It's cool if ancient Egyptians or Mayans or whoever had this stuff, but if you're talking about the history of how we know things today, then the ones you want to talk about are the mostly old white dudes who rediscovered it and popularised it for the modern world. Earlier cultures discovering these things is really interesting, but it's sort of a Leif Ericsson discovering America type situation a big deal that ultimately didn't amount to much.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Does Neil deGrasse Tyson's COSMOS suffer from an elitist, eurocentric narrative?
- Thread starter thespot84
- Start date
- Status
God Dayumm
Banned
Might as well dedicate airtime to creationism if they are going to mention history and ancient alternative theories
If you want to get technical about it people in ancient times didnt view race the same way it's viewed today. The idea of being "white" is a modern invention. That being said, both ancient Greeks and Romans would certainly be considered white today - just look at contemporary populatuons - neither place suffered population decimations or substantial immigrations - they're basically the same population.
To OP,
While I do think much of history and science, generally, is Eurocentric, much of the article is silly, and I agree, defensive. Who knew what pre-Hellenistic Egyptians really knew, we just don't know, but because we don't know for sure we can't use them authoratively for a scientific program.
Count Dookkake
Member
It's not a religious show.
Without evidence, these claims are not scientific.
Without evidence, these claims are not scientific.
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
After the first 2 episodes there was outcry of him not talking about Creationism in the same vein.
Ibn Al-Haytham.
What I find concerning is that there seem to be a contingent of people (from the comments of the article) that categorically denounce the history as it is 'written by white people'. I struggle with the irony, but this kind of historical revisionism seems just as dangerous as the young earthers when it comes to poisoning the educational well
LMAO! Okay, this post totally made my day. Thank you sir. PEACE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria
I was taught in college (art school) that it was burned down by the romans during an invasion. Then later read that if the library was never burned down, we would have had the industrial revolution 500 years sooner.
There's some real truth to it. Like why are maps drawn with Europe and North America prominently at the top? People who record history control the narrative. However, without sufficient evidence to the contrary, the criticism rings hollow. PEACE.
It's meaningless when people say things like this. There is no way of quantifying or proving it whatsoever. For example, how can anyone calculate that number if it's unknown what was even in there? I'm not criticizing you just your teachers.
Of all the shows to criticize this with I think this one is the least deserving. There has been a frankly surprising level of attention payed to not only science fact and the post scientific method world, but also to pre-science history throughout the entire world. Describing how different people assumed things about the universe that were not verified for thousands of years. Last weeks episode was devoted almost entirely to pre-science Arab and Chinese thinkers. Women have been underrepresented so far, but considering that Ann Druyan has been writing the most, and there is an episode coming that appears to be about women i'm willing to give the show the benefit of the doubt.
However, it's certainly worth pointing out that yes even in Science there is a bias on the part of the people that tends to keep women and POC away. And the history books (or as it is taught) do gloss over non western discoveries. This could be an American problem though.
However, it's certainly worth pointing out that yes even in Science there is a bias on the part of the people that tends to keep women and POC away. And the history books (or as it is taught) do gloss over non western discoveries. This could be an American problem though.
That's an easy answer. Technology in the north exceeded that in the south, thus the creation and distribution of maps first happened in the north.
There's also a right handed bias in the world, and north is often equated with right handedness and goodness (adroit, to be expert at something from the french à droit, meaning rightly) and south with lefthandedness (southpaw) and badness. I'm sure a lof ot left handed people feel that we should uproot our language in the name of equanimity.
I agree that we should make an effort to address the bias in the way things are taught (there was a teacher at my high school who would only show maps up side down, for instance), but writing off the SCIENCE that is history because it's been influenced by the 'victors' is poisonous.
By the way, I can't recommend the book 'Guns, Germs, and Steel" enough when it comes to this subject. Technological innovation had to happen somewhere, and the reality is that it happened where the people had the most advantages in terms of information sharing and resouces, which happened to be the long latitudinal swathes of good farmland and similar climates that stretch eurasia.
Well, there's exactly two possibilities: either North is top or South is top. And I think North being top becoming the norm in "the West" is older than correct maps of the world.
Fenderputty
Banned
Didn't the last episode discuss how the Arab world pushed science forward?
The Albatross
Member
Until the Atlanta Blackstar can learn to put more than two paragraphs onto a single page, I'm having a tough time getting to their point.
This is pure gold
This is pure gold
I think it's reasonable to say that white people (and especially white men) have unreasonably dominated society for hundreds of years. This is the part that conservative people are often uncomfortable talking about.
