AHQ: "Science" outside Europe

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

While the Mongols did spread technology, the destruction of Bukhara and the House of Wisdom were pretty bad blows to Islamic intelligentsia that took a while to recover from. There's also a lack of literature during the Northern Jin that may be because of the Mongols.

Personally, here's my list of reasons for the Great Divergence (some of which are oca's points, others which are not):

• The scientific method. Although it's plausible that another method could have risen, a knowledge system (developed jointly by Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Islamic, and European scholars) that formalized scientific research really only matured in Europe. Early rationalist schools of thought in China were quashed by the Qin and didn't redevelop in later dynasties.
• Complex financial institutions due to exploration & overseas colonialism. The likes of the Dutch East India Company laid the groundwork for private corporations and investment to fund the costs of research and production during the Industrial Era.
• The Chinese City Wall hypothesis. Partially because of the differences in the watersheds of Europe/the Middle East and China, China ended up building thick, rammed earth city walls that disincentivized the development and adoption of gunpowder siege weapons, and by proxy, gunpowder weaponry (as handheld firearms directly descended from siege weapons).
• Locations of coal deposits. Chinese coal was abundant, but the shift of power & population southwards away from the coal deposits (partially because of the Mongols & Qing) disincentivized their use. European coal was relatively close in proximity to major population centers (like in the British Isles, Rhineland, etc.)
• Colonies allowed the offshoring of land, access to significant natural resources, and a captive market for manufactured goods.
• Political fragmentation did increase competition, and thus provided an incentive for military innovation and technological adoption, although I'm not sure about the idea of intellectuals/merchants having a safe haven. Aside from the aforementioned persecution of Jews, there was also the likes of the persecution of the Huguenots, the Cathars, and intellectuals caught up into religious persecutions/schisms (Bruno, More, Fisher, etc.).
• The failure of other nations to catch up due to a myriad of reasons. Some were because of isolationism (late Qing, Tokugawa Japan, etc.), others because of deindustrialization (India, the Ottoman Empire).

In the first item on your list you jump from Greek to Islamic and leave out the Romans. I suggest reading The Swerve by Harvard historian Stephen Greenblatt about the rediscovery in 1417 in an obscure German monastery of Lucretius's On the Nature of Things and the major impact it would have during the following centuries on scientific and secular philosophical thinking. It would be good to also note, among many others, the role of late antiquity Latin encyclopedists Cassiodorus and Isidore of Seville, as well as Boethius (philosopher, theologian and translator of much of Aristotle into Latin), in keeping alive some of the spirit of classical knowledge both Greek and Latin. While the majority of classical scientific work in the era of the Roman Empire was done in the Greek language (with the exception of the later-very-influential Naturalis Historia circa 77 AD by Pliny the Elder), this was not necessarily true of work in engineering and other technological fields. The Wikipedia article on Roman technology is more than enough to justify a separate listing for Rome apart from Greece in the listing above. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_technology

 

[Jürgen]

The hypothesis is that because Chinese city walls were stronger than that of Europe, gunpowder siege weapons were never meaningfully developed, which is what I said. Per Tonio Andrade:

Really doubt it, it’s more likely that Europeans with more low scale warfare and many manufacturing centers, simply tested their weapons more and had greater competition in building them. The Qing’s border conflict in the 17th century with Russia also showed European guns was superior to Chinese ones (through the Chinese still won) and the Qing copied them, but with no real conflict with Europeans the next 150 years, they didn’t really improved them. Europe had the benefit of a lot small wars and the power of balance rarely allowed one power to take another out, so Europe kept reforming and improving their armies and weaponry.

 

[Viking25]

This is a tricky thing to measure. I'm not even saying you are wrong, for certain POV's but it is really hard to compare (say) how 'involved' religion was in late Tokugawa Japan versus Louis XIV's France.

