Monday, March 15, 2010
Seeing as how we all need blog grade boost...
In class, we discussed about the McLeon and Basalla essays and about how science is like/unlike imperialistic takeover of different cultures. For instance, Basalla pointed out that the European science is the ONLY science, and that once the Europeans overtook most of the world with this science, the colonized countries could practice their own; whereas the McLeon essay said that the sciences practiced by the pre-colonist nations are in cooperation with the European sciences. Which do you think is depicting the current situation best? I believe that the science world today is mostly dominated by the non-European scientists’ efforts in terms of medical advances, aerospace engineering, space pioneering, and environmental protection.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think I veer more towards Macleod's idea, just because we are seeing more and more cooperative efforts between countries, especially with this need for alternative fuels and other forms of sustainability for the future. It is true that there are several non-European scientists; however, for the large part I still believe it is dominated by Europeans. This is mainly due to the fact that there are SO many Europeans (and by Europeans, I pretty much mean White people) in general.
ReplyDeleteI think that both Basalla's theory and Mcleod's theory have veracity to them. Basalla makes the argument in his three step system of scientific development that imposed Western scientific thought needs to the the second phase. This is sort of true since most scientific knowledge is based around Western scientific developments (such as Newtonian physics). Scientific discoveries that break old-school Western scientific thought would be General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics which break the old-modes of thinking. Still both these developments were made in America and Europe through collaboration. This brings me to the Mcleod idea that collaboration amongst colonizers and colonized led to scientific development which is true. Quantum physics was a development by multiple scientists. American J. Robert Oppenheimer had worked on many of his quantum theories in Germany especially with German Max Born. In the Age of Imperialism, the Industrial Revolution was a byproduct of economic needs of European nations. Scientific development was needed to create machines that could manufacture goods, and colonies made good sources of raw materials and were great markets for these manufactured goods. Many colonized nations were able to build off industrial technology during WWI when European nations had to build factories in the colonies since the factories in European nations were building weaponry. After WWI these industrial factories stayed and thus the spread of technology was Western-based. With more complicated scientific knowledge growing, it is necessary for collaboration in science. Most developments from the 20th century to present are group discoveries such as the discovery of the double helix (which Watson and Crick did not give credit to some people who were influential in the discovery). Both Basalla and Mcleod are correct in certain cases. Basalla is correct that Western knowledge laid a foundation for scientific development in colonized nations. Since Western science was the most developed it makes sense to acquiesce to Western science and learn it. Then by learning it, scientific thought is spread and new modes of thought can develop. And even though not all countries were without scientific development, many did westernize. China was clearly not the most advanced as it eschewed anything Western then lost awfully in both Opium Wars. Japan during the Tokugawa Shogunate began to Westernize with the displacement of samurai warriors with gunners and through the Meiji Restoration Japan began Westernizing the nation to avoid ending up like China during the period. I guess through all this ramble I'm trying to argue that Basalla's idea of the imposition of Western thought is not as crazy as it sounds while Mcleod's idea of collaboration is so evident in today's world of scientific development it does not need to much justification.
ReplyDeleteThis is actually a tought question. I would have to say I agree a little bit with both of them. Basalla isn't right in that European science is the ONLY science. India, China, the United States etc. have surely proven by now that they can produce sufficient amount of scientific data and experiments. However he is right in saying that the "Western" form of science is for sure the dominating following of science and more so is wiping out those indigenous sciences as if they were toothpicks. Western science along with our culture is taking out other more subordinate societies such as those in Africa and South America and with that their culture and their take on science is lost and forgotten forever.
ReplyDeleteIn the other respect, Macleod's model is more encompassing of all cultures and traditions. There are for sure some things of small indigenous and pre-colonist colonies that we still use today but for the most part they have been exterminated..
food for thought