3 ms·

>it tried to explain the shape of history with an overly simplistic model that tossed out every nuance which didn't fit the thesis I think it's worth quoting F

>it tried to explain the shape of history with an overly simplistic model that tossed out every nuance which didn't fit the thesis I think it's worth quoting Friedman from his essay on positive economics[1] "In so far as a theory can be said to have "assumptions" at all, and in so far as their "realism" can be judged independently of the validity of predictions, the relation between the significance of a theory and the "realism" of its "assumptions" is almost the opposite of that suggested by the view under criticism. Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have "assumptions" that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (in this sense).12 The reason is simple. A hypothesis is important if it "explains" much by little, that is, if it abstracts the common and crucial elements from the mass of complex and detailed circumstances surrounding the phenomena to be explained and permits valid predictions on the basis of them alone. To be important, therefore, a hypothesis must be descriptively false in its assumptions. it takes account of, and accounts for, none of the many other attendant circumstances, since its very success shows them to be irrelevant for the phenomena to be explained" Diamond is often criticized for the simplicity, or geographic determinism of his argument but from the standpoint of an empirical science this is a strength. What matters is only the predictive power of a theory, not whether it is nuanced, realistic or representative. People sometimes seem to take almost offense to reductive theories in the social sciences. Btw one recent development to really test Diamond's theory is I think the development of tropical wheat developed in Brazil. If this works and drastically uplifts the global south I'd count that as a big piece of evidence in his favor. [1]https://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/fachbereich/bwl/pruefungs-steuerlehre/loeffler/Lehre/bachelor/investition/Friedman_the_methology_of_positive_economics.pdf https://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/fachbereich/bwl/pruefungs-st...

wizofaus 3y ago
The availability of suitable species for domestication always struck me as the most interesting part of his argument, as it's not one I'd seen before - but strangely it's the one that's not captured by the title "Guns, Germs & Steel" (which are, I suppose, the main proximate reasons why Europeans ended up decimating/overpowering populations elsewhere in the world, rather than more interesting fundamental reasons why Europeans got to the point they could travel the world possessing said items well before any other candidate civilizations did. Accepted, "germs" is related to ability to domesticate various animals, but hardly captures the full set of advantages that came from animal and crop domestication). I never thought his explanations of why it couldn't have been China or India instead were that compelling though, not does he bother to explain why certain European nations became far more successful as colonial powers than others (e.g. why were Germany and Italy so late to the game, and unable to really compete with Spain/the Netherlands/Great Britain as far as colonisation efforts went).
- mdhen 3y ago
  Germany and Italy weren't even countries until the late 19th century.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    Hence demonstrating there was at least one other key factor behind which nations/empires were able to successfully establish overseas colonies - but arguably that itself was not an "ultimate" cause that was out of the control of earlier civilizations (in the way availability of species suitable for domestication was). If the Roman empire hadn't collapsed the way it did the world would surely look very different to how it does today (I wouldn't be writing this in English for a start!). I don't think that's something Diamond addressed in GG&S, and even in Collapse I don't remember any serious discussion of how it might be ultimately and primarily due to geo-environmental factors (for a start, the empires that replaced it over the following centuries were operating in very similar ecologies/climates). I don't think Diamond would insist that the pattern of historical development of specific nation states was largely due to the ultimate causes he tries to identify for overall European hegemony, but it would be surely worth clarifying at what scales other factors start to become more important (and what those factors might be).
    - wizofaus 3y ago
      (Actually the far better example is France - in principle, at the time, it was better obviously placed to achieve colonial domination than Spain or The Netherlands or even Great Britain. The argument seems to be that it was too focused on waging wars within Europe itself to commit itself to overseas exploration etc. But is that an "ultimate", proximate or some sort of intermediate cause?)

wizofaus 3y ago

The availability of suitable species for domestication always struck me as the most interesting part of his argument, as it's not one I'd seen before - but strangely it's the one that's not captured by the title "Guns, Germs & Steel" (which are, I suppose, the main proximate reasons why Europeans ended up decimating/overpowering populations elsewhere in the world, rather than more interesting fundamental reasons why Europeans got to the point they could travel the world possessing said items well before any other candidate civilizations did. Accepted, "germs" is related to ability to domesticate various animals, but hardly captures the full set of advantages that came from animal and crop domestication). I never thought his explanations of why it couldn't have been China or India instead were that compelling though, not does he bother to explain why certain European nations became far more successful as colonial powers than others (e.g. why were Germany and Italy so late to the game, and unable to really compete with Spain/the Netherlands/Great Britain as far as colonisation efforts went).

mdhen 3y ago
Germany and Italy weren't even countries until the late 19th century.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  Hence demonstrating there was at least one other key factor behind which nations/empires were able to successfully establish overseas colonies - but arguably that itself was not an "ultimate" cause that was out of the control of earlier civilizations (in the way availability of species suitable for domestication was). If the Roman empire hadn't collapsed the way it did the world would surely look very different to how it does today (I wouldn't be writing this in English for a start!). I don't think that's something Diamond addressed in GG&S, and even in Collapse I don't remember any serious discussion of how it might be ultimately and primarily due to geo-environmental factors (for a start, the empires that replaced it over the following centuries were operating in very similar ecologies/climates). I don't think Diamond would insist that the pattern of historical development of specific nation states was largely due to the ultimate causes he tries to identify for overall European hegemony, but it would be surely worth clarifying at what scales other factors start to become more important (and what those factors might be).
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    (Actually the far better example is France - in principle, at the time, it was better obviously placed to achieve colonial domination than Spain or The Netherlands or even Great Britain. The argument seems to be that it was too focused on waging wars within Europe itself to commit itself to overseas exploration etc. But is that an "ultimate", proximate or some sort of intermediate cause?)