Can't say much about Tokugawa Japan(Though going by the treatment of christians religion did play a role) but Louis XIV expelled the entirety of Frances protestant population except those who came back to catholicism. So yes religion absolutely was involved in 17th century Frances politics, and it sure as hell was no shining example of the seperation of church and state

 

[Socrates]

Oh boy, if only. Qin Shi Huang pretty much dedicated the latter half of his life to extirpating Confucianism, and he still failed. Badly. The scholars frequently did what they wanted, you could probably populate Shanghai just with scholars executed for mouthing off to Chinese emperors.

But that's my point. Scholars that opposed the new orthodoxy in China just got executed. Scholars that challenged the Catholic orthodoxy in Europe got the backing of Princes and Kings. Neither side could get stamped out and it forced a bitter intellectual debate. There was a divide that couldn't be won by soldiers and force, forcing Europe into a battle of ideas and reasoned arguments. That created a way of thinking that then expanded to other areas.

 

[Hydra1234]

Really doubt it, it’s more likely that Europeans with more low scale warfare and many manufacturing centers, simply tested their weapons more and had greater competition in building them. The Qing’s border conflict in the 17th century with Russia also showed European guns was superior to Chinese ones (through the Chinese still won) and the Qing copied them, but with no real conflict with Europeans the next 150 years, they didn’t really improved them. Europe had the benefit of a lot small wars and the power of balance rarely allowed one power to take another out, so Europe kept reforming and improving their armies and weaponry.

That point was more geared towards Song/Yuan/early Ming China, which held an initial edge in gunpowder weapons compared to their contemporaries, yet lost that edge in the 16th and 17th centuries. I also mentioned political fragmentation as another reason too. None of the reasons I mentioned in my original post are isolated theories, but they each played a factor in the Great Divergence.

In the first item on your list you jump from Greek to Islamic and leave out the Romans. I suggest reading The Swerve by Harvard historian Stephen Greenblatt about the rediscovered in 1417 in an obscure German monastery of Lucretius's On the Nature of Things and the major impact it would have during the following centuries on scientific and secular philosophical thinking. It would be good to also note, among many others, the role of late antiquity Latin encyclopedists Cassiodorus and Isidore of Seville, as well as Boethius (philosopher, theologian and translator of much of Aristotle into Latin), in keeping alive some of the spirit of classical knowledge both Greek and Latin. While the majority of classical scientific work in the era of the Roman Empire was done in the Greek language (with the exception of the later very influential Naturalis Historia circa 77 AD by Pliny the Elder), this was not necessarily true of work in engineering and other technological fields. The Wikipedia article on Roman technology is more than enough to justify a separate listing for Rome apart from Greece in the listing above. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_technology

I'm more focused on specifically the scientific method, not rationalism or technological development. Atomism was more a general idea that the world could be viewed through observable mechanisms, and that was not unique to Europe/the Middle East. India and China both had similar counterparts. Pliny's work and Roman technological developments were impressive, but just like the inventions of contemporaries in China and India, they were not developed under a truly formal system such as the scientific method.

Of the listed civilizations, the Babylonians and Egyptians are on there for the first systematic approaches to science in astronomy and medicine, the Greeks are on there for Aristotle's syllogistic method and Euclid's axiomatic method, the Islamic nations are on there for the likes of al-Hayatham, al-Biruni, and Avicenna, all who wrote extensively about their methodologies and formalized a systematic method of experimentation, and the European nations are on there for developing the scientific method in its modern incarnation (Roger Bacon, Galileo, and Newton primarily). I don't think the Romans have a counterpart that was influential in developing the scientific method specifically.

 

[Viking25]

But that's my point. Scholars that opposed the new orthodoxy in China just got executed. Scholars that challenged the Catholic orthodoxy in Europe got the backing of Princes and Kings. Neither side could get stamped out and it forced a bitter intellectual debate. There was a divide that couldn't be won by soldiers and force, forcing Europe into a battle of ideas and reasoned arguments. That created a way of thinking that then expanded to other areas.

