Why are you guys so allergic to generalists? Academic disciplines have all kinds of crossover.It’s not that the chart crosses disciplines. It’s that the chart crosses disciplines and makes serious errors in all of them. It’s like math, but with no data. It’s like history, but it clings to a discredited narrative invented by a bunch of guys who wanted to see themselves as heirs to the Roman empire. It’s like a sociology—but it advances the absurd narrative that a strain of progress can be traced from Egypt, through Rome, to the Enlightenment in Western Europe.
This chart could be done right. First, it would need a meaningful metric. Somebody’s vague impression of scientific advancement doesn’t cut it. Secondly, it needs a bit of rigor in how it chooses its periods. Does it take the scientific advancement of the world as a whole? In that case, it needs to consider China. Is it restricting itself to Europe? Then get rid of Egypt. Should you focus on a single country? Say, Germany? How was Germany doing during the Roman Empire? Did the arrival of Christianity make it better or worse?
If the point of the chart is to make bald assertions and not back them up—that’s fine. But it’s presented as if it conveys useful information. It doesn’t.
(via ageofreason)
Graphs without Y-Units are rarely reliable. The Y-axis could be in units of negative advancement! It’s the pretentious equivalent of the stealing seagull!
