Eight heliocentric historians

"Eight Eurocentric Historians" by J. M. Blaut seems to be an extended de facto appendix to his main work, "The Colonizer's Model of the World", which I haven't read (yet). Blaut takes on a number of writers on world history, most of them politically right wing, and critiques their insistence that medieval and early modern Europe was uniquely fitted for science, rationality and development. One of the historians under Blaut's fire is the iconic Jared Diamond and his book "Guns, Germs and Steel" (Diamond doesn't seem conservative, though).

Unfortunately, Blaut merely asserts that China, India, and the Ottoman Empire were just as advanced as Europe until the 16th century. He never presents the concrete evidence (or purported evidence), which is apparently done in his previous work. It seems that those interested in these issues must therefore read "The Colonizer's Model of the World", while "Eight Eurocentric Historians" is mostly a kind of afterthought. On its own, this work only deserves two stars.

As for his main thesis, as I point out in my comment to M A Krul's review further below, Blaut seems to miss the fundamental difference between modernity (including modern science) and advanced culture or technology in the broad sense. Nobody in his right mind would deny that China, India or the Ottoman Empire were "advanced civilizations" (a right-wing mind is perhaps something else again).

But why did only Western Europe develop modernity, including modern science? Simply because of the bullion stolen from South and Central America? That seems implausible. Blaut seems to miss that a conceptual revolution was needed for, say, heliocentrism to arise, not simply better observatories (Muslim Iran had a pretty good observatory already during the 14th century). You can build a huge observatory with stolen gold (or honestly purchased gold, for that matter), but it takes more to challenge Aristotle or Ptolemy...

(My comment from M A Krul´s Amazon review follows)

I haven´t read Blaut or Hubertus, but I have read Toby Huff´s "The Rise of Early Modern Science". Huff is (broadly) Weberian. He points out that the difference between Western Europe and the Muslim world (and also between Western Europe and China) was precisely the conceptual leap or paradigm shift mentioned by Hubertus in his postings. 

Muslim astronomy was empirically advanced: 15th century Muslim astronomers in Persia developed a geocentric system with epicycles mathematically equivalent to those of Copernicus (who may even have used this information). But they never made the conceptual leap from geocentrism to heliocentrism. Why? Why did the Muslim world start to lag behind the West in scientific advancement (except in the field of military technology) around the 15th and 16th centuries? 

Huff´s explanation is complex, but involves both ideological factors (Muslim views of God vs. "Christian" views of God - actually a rationalized form of Platonism) and institutional ones (the universities in the West were differently organized from the Muslim madrasas, the legal culture was different etc). Huff´s views aren´t entirely convincing, since he never explains why the Muslim could become so empirically advanced in the first place, if their ideas and institutions were so bad, but I do think he is on to *something*. Western Europe was the only area in the world were modern science and "real" capitalism developed - there must be some kind of explanation. 

I wonder what Blaut´s (or your) explanation is? This is never stated in your reviews. Was it simply the colonial expansion in the Americas? But the Muslims had expanded their empires for a long time - the Ottomans were still expanding during the 16th century. Why didn´t their expansion lead to modern capitalism and science? Was it simply the military might of the West? But why did military technology develop in the West, while eventually lagging behind even among the Ottomans? And so on. 

Incidentally, I agree with Hubertus Fremerey that modern science isn´t always and necessary a good thing (the H-bomb, anyone? Or what about human cloning?). I also agree that it didn´t necessarily have to happen at all: the inevitable historica schema of Marxism is erroneous. Nor, of course, is Western domination necessarily a good thing. Personally, I would prefer being dominated by the Indus Valley Civilization! 

Still, something fundamental must have happened around the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. At a certain point, it became impossible to separate modern science from technological innovation and the expansion of capitalism, and this gave the West its dominant status.