........Ever heard of the Great Schism? That also involved massive debates between scholars and resulted in differences that couldn't be mended with soldiers. Plus religious debate was not limited to just Europe, In India for instance not only was their fierce debate between Hindus, Jains and Buddhists but this behaviour was actually encouraged with the Kings of the Tamil Country during the Sangam period held grand debates where scholars of all religions and schools(Including a few actual atheists known as the Astika's) were allowed to put forward their arguments and argue freely. So if we are going by your argument that debate in religion leads to advancement in technology, then India and not Europe would have been the great technological powerhouse correct?

 

[Hearkener]

But that's my point. Scholars that opposed the new orthodoxy in China just got executed. Scholars that challenged the Catholic orthodoxy in Europe got the backing of Princes and Kings. Neither side could get stamped out and it forced a bitter intellectual debate. There was a divide that couldn't be won by soldiers and force, forcing Europe into a battle of ideas and reasoned arguments. That created a way of thinking that then expanded to other areas.

For one, making generalizing statements about freedom of expression throughout all of Chinese history is impossible, owing to the great diversity of governments that have ruled China. The Qin and Qing were very intolerant towards new ideas, but the same thing can't be said of the Tang.

And while a lot of scholars were executed over the centuries, their philosophies still managed to spread, largely through debate in the public forum. Contrary to orientalist tropes, China was not a stagnant country in which nothing changed ideologically between Qin Shi Huang and Mao Zedong. They had a shift from Legalism to Confucianism, a two-thousand year squabble between Taoism and Confucianism, the arrival of Buddism, a reformist movements within Confucianism called Neo-Confucianism, and lately the introduction of Christian nationalism, Republicanism and Socialism. Sometimes the state opposed new ideologies, sometimes it championed them, but change was a constant.

In Europe, some Christian reformers were protected by the government... others were executed, or had crusades launched against them. And quite a few reformist movements were annihilated by force of arms. Ever met a Cathar? Me neither.

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

That point was more geared towards Song/Yuan/early Ming China, which held an initial edge in gunpowder weapons compared to their contemporaries, yet lost that edge in the 16th and 17th centuries. I also mentioned political fragmentation as another reason too. None of the reasons I mentioned in my original post are isolated theories, but they each played a factor in the Great Divergence.

I'm more focused on specifically the scientific method, not rationalism or technological development. Atomism was more a general idea that the world could be viewed through observable mechanisms, and that was not unique to Europe/the Middle East. India and China both had similar counterparts. Pliny's work and Roman technological developments were impressive, but just like the inventions of contemporaries in China and India, they were not developed under a truly formal system such as the scientific method.

Of the listed civilizations, the Babylonians and Egyptians are on there for the first systematic approaches to science in astronomy and medicine, the Greeks are on there for Aristotle's syllogistic method and Euclid's axiomatic method, the Islamic nations are on there for the likes of al-Hayatham, al-Biruni, and Avicenna, all who wrote extensively about their methodologies and formalized a systematic method of experimentation, and the European nations are on there for developing the scientific method in its modern incarnation (Roger Bacon, Galileo, and Newton primarily). I don't think the Romans have a counterpart that was influential in developing the scientific method specifically.

