First, are you equating "tech tree development" with pure engineering? Because that sounds like a reductionist view on history given that human advancement in thinking stretches far beyond technical / practical innovations. And that surely arbitrarly didn't stop between 500-1500AD just because the Roman Empire dissolved either.
Second, taking a eurocentristic perspective is a fallacy when it comes to history. Other parts of the world saw plenty of advances in mathematics, astronomy, navigation, trading, finance, public administration, medicine, literacy and so on. Just consider the many advances in the Islamic world or the Mongol empire. Ghengis Khan wasn't just a warlord, he was also a surprisingly progressive statesman introducing notions such as "freedom of religion" throughout his empire. The Silk Road wasn't just the odd caravan passing through the desert. It was as an intricate trading network connecting cultures and continents. Arguably, many of the ideas that was spawn the age of Enlightenment in Europe can be traced back as imported from outside.
Third, The so-called "Dark Ages" are a contested concept in modern historiography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) It's, at best, a form of value attribution. And modern historians are quite reluctant to label the period between 500-1800 as "stagnant". On the contrary.
Fourth, neither religious zealotry nor progressive thinking are absolutes. Sure, the world wasn't an utopia in the past. History is rife with examples of barbarism and persecution. But let's not pretend that the Industrial Revolution somehow did away with all that. In fact, while the world entered the so-called Information Age over the past 40 years, it also saw subsequent wars spurred by religion in the Middle East, Balkans, Africa and South-East Asia.
The thread title refers to the steam engine, and yes, I’m referring solely to mechanical engineering and by extension the scientific method. In no way intending to discuss or disparage the myriad achievements of other formerly extant cultures of the world that took different paths to different destinations.
Neither mechanical engineering or the scientific method could ever emerge in isolation, regardless of what happened elsewhere in the world.
The scientific method itself, such as it was developed during the 18th century, is a poster child example as thinkers at the time hit the so-called Problem of induction. The great enlightened tinker David Hume provided foundational insights through his work "An Enquiry concerning human understanding" and "A Treatise of Human Nature".
Scholars have argued that David Hume has been influenced by oriental ideas when he developed his thinking regarding observations, causality, induction and self. Ideas which were paramount when it comes to defining a formal theory regarding the "scientific method" such as we understand it today.
First, are you equating "tech tree development" with pure engineering? Because that sounds like a reductionist view on history given that human advancement in thinking stretches far beyond technical / practical innovations. And that surely arbitrarly didn't stop between 500-1500AD just because the Roman Empire dissolved either.
Second, taking a eurocentristic perspective is a fallacy when it comes to history. Other parts of the world saw plenty of advances in mathematics, astronomy, navigation, trading, finance, public administration, medicine, literacy and so on. Just consider the many advances in the Islamic world or the Mongol empire. Ghengis Khan wasn't just a warlord, he was also a surprisingly progressive statesman introducing notions such as "freedom of religion" throughout his empire. The Silk Road wasn't just the odd caravan passing through the desert. It was as an intricate trading network connecting cultures and continents. Arguably, many of the ideas that was spawn the age of Enlightenment in Europe can be traced back as imported from outside.
Third, The so-called "Dark Ages" are a contested concept in modern historiography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) It's, at best, a form of value attribution. And modern historians are quite reluctant to label the period between 500-1800 as "stagnant". On the contrary.
Fourth, neither religious zealotry nor progressive thinking are absolutes. Sure, the world wasn't an utopia in the past. History is rife with examples of barbarism and persecution. But let's not pretend that the Industrial Revolution somehow did away with all that. In fact, while the world entered the so-called Information Age over the past 40 years, it also saw subsequent wars spurred by religion in the Middle East, Balkans, Africa and South-East Asia.