Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Britain’s empire of science

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#11

Post by jodrellblank »

082349872349872 wrote: post #5
klodolph wrote: post #4

British publications love to explain how British culture is responsible for British scientific achievements. Fact is, scientific powerhouses have appeared throughout history in different cultures. What factors contribute to a scientific golden age? I’m unimpressed with an analysis that looks like a puff piece for British culture, and contains a supposed “cautionary tale”, but fails to do any do any comparative work o…

Anytime one finds oneself in a society which lies near the centre of an extensive trade network, one can find oneself treated to many dinners by the simple expedient of concocting a little story about how it is (not their geographical-economic situation but) their culture which is responsible for their affluence.

But what leads to the extensive trade network? Looking at a world map[1], why should Britain be near the centre of anything? We’re on the west edge of Europe, only accessible by water, as far north as Canada. Britain’s trade was related to understanding of scurvy[2] which lead to more long sea voyages, steam ships from the industrial Revolution which was also a British thing some time after cutting down all the trees to make ships and having to find coal asa fuel instead of wood, and relentless cruel and exploitative colonisation to extract riches and desirables from all over. Whether that part is cultural or not I have no comment, but you can’t really go to “large trade network not culture” without explaining the large trade network and why other countries didn’t build the same but could have - or apparently could have.

And trade doesn’t seem to explain things like the discovery of penicillin, or John Snow’s tracing of cholera to a water pump and starting epidemiology; were they doing that to profit? What about when Rutherford split the atom in Manchester in 1918, but the atomic bomb and atomic fusion both came from America decades later, did trade have to move to support that? Why didn’t that instead contribute to Britain leading the world trade in atomics?

[1] https://onewayuk.com/wp-content/uploads/Inflatable-Globe.jpg

[2] https://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#12

Post by KineticLensman »

klodolph wrote: post #4

British publications love to explain how British culture is responsible for British scientific achievements. Fact is, scientific powerhouses have appeared throughout history in different cultures. What factors contribute to a scientific golden age? I’m unimpressed with an analysis that looks like a puff piece for British culture, and contains a supposed “cautionary tale”, but fails to do any do any comparative work o…

> I get the feeling reading this article that all I am supposed to do is feel good about Britain, and not ask any of these questions.

The article - a review of a book about Victorian science - specifically says that "This epochal transformation in public consciousness was forged in 19th-century Britain, continental Europe and the United States." It's not attempting to be a comparative history of science, and given it's subject, it is not fair to criticise it for not discussing prior scientific hubs. It specifically references the views of an American, Mark Twain.

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#13

Post by roenxi »

klodolph wrote: post #4

British publications love to explain how British culture is responsible for British scientific achievements. Fact is, scientific powerhouses have appeared throughout history in different cultures. What factors contribute to a scientific golden age? I’m unimpressed with an analysis that looks like a puff piece for British culture, and contains a supposed “cautionary tale”, but fails to do any do any comparative work o…

There are so many places that fail to become scientific powerhouses that it might still be that only certain cultures have the capability to take on the challenge. Obviously it would be a mistake to try and see scientific progress as uniquely British, because it isn't. But the culture of empiricism and willingness to nurture it probably were cultural.

The Baghdad that was a shining star of achievement probably had a very different culture from today - it'd be interesting indeed to see if it was closer to Britain in the 1800s or Baghdad in 2020. And whether the subculture that was responsible for the actual progress was the same or different from the circles of intellectual muscle that backed the British empire.

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#14

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

klodolph wrote: post #4

British publications love to explain how British culture is responsible for British scientific achievements. Fact is, scientific powerhouses have appeared throughout history in different cultures. What factors contribute to a scientific golden age? I’m unimpressed with an analysis that looks like a puff piece for British culture, and contains a supposed “cautionary tale”, but fails to do any do any comparative work o…

>> How did [Baghdad] appear in the first place, and why did it end?

We know why it ended. First, fire was discovered. Then horses were tamed. Then the Golden Horde sacked the city, and destroyed all the libraries.

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#15

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

jodrellblank wrote: post #11
082349872349872 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime one finds oneself in a society which lies near the centre of an extensive trade network, one can find oneself treated to many dinners by the simple expedient of concocting a little story about how it is (not their geographical-economic situation but) their culture which is responsible for their affluence.

But what leads to the extensive trade network? Looking at a world map[1], why should Britain be near the centre of anything? We’re on the west edge of Europe, only accessible by water, as far north as Canada. Britain’s trade was related to understanding of scurvy[2] which lead to more long sea voyages, steam ships from the industrial Revolution which was also a British thing some time after cutting down all the trees…

The "only accessible by water" part meant that Britain had a much stronger naval tradition than - say - Germany. That tradition also looked westwards to the relatively open opportunities provided by the Caribbean and eventually Canada and North America, more than it looked towards South America (too far away) and the Mediterranean (already saturated.)

Originally the tradition was based on outright state-sanctioned piracy. But that's incidental.

Establishing a strong Atlantic trade gave Britain the technology, the money, and the economic and military traditions to colonise India and parts of Africa. Trade also drove the Industrial Revolution at home, because there was insatiable demand for goods and they also had to be transported across the country. So: mechanised factories, ships, and railways, and traditions of engineering, research, investment, and military organisation to support them all.

The failures of WWI started to undermine the empire, and WWII all-but killed it. Technological dominance fell with it. The UK was basically bankrupt after WWII and the US took over as a hegemon. After a few humbling experiences - especially Suez - the UK lost its imperial sense of self. Technological decline followed.

