3 ms·

Please be more descriptive about how it applies in the context of the Ottoman Empire's ban on the printing press and its subsequent decline.

• dakial1 3y ago
  I think it is pretty obvious as I got the same conclusion reading the tweet and the Forture article. They are talking about 2 things that happened at the same time (correlation) but fail to give a factual causal link that would confirm that not having the print caused (or even collaborated with) the decline. Maybe a third factor caused both for example.
  • eutopian 3y ago
    But considering the intellectual contributions of the Ottoman Empire, is there no correlation between the fact that they did not use the printing press to disseminate their knowledge as well as accelerate their discoveries imply that they stagnated compared to other empires/nations that adapted the technology? If so, then would that stagnation not have at least some correlation with their decline?
    • dakial1 3y ago
      Correlation yes, as it means that it has a connection between both, but the cause might be a third thing (like a divestment from science, etc..). But the title "ban of the printing press LED to the decline..." implies causation, which is not a conclusion you get without more facts. Both happened at the same time, but we cannot conclude that banning the printing press caused the decline. The printing press ban might just have been another symptom of the overall misgovernment that generated the decline.
      • eutopian 3y ago
        I see your point now. You know the way they go for hard-hitting headlines. I interpreted it more as "one of the causes" than "the sole cause."