2 ms·
So that's a very good point. The 'rise of Arabic Science' was totally consistent with conquest. It seems there's a lot of hubris in Science, just like Imperial
by jariel 6y ago
So that's a very good point. The 'rise of Arabic Science' was totally consistent with conquest.
It seems there's a lot of hubris in Science, just like Imperialism, Art, etc. - and you need a lot of 'excess wealth' to delve into things that are not 'subsistence'.
The Renaissance probably would not have happened without the concentration of wealth in Venice and nearby areas. I mean who on Earth is going to pay for those weird/crazy instruments to be made and for creators full time to come up with this insane 'symphonic' concoctions. We take it for granted now but what happened was a miracle, and that's just in music.
- netcan 6y agoMy point is that any such theory is untestable, and we're good at convincing ourselves of "truths" that appeal to us. A 19th century nationalist would have liked your first sentence. A 19th century marxist would have liked your second and third one. Any one of them can be challenged with counterexamples. EG, a great modern cognate to Venetian lords and bishops pouring money into prestige projects are the gulf Emirs. Yet...
- jariel 6y agoIt's not 'untestable'; we have a historical record to determine what happened, it would just be a lot of work.
- netcan 6y agoHow would you go about using the historical record to determine that conquest leads to a scientifically advanced culture? How would you formulate the thesis? I want to point out that the concept of falsifiability, largely came around to distinguish between objective & scientific thought and the above.