However, because of that precise condition, it's also true that white people (especially white men) have had a disproportionately large impact on society and science. Not because they're better, but because they've been in the positions of power which allowed them to make these sorts of discoveries in the first place. The truly poor and disenfranchised aren't likely to be discovering laws of planetary motion. This part tends to make liberal people uncomfortable.
This does not mean that no non-white-male has ever made a serious contribution, nor does it mean that all white people have always been ruthlessly controlling. They're generalities, with plenty of exceptions in all directions. Astronomy is a fairly young science, and has existed during an era when white people have held disproportionate power; consequently, yes, white people have contributed disproportionately to astronomy, because they've been in the best position to do so.
However, because of that precise condition, it's also true that white people (especially white men) have had a disproportionately large impact on society and science. Not because they're better, but because they've been in the positions of power which allowed them to make these sorts of discoveries in the first place. The truly poor and disenfranchised aren't likely to be discovering laws of planetary motion. This part tends to make liberal people uncomfortable.
This does not mean that no non-white-male has ever made a serious contribution, nor does it mean that all white people have always been ruthlessly controlling. They're generalities, with plenty of exceptions in all directions. Astronomy is a fairly young science, and has existed during an era when white people have held disproportionate power; consequently, yes, white people have contributed disproportionately to astronomy, because they've been in the best position to do so.
dr3upmushroom
Banned
Awesome, and props to you good man.Sun Ra knows the score:
I don't think that older cultures made the astronomical discoveries Kepler, Galileo, Newton and others did.
At least, not with the precision they did, and with the mathematics to use this precision.
It was not enough to randomly guess that the orbits of planets was elliptical, the precise formula for these orbits was an achievement too, and it was the important one that allowed the actual advances.
At least, not with the precision they did, and with the mathematics to use this precision.
It was not enough to randomly guess that the orbits of planets was elliptical, the precise formula for these orbits was an achievement too, and it was the important one that allowed the actual advances.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Would you say its astronomy, or astrophysics?
Because I think studying the stars is as old as civilization itself, but using physical laws to accurately describe the movements of celestial bodies is only 500 or so years old.
Astrophysics particularly, yes. Astronomy is definitely more wishy-washy, but I'd categorize it like medicine: yes, medicine existed as a discipline before the 1800s, but most of it was sort of fumbling about until the germ theory became understood and the scientific method became more formalized. Suddenly, there was a rapid advance in medical science. Similarly, some important astronomical observations were made pre-enlightenment (including some people who theorized a heliocentric universe), but the science really took off once we had telescopes.
Kiraly
Member
Oh no you didn't
I think to describe astronomy as just 'studying the stars' discredits the work done in the field today. I'm also not sure that one can separate modern astronomy from astrophysics. Can any modern astronomers traverse their careers without applying the physical laws to their observations?
Search for this amazing BBC documentary:
Jim Al-Khalili > NGT
FortuneFaded
Member
I agree that this is why white people of European descent have made a bigger contribution to science than black people of African descent. However, it is unfair to label this as the only reason for white people having a larger impact. Since the 1500's Europe, and then also America, have been very pro science and new technology. A lot of time and effort has been put into this and so it is only natural to expect a result.
You also have to consider the 'competition'. Ancient China made a lot of new discoveries however this dwindled in later years, part of the reason is that glass production was rare until comparatively recently and this affected their science production https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0OhXxx7cQg. The Islamic Golden Age produced the most influential discoveries of the time but then Islam states drifted away from the importance of science.
Yes, I agree, it is not the only factor.
But what made european culture less adverse to scientific advancement? I don't think it has anything to do inherently with europeans, but simply that having enjoyed benefits like easier dissemination of invention and information and better access to resources like food production the europeans simply saw the benefits of science and technology outway the upheaval it invariably causes, whereas those less exposed would have weighed the costs and benefits conversely.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Of course you can't be an astronomer without knowledge of astrophysics. You can't make accurate observations without applying basic principles of physics to the life and other information you receive from a telescope.
But therein lies the problem. The telescope and the basic principles of physics as applied to astronomical observation were invented in Europe in the last 500 years.
krypt0nian
Banned
See, now I love you. HAHA
Firstly, love QI. My whole reason for making this thread was because I noticed people had opinions like this (in response to the QI video):
You and I and opiate saw this video, took it at face value, maybe we didn't question it enough. But someone else saw this video and is convinced that western conspiracy has its evil grubs all up in it and will do anything to put a stop to revealing the contributions of others with regards to science.
