What do you think?
Rate this book
Turning points in Western technology: A study of technology, science and history
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 17, 2018
A bilious sort of work, probably odd even in its own time (the early 70s) for its claims that Christianity was the driving force behind the European technics-leap and that other cultures, especially those poor Muslims and Chinese, were sorely lacking in any innovative drives, hence, their perennial backwardness.
That the latter especially is patently false becomes clear by the author's own admission, his axiom lasting a mere handful of pages before he is forced to recognize the European debt to those very cultures for, well, pretty much everything.
Noteworthy only for its dry, tedious technical descriptions of how things work, but eminently passable for its historiography.
That the latter especially is patently false becomes clear by the author's own admission, his axiom lasting a mere handful of pages before he is forced to recognize the European debt to those very cultures for, well, pretty much everything.
Noteworthy only for its dry, tedious technical descriptions of how things work, but eminently passable for its historiography.
April 27, 2026
First, the downside. It was a bit hard to follow the technical descriptions. For example, I had to watch some videos to really get how an escapement works. Considering that thermodynamics students have trouble with the material even with lots of diagrams, trying to understand the different types of thermodynamic processes without diagrams is too much to ask for.
There is not much space given to the middle ages, but Cardwell makes it clear that it was not entirely barren of important innovations. Case in point, the weight-driven clock (he writes 1286 is the first evidence for such a clock in Europe), made possible by the escapement mechanism. While giving credit to Arabs for introducing a variety of chemical substances, for example "camphor, calomel, tinctures, dyes, pigments, mordants and medicaments" and of course acknowledging China as the source of the compass and gunpowder, he does make the interesting point that Europe's willingness to adopt new technologies and methods was itself a sign of a healthy society and should be viewed positively. There are a few other inventions for which he omits to give credit to non-Europeans, such as the stirrup and the wheelbarrow.
Cardwell points out that in general "no nation has been very creative for more than an historically short period." Although he discusses several reasons for why Britain fell behind, he observes that Britain's energies were diverted to empire building. I think it is an observation worth looking into far more. I'm guessing Brits obsessed more about losing their empire than their technological edge over Germany.
There were several contributors to technology which are not so often mentioned, such as John Smeaton, who meticulously measured the efficiency of engines, but has no eponymous invention. Considering his impact, it's incredible he isn't better known. I also appreciate that he emphasizes that technology is deserving of equal respect as pure science, something the philosopher Daniel C. Dennet also does in his Darwin's Dangerous Idea. And finally, perhaps taking a cue from Joseph Needham, whom he cited a couple times, Cardwell reminds readers that the mechanistic model of the world with its clockwork image was not preordained. He even suggests that a closer reading of Francis Bacon might indicate a biological model.
Nevertheless, the incomprehensibility of some of the explanations of mechanical devices without the requisite background is a big drawback, at least for me.
There is not much space given to the middle ages, but Cardwell makes it clear that it was not entirely barren of important innovations. Case in point, the weight-driven clock (he writes 1286 is the first evidence for such a clock in Europe), made possible by the escapement mechanism. While giving credit to Arabs for introducing a variety of chemical substances, for example "camphor, calomel, tinctures, dyes, pigments, mordants and medicaments" and of course acknowledging China as the source of the compass and gunpowder, he does make the interesting point that Europe's willingness to adopt new technologies and methods was itself a sign of a healthy society and should be viewed positively. There are a few other inventions for which he omits to give credit to non-Europeans, such as the stirrup and the wheelbarrow.
Cardwell points out that in general "no nation has been very creative for more than an historically short period." Although he discusses several reasons for why Britain fell behind, he observes that Britain's energies were diverted to empire building. I think it is an observation worth looking into far more. I'm guessing Brits obsessed more about losing their empire than their technological edge over Germany.
There were several contributors to technology which are not so often mentioned, such as John Smeaton, who meticulously measured the efficiency of engines, but has no eponymous invention. Considering his impact, it's incredible he isn't better known. I also appreciate that he emphasizes that technology is deserving of equal respect as pure science, something the philosopher Daniel C. Dennet also does in his Darwin's Dangerous Idea. And finally, perhaps taking a cue from Joseph Needham, whom he cited a couple times, Cardwell reminds readers that the mechanistic model of the world with its clockwork image was not preordained. He even suggests that a closer reading of Francis Bacon might indicate a biological model.
Nevertheless, the incomprehensibility of some of the explanations of mechanical devices without the requisite background is a big drawback, at least for me.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews