I think the biggest mistake is that claiming that Europe invented scientific thinking because they had the most thinkers, ignores that some of them gained their knowledge from elsewhere.
My job won’t let me access that. Usually not a good sign. Is it about early science in Islam? Or further east?
"I think the biggest mistake is that claiming that Europe invented scientific thinking "I don't know about that. My mother-in-law made soup for us one time when we went to visit them. It was super bland and watery and I mentioned those facts while eating it. Pretty sure that mistake is bigger that the one you mentioned.
The link is a “white nationalist” site article about some academics who claim that science is too Eurocentric and the rest of the world contributed just as much — if not more to science — than Europeans.Another example of P.C. gone crazy.
While non-Europeans did contribute plenty to science, it’s not inaccurate to say science is more or less a European invention. Certainly Europeans have dominated science and accomplished the most with science. The modern world has been molded by Europeans uninformed science.
Is this because of some kind of European superiority or is it just how the dice rolled in history? Probably both, but some people can’t accept that.
Math and science are the same in every land, for every race, no matter who came up with it first. It’s the same for Caucasians, Africans, indigenous peoples, Asians, you name it. Math and science or any intellectual pursuit are not racially determined. That these discoveries or inventions seem to have come out of Europe rather than elsewhere can be explained by many factors. In fact, Chinese people had many similar discoveries and inventions long before Europeans did but it was easier for European ideas to spread worldwide than Chinese ideas for many reasons. Don’t assume you know the origin and of ideas. It’s often impossible to pinpoint their origins. Just because you have studied European history more than the history of other peoples doesn’t mean your understanding is better than anyone else’s. Try studying anthropology.
thatoneguy: Is this because of some kind of European superiority or is it just how the dice rolled in history? Probably both, but some people can’t accept that.I'd love to hear your justification of the word 'both' in that sentence.
Read some Jared Diamond (especially Guns Germs and Steel) to see a reasonable explanation as to how civilizations in different parts of the world were differentially limited by resources, environment and ecology. He’s a great writer, so his stuff is worth reading.
Math and science are the same in every land, for every race, no matter who came up with it first. It’s the same for Caucasians, Africans, indigenous peoples, Asians, you name it. Math and science or any intellectual pursuit are not racially determined. That these discoveries or inventions seem to have come out of Europe rather than elsewhere can be explained by many factors. In fact, Chinese people had many similar discoveries and inventions long before Europeans did but it was easier for European ideas to spread worldwide than Chinese ideas for many reasons. Don’t assume you know the origin and of ideas. It’s often impossible to pinpoint their origins. Just because you have studied European history more than the history of other peoples doesn’t mean your understanding is better than anyone else’s. Try studying anthropology.I’m talking more about science as an enterprise, which seems to be what the question is about.
We can find the beginnings of quite a few scientific fields and of some inventions, e.g. astronomy began in Mesopotamia, paper was invented in ancient China. However, Greeks were the first to try and understand nature in purely natural or rational terms rather than with supernatural beliefs — and to make a system out of it. Other ancient civilizations didn’t care about what might make things happen outside of their own gods, but for some reason the Greeks did.
I’d love to hear your justification of the word ‘both’ in that sentence.Read some Jared Diamond (especially Guns Germs and Steel) to see a reasonable explanation as to how civilizations in different parts of the world were differentially limited by resources, environment and ecology. He’s a great writer, so his stuff is worth reading.
Yeah, I read that one. Diamond basically said the environment Europeans (and generally some Asians) evolved in selected for traits that made them better at understanding nature as it is compared to Native Americans or whatever other oppressed peoples of the world you want to examine. So you see how Europeans did have an advantage here, but it was an accident of evolution.
Am I remembering correctly? Didn’t Arabs come up with the concept of zero? And what about the numerals, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9? Aren’t those Arabic numbers? Didn’t they come up with chess? Didn’t they once have the most advanced knowledge of medicine (compared to the Europeans of the time.) How did they get so smart? Were they interbred with some scientific brained European or Asian?
I think zero was discovered in 3 different places around the East and Mideast. And yes, lots of math comes from the Arab region. In a nutshell, IMO, what’s needed is enough technology to support some people doing nothing but research. That requires a commitment from the leadership, whatever form that takes. The Islamic nation under the Abbasid Caliphate did that in the 9th century. They were sending ships and traders around the world, so they paid them to also come back with books or whatever they found. They already had some of the Greek manuscripts and they worked on translating them. Their downfall was that they were doing this for Allah, and they used an inheritance system for picking leaders. When the Mongols attacked, they were too weak stop them. That was right about the time Europe was coming out of its Dark Age and they were starting to value science and education. The Renaissance began and the Christians were not about to acknowledge the contributions of the Muslims.
"Diamond basically said the environment Europeans (and generally some Asians) evolved in selected for traits that made them better at understanding nature as it is compared to Native Americans or whatever other oppressed peoples of the world you want to examine."I don't believe he said that.
He said all humans have basically the same potential, but the environment restricts some groups in some ways and other groups in other ways. Human societies evolved, not the humans themselves.
If I’m wrong, let me know where he says Europeans have evolved to be superior scientists.
I don’t mean he specifically said that when describing how Eurasia came to dominate the world, but the point is the same. The environment — of Europe especially — produced this type of society.
It’s 2 different processes. You first said it was evolved behavior. When confronted about that, you said that it was the environment.
The point is not the same at all. The 1st implies that the European group of people evolved characteristics superior to some other groups of people. The 2nd suggests that the environment was responsible for the difference.
The 1st is what white supremacists would want to believe.
I’ve seen a few people that I know show their ignorance by making the simple connection that since Europeans and Western ways came to dominate the world, it must be something genetic. I say “ignorance” because they are ignoring that they wouldn’t last a minute in a jungle, but people live there and build with hardly any clothes and no metal tools. They ignore that people can be transplanted from one continent to another and quickly learn the ways of the culture they find themselves in. I can at least understand this mindset because I have been ignorant too.
What I don’t get is that someone can read some history and consider the facts that are relevant and still maintain the narrative.
It’s 2 different processes. You first said it was evolved behavior. When confronted about that, you said that it was the environment.The point is not the same at all. The 1st implies that the European group of people evolved characteristics superior to some other groups of people. The 2nd suggests that the environment was responsible for the difference.
The 1st is what white supremacists would want to believe.
It’s a feedback loop. The environment selects for genetic traits that enable survival in that particular environment. For some reason the traits that were selected for in Eurasia were highly suited to developing a scientifically and technologically advanced society. This did not happen anywhere else, and we don’t know exactly why but scientists like Diamond try to figure it out.
I don’t agree with dismissing this fact just because it might give white supremacists some credence.
I’ve seen a few people that I know show their ignorance by making the simple connection that since Europeans and Western ways came to dominate the world, it must be something genetic. I say “ignorance” because they are ignoring that they wouldn’t last a minute in a jungle, but people live there and build with hardly any clothes and no metal tools. They ignore that people can be transplanted from one continent to another and quickly learn the ways of the culture they find themselves in. I can at least understand this mindset because I have been ignorant too.What I don’t get is that someone can read some history and consider the facts that are relevant and still maintain the narrative
Tropical peoples have evolved traits that help them survive in that environment which we don’t have, like resistance to tropical disease, but if you’re going to claim that evolutionary traits are not transmitted by genes then you must have discovered a completely new type of evolution.