Engineering is a science and the Romans were among the forerunners of that science, just as were the builders of the Gothic cathedrals. To test what will work until you get it right, and then to pass the knowledge on...so others can improve on it...that is as much science (by ancient standards) as the geometry which the Greeks and Egyptians before them worked out and which the Romans explicitly or implicitly used. In my opinion, study of the development of scientific method is inseparable from study of the development of rationalism. technology and tolerance of new discoveries. And that includes the study of the development of scientific and proto-scientific instruments for measurement and observation, which doubtless developed in countries both inside and outside Europe. For instance, about 1400 BC the Egyptians were already using measuring ropes, plumb bobs, and other instruments to gauge the dimensions of plots of land. About 800 years ago, Chinese and Western European travelers learned to use loadstones for navigation although the phenomenon of magnetism had been known much earlier. The earliest microscope was developed around 1600 by a Dutch spectacle maker but it took decades to make ones of adequate accuracy for science, to standardize somewhat the methods of making them, and to figure out the best lighting for various objects of study. (The 17th century natural philosopher Margaret Cavendish, Dutchess of Newcastle, had personal experience with microscopes and published a critique of the inaccuracy of how they were being used; she would be slammed as a foolish woman for hundreds of years until scholars recently looked at what she had actually written and discovered she'd been right on the instrumentation and lighting questions. It other words, she'd been involved in an aspect of scientific method--the improvement of observation and measurement devices--that would often include rational debate and would increase in importance down to the present day.)

 

[Hydra1234]

Engineering is a science and the Romans were among the forerunners of that science, just as were the builders of the Gothic cathedrals. To test what will work until you get it right, and then to pass the knowledge on...so others can improve on it...that is as much science (by ancient standards) as the geometry which the Greeks and Egyptians before them worked out and which the Romans explicitly or implicitly used.

Still, what differentiates Roman engineering/mathematics from Chinese/Indian engineering/mathematics? I would argue each of their respective contemporaries were at technological parity. There were innovations coming out of all three civilizations at similar rates all the way up to the 16th/17th century. As I stated before, Rome wasn't the first to develop systematic approaches to certain fields. That developed in Babylon/Egypt (for Europe/the Middle East; I think that other civilizations like India, China, and Mesoamerica developed it too).

And that includes study of the development of scientific and proto-scientific instruments for measurement and observation, which doubtless developed in countries both inside and outside Europe.

I think instruments were the effect, not the cause. The development of a method that relied on systematic analysis required measurement, and therefore scientific instruments.

In the case of microscopes, the whole reason the microscopes gained traction was that Baconism was the main trend, and what was originally a tool for a draper to better see his thread was a way to conduct better observation and experimentation under Baconism.

The 17th century natural philosopher Margaret Cavendish, Dutchess of Newcastle, had personal experience with microscopes and published a critique of the inaccuracy of how they were being used; she would be slammed as ignorant for hundreds of years until scholars recently looked at what she had actually written and discovered she'd been right on the instrumentation and lighting questions. It other words, she'd been involved in an aspect of scientific method--the improvement of observation and measurement devices--that would often include rational debate and would increase in importance down to the present day.)

Cavendish was in a camp (with the likes of Locke and Syndenham) that argued that microscopes would be useless regardless of how advanced they would be. She also believed that artificial instruments would never trump "natural" observation and thinking. The unreliability of contemporary microscopes also wasn't unknown; Hooke himself knew that his microscopes needed improvement.

Now Cavendish was a rationalist that did believe in aspects of experimentalism, but I don't think her critique of contemporary scientific measurement devices is a good example of her rationalist beliefs.

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

I wasn't comparing the Romans to the Indians and Chinese, merely arguing that the Latin-speaking and Latin-writing Romans should be regarded as part of the global picture on the evolution of science, including its technological aspects. As to Cavendish, Locke, etc. they raised apparent issues on whether it is possible to interpret the sensory data from microscopes in a useful way. (The question would never have arisen if the modern distinction between senses and perception had existed. ) Such questions often arise in scientific discourse, with the solution driving science forward regardless of which side is right or wrong. The separate issue of instrument limitations as raised by Cavendish was, as described by her, imminently useful and can be compared to the efforts in the 18th century to develop reliable navigation equipment and methods for the high seas. This thread is not about Cavendish, but another aspect of her philosophical work is pertinent here: her calling attention to the role of imagination and daydreaming (although she didn't use the latter word) in relation, implicitly, to natural philosophy. Her critique of microscopy was included in a volume that also included The Blazing World, her science-fiction novel far ahead of its time and apparently spurred in part by Francis Bacon's The New Atlantis. She dealt with imagination elsewhere in her works and it raises the issue of when and where in the history of early science others may have had comparable impulses, as for instance Emanuel Swedenborg with his visionary experiences. I have a hunch that there may have been a connection between scientific curiosity and imagination in medieval Iran, also.

