The article deals with some of the common notions concerning why the so-called ?Rise of the West? (Goldstone, 2000) occurred, and then proceeds to offer counter-arguments all leading up to the final conclusion that without the presence of four events which were arguably complete accidents or chance occurrences, ?There is no reason to believe that Europe would have ever been more advanced that the leading Asian civilizations of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.?(Goldstone, 2000) This idea is closely related to themes in the course which stress the importance of such neglected and unpopular factors as chance, human error, and other less recognized factors. Other major issues that Goldstone covers in his paper are the danger of biases and the ill-conceived nature of historical arguments which are based in the present and examine the past as a source of information fit for various levels of justification. (Goldstone, 2000)
[...] Hall explains of Goldstone: [His] obvious merit in this area is the synoptic range that a major historical sociologist brings to the subject But Goldstone has a position of his own, and this certainly merits analysis.”(Hall, 2001) Hall goes on to reject Goldstone's argument in favor of what he sees as a more well rounded (albeit Eurocentric) view as postulated by Pomeranz.(Hall, 2001) Hall explains: Pomeranz's superb book stands virtually opposed to Goldstone's intra-European story- an account so much based on a rather traditional admiration for England.”(Hall, 2001) Hall later makes reference to the “ingenious calculations” (Hall, 2001) of Pomeranz's book, and thus both shows his favor of it over Goldstone's ideas and also displays an element of his own bias. [...]
[...] New York: The Free Press. Carroll-Burke, P “Tools, Instruments and Engines: Getting a handle on the specificity of engine science” Pp.593-625 in Social Studies of Science, Vol.31, No.2. Crosby, Alfred W Ecological Imperialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crosby, Alfred W The Measure of Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goldstone, Jack A Rise of the West Or Not? A Revision of Socio-Economic History.” Pp. 175-194 [...]
[...] And pronounce the former to be causally significant and the latter to be irrelevant.”(Goldstone, 2000) Goldstone does not support Weber's hypothesis, but uses it as a basis for a view within sociology which he juxtaposes with his own in an attempt to demonstrate the erroneous ideas of the former. Although Hamilton's ideas are not cited in Goldstone's paper, they were investigated to provide a more complete scope on Weber's errors. Hamilton highlights cases of blatant misinterpretation, biases, and selective editing when discussing good scholarship vs. [...]
[...] The paper deals with the ways in which we can understand and label science in its basic elements so that it may be able to elevate itself from the prisons of dualism, and from other limiting factors.(Carroll-Burke, 2001) In this article, Goldstone is used to reference a glossed over point: that “England and Europe came to dominate the world”(Carroll-Burke, 2001) Moreover, Carroll-Burke accepts and integrates Goldstone's idea that the use of steam power helped Europe to grow rapidly.(Carroll-Burke, 2001) This is clearly an acceptance of Goldstone's idea, albeit for a vastly different end. [...]
[...] (Bellah, 1957) Goldstone cites Bellah to explain that Japan was a country that closely resembled Britain but had considerably different circumstances and solved similar problems in vastly different ways.(Goldstone, 2000) Goldstone uses this as another piece of evidence to suggest that chance and sheer-luck were arguably more contributing factors to Europe's rise through industrialization than any obviously hallmarked trait. On page 190, Goldstone states: has been argued by scholars of Japan that it did indeed share something special with Europe.” (Goldstone, 2000) This is an idea that he paraphrases from Bellah. [...]
using our reader.