4 ms·

Every history sees through a limited historiographical lens and centers certain questions. If we set out to answer questions like "why did Britain industrialize

by chipsy 12y ago

Every history sees through a limited historiographical lens and centers certain questions. If we set out to answer questions like "why did Britain industrialize first?" then a deterministic model of technological progress(the "Sid Meier's Civilization" view of history) does not suffice for our history, and we end up with complex stories that weave together geography, politics, and social factors.

mcguire 12y ago
Certainly true, in fact it's kind of my point. Take a look at the "key sentence" from Harold Perkins' review of From Airline Reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog: "The computer and its software nervous system brought a revolution in human development as significant as the steam engine, the automobile or the aeroplane, and even more effective in shrinking the planet" What would you get from a history of recent revolutions in human development from someone who doesn't know why steam-powered airplanes never really caught on? It doesn't matter what kind of geo-political story they can put together; the idea just doesn't work. A Margaret Gowing told C-K about his history of EDSAC, "What you have written is clearly very good. I know practically nothing about computers, but I can tell that what you have written is good history, so far as it goes. However, let me urge you to look beyond programming technology to consider the kinds of people who were using computers and the problems that they were solving." Which is excellent advice, certainly, but part of what he comes up with years later, in his embarrassment over not following the advice the first time, is, "Jim Wilkinson investigated errors and stability in digital numerical methods and developed advanced matrix programs. These were to prove vital in understanding and preventing “flutter” for the British aircraft industry, which was still reeling from the de Havilland Comet air disaster of 1954," which makes me suspect he knows about as much about numerical methods as I do.
- leoc 12y ago
  It looks like a kind of inverted physics envy, a cultural cringe reaction.

by chipsy 12y ago

mcguire 12y ago

Certainly true, in fact it's kind of my point. Take a look at the "key sentence" from Harold Perkins' review of From Airline Reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog: "The computer and its software nervous system brought a revolution in human development as significant as the steam engine, the automobile or the aeroplane, and even more effective in shrinking the planet" What would you get from a history of recent revolutions in human development from someone who doesn't know why steam-powered airplanes never really caught on? It doesn't matter what kind of geo-political story they can put together; the idea just doesn't work. A Margaret Gowing told C-K about his history of EDSAC, "What you have written is clearly very good. I know practically nothing about computers, but I can tell that what you have written is good history, so far as it goes. However, let me urge you to look beyond programming technology to consider the kinds of people who were using computers and the problems that they were solving." Which is excellent advice, certainly, but part of what he comes up with years later, in his embarrassment over not following the advice the first time, is, "Jim Wilkinson investigated errors and stability in digital numerical methods and developed advanced matrix programs. These were to prove vital in understanding and preventing “flutter” for the British aircraft industry, which was still reeling from the de Havilland Comet air disaster of 1954," which makes me suspect he knows about as much about numerical methods as I do.

leoc 12y ago
It looks like a kind of inverted physics envy, a cultural cringe reaction.