The UK's ruling class has never been able to come to terms with loss of empire, which is why we have silly spasms like Brexit - a small country trying to pretend to itself that it's a much bigger country.

Ironically the UK still punches above its weight in a number of areas, including the arts, finance, law, and STEM. But instead of promoting those talents, the ruling class has damaged them even further in search of a fantasy of empire that hasn't been current for over a century.

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#16

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

roenxi wrote: post #13
klodolph wrote: post #4

British publications love to explain how British culture is responsible for British scientific achievements. Fact is, scientific powerhouses have appeared throughout history in different cultures. What factors contribute to a scientific golden age? I’m unimpressed with an analysis that looks like a puff piece for British culture, and contains a supposed “cautionary tale”, but fails to do any do any comparative work o…

There are so many places that fail to become scientific powerhouses that it might still be that only certain cultures have the capability to take on the challenge. Obviously it would be a mistake to try and see scientific progress as uniquely British, because it isn't. But the culture of empiricism and willingness to nurture it probably were cultural. The Baghdad that was a shining star of achievement probably had a…

>> But the culture of empiricism and willingness to nurture it probably were cultural.

If it was, then that culture wasn't British culture but some kind of central-European culture that flourished around the time of the Industrial Revolution. I was in Paris, recently, in the Museè des Arts et Mètiers, and I stood half a meter from a collection of Pascalines, the first machines capable of performing arithmetic operations, created by a Franch mathematician, Blaize Pascal.

Modern science and technology did not grow in one place, or in one go, and in any case, as we all know, it all started with the Greeks, ευχαριστώ πολύ. And then there was the Middle Ages.

[Incidentally, do visit the Museè des Arts et Mètiers and do visit the Science Museum in London, if you can. They are not nearly as well-known as the natural history museums but that just means they're not nearly as crowded. You can find ancient computers in both, it's like they evenly split the spoils of an era of experimentation with automating computation. Paris has the Pacalines and Vaucanson's loom, London has (a model of) the Difference Engine. They have more modern machines also; in London I saw a PDP-10, I believe, in France a Fridden Flexowriter right next to a drum memory. They are places to be lost in, if you like that sort of thing. Also: entire rooms filled with models of steam and hydraulic machines.]

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#17

Post by vixen99 »

082349872349872 wrote: post #5
klodolph wrote: post #4

British publications love to explain how British culture is responsible for British scientific achievements. Fact is, scientific powerhouses have appeared throughout history in different cultures. What factors contribute to a scientific golden age? I’m unimpressed with an analysis that looks like a puff piece for British culture, and contains a supposed “cautionary tale”, but fails to do any do any comparative work o…

Anytime one finds oneself in a society which lies near the centre of an extensive trade network, one can find oneself treated to many dinners by the simple expedient of concocting a little story about how it is (not their geographical-economic situation but) their culture which is responsible for their affluence.

Whether or not stories are told has zilch to tell us as to the facts of the matter. But nevertheless, congratulations on a nice dinner party riposte.

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#18

Post by vixen99 »

timthorn wrote: post #10
klodolph wrote: post #4

British publications love to explain how British culture is responsible for British scientific achievements. Fact is, scientific powerhouses have appeared throughout history in different cultures. What factors contribute to a scientific golden age? I’m unimpressed with an analysis that looks like a puff piece for British culture, and contains a supposed “cautionary tale”, but fails to do any do any comparative work o…

> British publications love to explain how British culture is responsible for British scientific achievements. That's really not the usual position of the New Statesman.

Yes, and in case anyone doesn't know of the New Statesman, it's very much the reverse. An not just that publication, self-hating & self-despising Britons are very much in the ascendant. Quite the evil empire in their view.

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#19

Post by 082349872349872 »

jodrellblank wrote: post #11
082349872349872 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime one finds oneself in a society which lies near the centre of an extensive trade network, one can find oneself treated to many dinners by the simple expedient of concocting a little story about how it is (not their geographical-economic situation but) their culture which is responsible for their affluence.

But what leads to the extensive trade network? Looking at a world map[1], why should Britain be near the centre of anything? We’re on the west edge of Europe, only accessible by water, as far north as Canada. Britain’s trade was related to understanding of scurvy[2] which lead to more long sea voyages, steam ships from the industrial Revolution which was also a British thing some time after cutting down all the trees…

Look at an ocean-centric world map[0], and you will see why Britain could waive the rules[1], back in the day when she ruled the waves[2].

[0] https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-P...

[1] the Royal Navy of the time had a substantial advantage: its ships cruised needing to put into port only for food & water. The US Navy needs oil.

[2] ever since Suez, however, the mantle of Oceania has firmly descended upon the States, and Britain has been demoted from empire to Airstrip One.

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#20

Post by raverbashing »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #15
jodrellblank wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what leads to the extensive trade network? Looking at a world map[1], why should Britain be near the centre of anything? We’re on the west edge of Europe, only accessible by water, as far north as Canada. Britain’s trade was related to understanding of scurvy[2] which lead to more long sea voyages, steam ships from the industrial Revolution which was also a British thing some time after cutting down all the trees…

The "only accessible by water" part meant that Britain had a much stronger naval tradition than - say - Germany. That tradition also looked westwards to the relatively open opportunities provided by the Caribbean and eventually Canada and North America, more than it looked towards South America (too far away) and the Mediterranean (already saturated.) Originally the tradition was based on outright state-sanctioned pi…

> including the arts, finance, law, and STEM

Well, most of it because their heirs kept their language. And cultural products in English are easily exportable

So yeah, still some gains from their empire days. Now the main export of their Monarchy is celebrity gossip

Post reply on HN