Monday, March 15, 2010
Discussion Blog Week 3/15
We have read Basalla and MecLeod's articles about development of colonial science throughout the history. Basalla gives us a clear three-phase progress while MecLod argues that it involes politics. I just want to ask for everyone: which one do you think is more accurate in interperating the colonial science in the colonial period of the world and which one can be applied to current countries? Do you think it is the political factor or the economic factor that encourages the colonical science to develop?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well I don't know if all of you understood what I was trying to explain in class. Let me restate it here in clearer terms:
ReplyDeleteMacLeod's blueprint dealing with imperial science is very, very specific. As he himself mentions in his article, his model was drawn from the interaction between colonial Australian and British scientific endeavors. And that too from a very specific period: 1780s to 1930s. His "model" is specific to one country's scientific interaction with another specific country, in a specified timeframe. I don't know hoe you could be more specific than that.
On the contrary, Basalla's theory can (and is supposed to) to be applied to any country, any time, any where. (I'm not saying his model is accurate, just what his model aspires to explain). I don't know how you could be more general than that.
So I think it's a little hard to compare the two models. Macleod, in my view never proposed his model with the intention of explaining every aspect of imperial/colonial science for every country in any time period. His "impressionistic taxonomy" is, in my view, merely an attempt to systematically analyze British-Australian imperial scientific relations history. (although his model could be, with minor modifications, be applied in other cases).
So, back to your question. Which is more accurate? Undoubtedly, it is MacLeod's, as it is much more detailed, accounts for various undercurrents and complexities, even though it is very specific. Which one can be applied to current nations? Here the answer is Basalla's model, even though it may be inaccurate.
So we have kind of mutually exclusive answers here.
I think you are right, Hasan. I also agree that Basalla's theory is extremly general and MacLeod's is extremly specific. I think it would be better to have a general model for the relationships between all the empires and their colonies with modification of specific cultural, political, and economical factors involved in determining the science development, i.e.,the combination of the two. Comparing the two theories, I think Basalla's theory is more ussful in bringing out the overall idea of colonial science, but not necessarily in predicting the outcome. While MecLoad's theory is more like a analysis of a specific case, and it does not generate any model for studying the science.
ReplyDeleteActually I was reading one of the other section's blog (B5) and I think Conor captures my sentiment brilliantly. Here's a link to his post (its pretty much the same as yours, Zihao):
ReplyDeletehttp://scienceandpowerb5orange.blogspot.com/2010/03/reading-today-was-article-about-varying.html
As to your other question which I didn't answer: is it the political/economic factor that encourages colonial science to develop? My first advise to you (having just read Nanda's article) would be that she would frown upon you for adding "colonial" as a prefix... anyway, if I were to ignore all of her presentiments, I'd say that its a bit of both, really.
Basalla’s model about colonial science throughout history applies more to “colonial history.” During the 1500s and onwards when the Europeans started to explore and colonize other lands it can be argued that each country initially had their own motivations (such as trade) but later became “more political.” Mcleod’s idea applies more to today since modern trade usually occurs without a country being colonized.
ReplyDelete