 

[manitobot]

To give some more content for some answers regarding "Science" I am defining it as empiricism, or really having the principles of the scientific method. Basically, it is a culture of human beings admitting ignorance about things we do not know and seeking to find an explanation of natural phenomena through observation. Outside of Europe, this was found in:
-The Edwin Smith papyrus of Ancient Egypt in medicine
-Babylonian astronomy
-The Vaishekisha and Charvaka schools of Indian philosophy
-Mozi in China
-Al-Biruni in Central Asia
-Al Farabi and Avicenna in the Islamic Golden Ages

But really anything fits the criteria if you think about it. Something like the Mesoamerican Three Sisters is based in principles of science.
-

 

[Dancing Fool]

6) Black Death (making labour expensive) (everyone was affected)

very sad that this helps things out , but might be true.

If so, it would mean that only half of the economic system works: the goods side, but not the jobs side.

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

Another way of tracing the growth of science and technology worldwide is through the study of early maps and the concrete geographical knowledge and concept of the earth's shape and size that they contain. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_world_maps This article mostly deals with originals or copies of Greco-Roman and early Western European maps but also includes Islamic and Chinese maps.

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

Here is the University of Chicago history of cartography Vol. 1, Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean (I presume this includes cartography in Islamic areas of the Mediterranean). I read Chapter 15 on cartography in the Byzantine Empire, very fine scholarship. Chapter 5 ("Cartography in the Ancient World: An Introduction," pp. 105-6) has interesting comments on the similarities and differences of Greek and Roman cartography that are pertinent to some of the comments in this thread.

 

[oca2073]

mongols did invade Europe multiple times after that but Poland and Hungary defeat them

Yes, but the main point is they were spared the sacking that ME and Asia experienced, both due to distance, military factors, and the Khan's untimely death. Mongols by comparison did very little damage to Europe beyond Ukraine.

not unique to europe black death as it came there from central asia after ravaging it and it also ravaged middle east

I already acknowledged this.

not unique to europe before great divergence europe was no more divided than middle east or south asia

This is untrue, Middle East and Asia are dominated by hegemonic empires: Ottomans, Chinese dynasties, Mughals periodically. Europe has NEVER been unified since the Romans and a brief period under Charlemagne (partial unification)

myth of problems with spice supply

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/7nv7ts

Europeans started the age of of exploration as they were inspired by mercantilism which emerged in the trade based city states of Italy in high middle ages emphasizing control over their trade and spices traded from ottoman empire remained cheaper than that of portugal

Yes, but the spice was still a motivator for Portugal and western nations to break the stranglehold on spice enjoyed by the Italian city states, Ottomans, Mediterranean. If Europe could grow its own spice or was right next to Asia with easy access to everyone this would not have happened.

not unique to europe west africa and maghreb had the same distance from americas

True, but I was thinking more about this being an advantage over ME and Asia. The important thing is Europe had ALL these advantages, while in other areas they only had some of these advantages but not others.

cold in europe did make life difficult than tropical and equatorial regions which had a more agricultually productive enivornment

By definition, temperate areas are more likely to see greater agricultural areas and development. Malaria and tropical diseases were a blight for equatorial civilisations and they rarely lasted long: see Mali, Khmers, Mayans for example.

which did happen in europe but increasing agricultual productivity in modern era mostly eliminated them so it was the result not the cause of great divergence

Europe's famines happened mostly due to political reasons wars for example. There were no seasonal famines everytime the rains failed like in India.

which had a better rivers for transportation by building the grand canal around thousand years before great divergence

China's rivers are notoriously unstable and not as navigable historically and prone to flooding.

whose regions were more agriculturally productive even during the modern era.

