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

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#21

Post by jodrellblank »

082349872349872 wrote: post #19
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…

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 d…

That doesn't help me see why compared to any other coastal country. OK India has a harder time reaching USA, but are you saying that trade and an "empire of science" comes down to ease of connectivity with the USA? And then why not Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Italy, etc?

The use of sailing ships also wasn't a British-only thing; a reason the British Navy could sail unusually far is suggested in the article I linked - an understanding of scurvy prevention which other countries didn't have.

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#22

Post by yawboakye »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #16
roenxi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 operati…

modern science and technology owes nothing to the ancient greeks. modern science and technology is based on accepting experiments as sources of truths/facts of the universe. ancient greek philosophy which prioritized the ideal explicitly shun any knowledge that could be arrived at by observation (i.e. through our senses). the battle to admit experiments into the criteria of truth was mainly waged in britain, from locke onwards. so, while the ancient greeks bequeathed us the immense inheritance of philosophy and the search after truth, we wouldn't be here if we didn't disrespect their strongest argument that truth arrives by cerebration alone.

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#23

Post by 082349872349872 »

jodrellblank wrote: post #21
082349872349872 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

That doesn't help me see why compared to any other coastal country. OK India has a harder time reaching USA, but are you saying that trade and an "empire of science" comes down to ease of connectivity with the USA? And then why not Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Italy, etc? The use of sailing ships also wasn't a British-only thing; a reason the British Navy could sail unusually far is suggested in the art…

Continental europe was (a) army rather than navy focused, and (b) had traditionally used trade routes running through the Med, to Venice and Genoa, etc.

So continental europeans had neither budget nor reason to develop long range cruising, whereas Britain, out on the very end of the existing trade chain and maintaining a large navy against invasion, had both.

That leaves Spain, Portugal, and Ireland. Spain is well known for having succumbed to the resource-curse from New World metals; Portugal had (due to the papal agreement) to go the other way, and I was under the impression they were very successful doing that until something (what? possibly british pressure?[0]) cut them off[1].

That leaves Ireland. (who may not have been so worried about specifically catholic invasions, but...) I don't know about that case; will poke into why Ireland has never popped up as a naval power!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire#British_Ulti...

[1] and of course, using scurvy prevention and accurate longitude determination to go directly to the other end of the traditional trade routes meant that London cut those off as well; by water to London and then to Rotterdam or other ports was in a sense "shorter" than the slow overland trip to the Med from Asia that had been traditional.

Edit: aha, the dutch did the portuguese in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire#Iberian_Unio...

(and the dutch/english rivalry is well attested by all the pejoratives left in the language: dutch oven, dutch treat, dutch uncle, etc.)

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#25

Post by [deleted] »

yawboakye wrote: post #22
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 operati…

modern science and technology owes nothing to the ancient greeks. modern science and technology is based on accepting experiments as sources of truths/facts of the universe. ancient greek philosophy which prioritized the ideal explicitly shun any knowledge that could be arrived at by observation (i.e. through our senses). the battle to admit experiments into the criteria of truth was mainly waged in britain, from loc…

[deleted]

Re: Britain’s empire of science

#26

Post by klodolph »

KineticLensman wrote: post #12
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…

> it is not fair to criticise it for not discussing prior scientific hubs

I don’t see why that’s unfair. By narrowing its focus to a specific time and place, and ignoring parallels with other times and places, it seems so easy to draw false conclusions or just tell a chronology of events rather than do the interpretive work expected of a historian.

I see this as a trend in historical works—the study of historical writing is called “historiography”, and if you pull up an article on historiography you can see the trends that I am talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_United_K...

There’s even a name for this kind of puff piece about UK history. It’s called “Whig history”, and Whigh history has its own history (or historiography), which is fascinating in its own right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history

I don’t see how it’s possible to say with confidence what the Victorians gave us without understanding what it’s like to not have a Victorian history.

Post reply on HN