That's what I saw with the article I posted in OP, and it kind of blew my mind since I live in a bubble apparently and had never seen it before. Is this something limited to conspiracy theorists or do we really face a battle of knowledge like we do with young earth creationists?
FortuneFaded
Member
I've played Civilization V as well. I agree that having more sustenance made it easier to focus on other goals and there is no way of knowing whether the results would match perfectly if different cultures situation were reversed. I do think however, that having a good foundation of scientists in the 1500's paved the way for more to come as people were inspired by their scientific heroes. This is the same way in which Kenya & Ethiopia dominate long distance races. There is no specific reason why they should but a few breakout athletes were successful and so a lot of future Kenyans & Ethiopians took up the sport to emulate their heroes.
Yes. Pure and simple.
I don't disagree with your statement, but why would it make liberals uncomfortable? I would expect it to simply reinforce their resolve to eliminate poverty and improve education, so that more discoveries can be made.
LOL i've actually not played CIV 5 and got the notion from the book I mentioned earlier. Certainly technology begets technology, but science in europe did not really flourish until the enlightenment. So prior to the 1500s, what made the enlightenment possible? was it something endemic to the european mindset? that's what I'm getting at (and that no, its' not a european thing, it's a 'we happen to have more resources and information' thing)
FortuneFaded
Member
Surely you've been on the internet long enough to know what to expect from Youtube comments?
I'm not a historian. I don't know the answer to these questions and it be disingenuous of me to try and speculate. I know nothing outside of what I've seen on QI.
There are many Italians and Greeks that are not White according to Northern European and perhaps even American definitions. Unless your definition of White is European Christian regardless of precise skin colour. Both ethnicities are diverse in looks, as are other European Mediterranean peoples.
You're spot on about the colour concept of race being a new idea and alien to the Ancients. It's so dumb imo. The only important metric of racial identity should be the ethnicity one is tied to. I personally see race as a synonym of ethnicity. The colour stuff makes no sense to me.
I beg to differ. Astronomy is an extraordinarily old science, as people have been cataloging the stars for millennia. The difference is that before Astrophysics it was more like naturalists cataloging animals before evolution gave us modern Biology. We didn't have the tools to explain and predict many of the things we saw, but we made rigorous observations and made inferences. In practice, you can somewhat feel the science's age by the continued use of certain methods simply out of historical reasons. One of which is the magnitude scale, developed first by Hipparchus over two thousand years ago. Another is the spectral classification system, which today goes O B A F G K M instead of something more logical like A B C D E F G for decreasing effective surface temperature.
Secularism shouldn't really be ignored in this context. Astronomy in Egypt was generally in the service of some despot who ruled in the name of divine right. The Byzantines were once the richest state in Europe but science languished there for similar reasons.
The Byzantines retained and advanced the secular institutions that existed. It was the state with the most advanced secular education and science until the Islamic Golden Age. Where it still remained a state with advanced secular education.
And during the Islamic golden age It still had its own form of sort of renaissance under the Macedonian emperors, the Palaeologan Renaissance is impressive being at its weakest and it had impressive secular education which was greek and roman secular education in universities.
The significant population decline and also loss of teritory was the biggest problem. Devastations like justinian conquest and plague which ended with significant population loss, the slavic, persian, islamic invasions after the devastating Persian Byzantine war and more were a significiant problem. Additionally some of this teritories such as Antioch was a boon to the conquerors. When you lose Egypt, Syria, and later on much of Anatolia, any state is going to decline.
Now there are other issues about scientific inovvation and institutions but Byzantium was not a place that was against secular science due to religion any more than Europe or the Islamic world was.
Obviously not every liberal (just as not every conservative is discomforted by the notion of white privilege), but some people are disturbed by the notion that some groups of people / races / cultures have been more important for the advancement of civilization than other groups have. It certainly ruffles PC feathers.
Eh, that makes sense except that you included the why part in your statement. If you just said "White people have made more discoveries", I'd certainly expect that to ruffle feathers. If you then explain why that's so, because people are in a disadvantageous position because of poverty and lack of proper education, that flows straight into typical liberal positions.
I mean, if I thought the poor and powerless could do whatever they want without any assistance, I'd think I would be a lot more conservative.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Neil touched on non-Euro scientists(Asia, Mideast..)
But Astronomy is fairly new and most recent big discoveries in the field happened in the west.
But Astronomy is fairly new and most recent big discoveries in the field happened in the west.
Yes, I completely agree about race = ethnicity, and put no stock into actual color connotation whatsoever. If we just have to use race as a concept I have always felt it should be as inclusive as possible.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked