Ok, so the other day during the class discussion we talked about the Basalla essay and how science is spread throughout different groups of people. Throughout the essay he states how the western science is where all science originates. Through his three steps he shows how the less knowledgeable people learn science from the encroaching westerners. Step two and three apply most to what I was wondering, two being when the group has a newly developed outlook on science but yet have not become independent of the westerner aid, and the third being when the group creates their own outlook on science based on the Europeans. My question is, if the Europeans were to follow these steps for themselves, who would have been the ones to bring science to them? And because of this, wouldn't it mean that their science wasn't as superior after all? If all science is based on western science and it is more superior to all then why is it that it is not the location of the beginning of science? What are you guys thoughts on this matter? Is it just that over the years science in Europe has expanded and become more complex than anywhere else? If this were the case I feel that Basalla would show more respect for the nations such as India and China who's science wasn't really lacking. It just was not the same as European science. However, he doesn't, so his thoughts must be the contrary. I don't know, the arrogance of the idea just gets the better of me.
P.S. Everyone was putting a picture, so I decided to join the club. haha
Image source : http://www.fritzcartoons.com/wpcontent/uploads/2007/02/thewheelhigh.jpg
In Basalla's argument, he says the Western science started when Europeans began gathering flora and fauna for study. I think he believes this is the beginning of all science simply because it's the most recorded on a global basis, and because they were the first, he assumes they're also the best. In regards to the egotistical view of western science and that India and China's science wasn't legitimate, I think he tries to make this point in order to emphasize his point that all legitimate science spawned from European knowledge. By suggesting that Indian and Chinese science wasn't notable or original until they were introduced to European science, he is emphasizing the spread of nationalism and things of that such in his argument.
ReplyDeleteI do have a question though, what do mean by, "If all science is based on western science and it is more superior to all then why is it that it is not the location of the beginning of science?"
I wonder if Basalla is really negating ancient Chinese and Indian science. Is he just overlooking it because it is less relevant than European science? I mean European science spread to China and India, and created the basis/launch pad/starting point for science today. Are we and MacLeod being too harsh? I don't know what to think about this..
ReplyDeleteI guess what I am saying is based on my belief that science is not the very complex science that we know of today. That science is actually a much simpler idea as Huxley showed. With this said, since Europe was not the location of the first civilizations of the world to emerge, I believe it is not where science originated. And as you stated, Basalla says western science started when Europeans began gathering flora and fauna for study. If this was all Basalla was basing his assumptions off of then it seems that Europe would not actually be the originator of science. This is what I meant by that question; however, I guess it was more of a sarcastic statement rather than a question.
ReplyDeleteIf we try to find the originator of science, we will discuss the definition of science again, but I do not think we can find out the ultimate definition.
ReplyDeleteAs a Chinese, I am sure there are differences between western science and oriental science (including Chinese science). Western science is more systematic, complete, and practical than oriental science. For example, ancient Chinese know how to calculate and how to draw a circle, but they do not have a complete mathematical system like Europeans do. Europeans actually divide mathematics into more specific categories such as algebra, geometry, and calculus, which means Europeans actually study the science in a detailed and systematical way.
Yeah, I feel like western science was just more general and more complete (as Herman said), which is probably why it caught on like it did. Maybe it was just that western science phased out eastern science because it was more profitable, meaning that the countries that USED western-style science allowed for larger advancements that occurred much faster than with eastern style science.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like the "less-knowledgable" countries had a choice either, with the imperialistic Europeans breathing down their necks during the colonial period.