Lengthening Low-Tech History

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

But only in a personal subjective way. That is not ever anywhere near as useful as a truly scientific approach.
It can get you only so far, so fast. Methodical experimentation requires an O.C.D. type if not adhering to such an approach.

Some important things were even later. Double-blind studies were derided in the 50's by TPTB.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by gjc8

Plausible is in the eye of the beholder, of course. I'd believe it might slow things somewhat. But I'm skeptical it could achieve a drastic slowdown.

If you look at history, people are quite willing to be "innovative" about religion, too.

...

Religion is almost entirely about culture. When culture changes, religions either change or get forgotten and replaced. It doesn't go down without a fight, but the most successful religions syncretize like mo fos.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask

Some important things were even later. Double-blind studies were derided in the 50's by TPTB.

Well, the best way to prove their accuracy and usefulness.... is with a double blind study. ;)
Psychology is still one of the most primitive of sciences.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Men were doing the good old 'analyze and innovate' for millenia before the so-called 'Enlightenment.'

The other thing to remember is that cultures are always dynamic, and features that become maladaptive will tend to be lost (whether through cultural change, exchange with another culture [as when one culture starts importing most of its metal from those blasphemous foreigners], or cultural replacement). I would have trouble believing in an anti-experimental mood lasting more than a thousand years or occupying much more than a quarter of Eurasia.

Similarly, ordinary people usually have religious beliefs different from sophisticated intellectuals.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

But only in a personal subjective way. That is not ever anywhere near as useful as a truly scientific approach.
It can get you only so far, so fast. Methodical experimentation requires an O.C.D. type if not adhering to such an approach.

We know very little about how artisans before 1800 thought, because they didn't write much about their work and didn't get written about much. For every early 20th century report of craftsmen who listened to instructions then ignored them and did what they had always done, we have those Pakistani gunsmiths who could imitate any firearm that was given to them as far back as 1950.