advantage" and state-funded R&D.
Click to expand...
#1 The West and the Rest.

#2 Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

#3 Europe and the countries that are Islamic.

#4 Does that mean it's not true?
 
abradley said:
As Ferguson points out in his book, China didn't send a fleet to Europe, Europeans sent 'Fleets' to Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Did they do that without science? Not even talking about the other 5 Apps.
Click to expand...

Owen Glyndwr said:
4) this statement is teleological in nature - you're bringing in all of your modern baggage about "science" as an institution, including a) the notion of technological/scientific advancement as a Thing (in a Civilization-like way; wheel->pottery->writing->etc.) and b) the very modern concept of "tech/arms advantage" and state-funded R&D.
Click to expand...

^^^^

abradley said:
#1 The West and the Rest.

#2 Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

#3 Europe and the countries that are Islamic.

#4 Does that mean it's not true?
Click to expand...

None of these answer any of my questions. And as to #4: it means that it's at best inaccurate and at worst deliberately misleading. Science as we think of it today is VERY much a modern development.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Thorvald of Lym
Sarcasmitron on Ukraine
Replies
9
Views
810
PPQ_Purple
PPQ_Purple
E
[BTS] Advanced Civ Multiplayer
Replies
4
Views
927
f1rpo
f1rpo
Lionic
[SCENARIO] The Cold War (TCW) Unofficial update by Lionic
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
Delta_Strife
Delta_Strife
A
Civ 6 Review, All DLC
Replies
3
Views
2K
Naokaukodem
Naokaukodem
TyrannusRex
What if there were more Tech/Civic quotes?
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
Top Bottom