Again, this is in comparison to the Islamic World as I noted above but you omitted in your response, the point is Europe had ALL the advantages, while the Middle East and Asia could only claim some of the advantages.

 

[oca2073]

Do you think Abrahamic religions are unique in asserting that the universe is regular and obervable? Because attempts at systemization of the natural world have been a thing since the dawn of human history.

They aren't unique but with the Abrahamic religions you can pretty much guarantee it, whereas in other civilisations you could go either way. The question is not settled by religion and thus the skeptics are very influential.

The Quran can be read allegorically just as much as the Old Testament. That's actually what a lot of secular muslims do.

It's MORE difficult to read allegorically than the Old Testament and the case for it is MORE difficult to sustain by comparison historically speaking.

Seperation of Church and state is a few centuries old at best, and still rejected by millions of Christians today. The Latin Church is, by its own conception, a state in its own right. The Orthodox Church is subject to the SPQR.

It's not separation of church and state. It's the idea that there are some secular matters outside of morality that the Church isn't interested in because they aren't supposed to concern themselves with "earthly matters." This Platonic distinction is not referenced in the Qu'ran as far as I know in fact Islam is ALL about organising earthly matters in your everyday life, society, and civilisation.

Aside from defining a lot of primitive logical axioms, the Greeks are no more systematic or methodical than the Babylonians or Egyptians. Unlike these two, however, their writing system survived and could be read during the Enlightenment.

That's enough, the Greeks survived and influenced the West. The Egyptians and Babylonians did not and had little influence on subsequent civilisations. China and India did not have the same advantage as an "advanced" precursor civilisation that promoted systematic and methodical approaches.

Coal and iron are more abundant in China than in Europe, and China was world leader in iron and coal production for a solid chunk of human history.

China's reserves are not as shallow and more difficult to discover/obtain. Most of China's coal and iron reserves were not discovered until the 20th century.

The Mongols were among the greatest distributors of technology in history, to the degree that not having been part of their Empire can be considered a big disadvantage.

You mean they took what technology survived their massacres and others spread it? Islamic world was annihilated by the Mongols. Look what they did to Baghdad. Chinese civilisation was never the same again after the fall of the Song. This statement is absurd. The Mongols made the roads safer so without them there would have been no spread of technology?

European standards of living were actually pretty bad compared to places like Iran, India or China prior to the 18th century. Intellectuals and traders weren't exactly safe either. Just look at how European countries treated their Jewish minorities.

Completely wrong, national accounting methods of calculating historical GDP per capita show that Europe's standard of living was on par with China until 1500 and these two regions led the world. Then Europe overtook China but China's richest region the Jiangnan kept pace with Europe's richest countries until 1700 and then fell behind radically. India was always very poor and their GDP per capita declined starting in 1600 during the reign of Akbar.

Ideal climatic conditions for humans are tropical savanna. Anywhere you have to wear clothing is suboptimal. European agricultural yields also consistently underperformed historically compared to those of Egypt or China. And if you think flooding is rare here, you haven't paid attention to the vast water managements systems that have made Rhine and Danube not be hellish swampland.

You haven't seen China's floods which regularly killed hundreds of thousands (even millions) of ppl on a periodic basis and they have far larger waterworks to survive. Without them, Chinese civilisation wouldn't even survive. Indeed, the founding myth of China is that the Yellow Emperor created the first waterworks system for taming the great rivers. That's how bad flooding was in China. The person who did it is divine progenitor of Chinese civilisation.

Tropical civilisations are always at a disadvantage and historically went extinct at far greater rates when they did occur: Mayans, Khmers, Mali, Egypt, ect. Temperate civilisations have far better survival chances because of climate and their civilisations have greater continuity and consistency.

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

The Greco-Roman intellectual culture had an edge even in the last centuries of the Western Empire and even under the "barbarian" rule thereafter, and managed to stabilize permanently a rationalist element in Western Christianity. A brilliant analysis of this is found in Russian historian Victoria Ukolova's The Last of the Romans and European Culture (published in English in 1989 at the height of glasnost); she described how encyclopedists and other Greco-Roman Christians, e.g., Cassiodorus , Boethius and Isidore of Seville, were able to insert into or strengthen many classical elements in Christian theology and its philosophical underpinnings. She was able to spot certain things because she and many other Russian historians had learned how to indirectly soften up Soviet ideology in a not entirely dissimilar way without losing their jobs (the late Roman encyclopedists also faced possible or real repression). Ukolova's book may help to explain how enlightened ideas continued to grow in the West until the Renaissance while similar impulses in Islam were often still-born or crushed, as in Spain, by fundamentalist tendencies.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

The Greco-Roman intellectual culture had an edge even in the last centuries of the Western Empire and even under the "barbarian" rule thereafter, and managed to stabilize permanently a rationalist element in Western Christianity. A brilliant analysis of this is found in Russian historian Victoria Ukolova's The Last of the Romans and European Culture (published in English in 1989 at the height of glasnost); she described how encyclopedists and other Greco-Roman Christians, e.g., Cassiodorus , Boethius and Isidore of Seville, were able to insert into or strengthen many classical elements in Christian theology and its philosophical underpinnings. She was able to spot certain things because she and many other Russian historians had learned how to indirectly soften up Soviet ideology in a not entirely dissimilar way without losing their jobs (the late Roman encyclopedists also faced possible or real repression). Ukolova's book may help to explain how enlightened# ideas continued to grow in the West until the Renaissance while similar impulses in Islam were often still-born or crushed, as in Spain, by fundamentalist tendencies.

That is also what Islamic philosophers like Ibn Sinna (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and others did. Integrating Greek Philosophy and science into Islamic and other thought. So this doesn't explain why the rationalist element* sticked in Europe, but not in the Islamic world.

* That's very vague. I think i know what you mean, but at some point we need to define this.
# This word use you need to defend. Enlightened in the middle ages?

 

[Sardar]

They aren't unique but with the Abrahamic religions you can pretty much guarantee it, whereas in other civilisations you could go either way. The question is not settled by religion and thus the skeptics are very influential.

The opposite was true for much of history.

It's not separation of church and state. It's the idea that there are some secular matters outside of morality that the Church isn't interested in because they aren't supposed to concern themselves with "earthly matters." This Platonic distinction is not referenced in the Qu'ran as far as I know in fact Islam is ALL about organising earthly matters in your everyday life, society, and civilisation.

That distinction in the Christian world only came after like a millennium of the Church being the most powerful institution by far in Europe.

That's enough, the Greeks survived and influenced the West. The Egyptians and Babylonians did not and had little influence on subsequent civilisations. China and India did not have the same advantage as an "advanced" precursor civilisation that promoted systematic and methodical approaches.

Huh?

You mean they took what technology survived their massacres and others spread it? Islamic world was annihilated by the Mongols. Look what they did to Baghdad. Chinese civilisation was never the same again after the fall of the Song. This statement is absurd. The Mongols made the roads safer so without them there would have been no spread of technology?

The Mongols were destructive, but Islamic knowledge was able to survive in Damascus (then Timur came along) and eventually Cairo and Constantinople. And during the Ming and Qing China was still the most powerful civilization in Asia up until the late 19th century.

Completely wrong, national accounting methods of calculating historical GDP per capita show that Europe's standard of living was on par with China until 1500 and these two regions led the world. Then Europe overtook China but China's richest region the Jiangnan kept pace with Europe's richest countries until 1700 and then fell behind radically. India was always very poor and their GDP per capita declined starting in 1600 during the reign of Akbar.

That is absolutely untrue, many areas of India were on par with Europe even until the 18th century like Mysore, Bengal and later, the Punjab.

Tropical civilisations are always at a disadvantage and historically went extinct at far greater rates when they did occur: Mayans, Khmers, Mali, Egypt, ect. Temperate civilisations have far better survival chances because of climate and their civilisations have greater continuity and consistency.

All of the people you name still exist. And Ancient Egypt existed for longer than our current civilization has.

 

[Hearkener]

Completely wrong, national accounting methods of calculating historical GDP per capita show that Europe's standard of living was on par with China until 1500 and these two regions led the world. Then Europe overtook China but China's richest region the Jiangnan kept pace with Europe's richest countries until 1700 and then fell behind radically. India was always very poor and their GDP per capita declined starting in 1600 during the reign of Akbar.

GDP is not an indicator of standard of living. It is a measure of productivity, but countries can be economically very productive while also treating their inhabitants like dogshit. Qatar has the world's highest GDP per capita, at 128,647$. Meanwhile, Norway has a GDP of 62,183$ per capita. Yet Norway, very obviously, has a higher standard of living than Qatar.

Secondly, estimating GDP is hard, even today with all of our modern data. It ignores the unofficial sector, which can make up a substantial factor of economic activity and emphasizes the production of high-value commodities and services (oil, tech, diamonds) over economic activity with low profit margins, such as subsistence-level agriculture. Trying to argue any economic data before the 20th century to be reliable is nonsense.

This is what happens when you try to argue with economic data without understanding how that data works in the first place.

Tropical civilisations are always at a disadvantage and historically went extinct at far greater rates when they did occur: Mayans, Khmers, Mali, Egypt, ect. Temperate civilisations have far better survival chances because of climate and their civilisations have greater continuity and consistency.

Ignoring that Egypt is nowhere near the tropics, none of these civilizations went extinct. The Mayans and Khmer still exist. Their languages are still spoken and they retain their ethnic and cultural identities. Europeans introduced the nonsense theory that these cultures "fell", based on the abadonment of some (nowhere near all) of their cities, in order to justify their conquest and exploitation. Mali was a state in west Africa which did collapse, but the Mandinka people which had built this Empire endured. Sure, the Egyptians speak Arabic now and practice Islam, but their civilisation still exists.

The Nile also has a much longer history of agricultural civilization than most of western Europe, btw.

They aren't unique but with the Abrahamic religions you can pretty much guarantee it, whereas in other civilisations you could go either way. The question is not settled by religion and thus the skeptics are very influential.

Where exactly is the rational and observable nature of the universe explicitly stated anywhere in Abrahamic scripture? For that matter, what religions reject a rational and observable universe? Citation needed.

It's MORE difficult to read allegorically than the Old Testament and the case for it is MORE difficult to sustain by comparison historically speaking.

If you are a scriptural Christian, you believe that the Old Testament is the word of God, only revealed to the Jews who did the physical writing. You also believe that everything in there is literal fact. Allegorical readings are possible, just as with the Quran, but in both cases, they are unscriptural and heretical in nature.

It's not separation of church and state. It's the idea that there are some secular matters outside of morality that the Church isn't interested in because they aren't supposed to concern themselves with "earthly matters." This Platonic distinction is not referenced in the Qu'ran as far as I know in fact Islam is ALL about organising earthly matters in your everyday life, society, and civilisation.

This is modern Catholic theology reimposed over the past. Until very recently, the idea that anything is beyond the control of the Church, was heretical. All legitimate government derives from the Church. Morality and the platonic concept of truth is derived exlusively from the Church. A perfect state would be completely obedient to the Holy See in all matters. There isn't exactly a lot of disagreement between this notion and the Quranic one.

That's enough, the Greeks survived and influenced the West. The Egyptians and Babylonians did not and had little influence on subsequent civilisations. China and India did not have the same advantage as an "advanced" precursor civilisation that promoted systematic and methodical approaches.

You say this, and yet there are two-dozen hours to the day and twelve months to the year.