Frank-Landes Debate, Page 9
David Landes: Ahhh. But that's the way the mind works. They may not be able to explain it, but it suggests all kinds of things to other people who apply it. You take navigation. The Europeans learned about the sun's declination mostly from the Middle East, from Muslim scientists. It was brought mostly by Jewish scientists into Spain and Portugal. And it became terribly important once they started sailing down to the Equator and beyond, because all the previous information about measurement was no longer operative. They had to work, instead of stars, they had to sort of work with the sun. But if you're going to use the sun, you have to know about declination. Well, they did this. This was called an application of science to navigation and it permitted the conquest of the South Atlantic, which is like no other ocean on the face of the globe. Like no other ocean, it has no continental shelf, it has almost no islands, you've gotta go out into the open sea. All the currents that you would most normally attack as you go down Africa or contrary and so on. This was science applied at its best, and we're talking now, 13th, 14th centuries. So, yes, science made all the difference even before it could explain things. And if anybody tries to understand why Europe did so well without taking account of science, he's left out an important part of the story.
Andre Gunder Frank: If you can't explain it, what does that suggest?
David Landes: It suggests that you still have to learn more about the scientific side. But it suggests that your experiments and your scientific experiences are valuable and applicable.
Andre Gunder Frank: And if you say on one page that a Portuguese made this important contribution to astronomy and navigation and then the next page, you say the Portuguese couldn't do anything because they are a bunch of slobs?
David Landes: I was talking about two hundred years later. And we're talking about the Portuguese at different periods.
Andre Gunder Frank: Yeah, but, no. But they were a bunch of slobs at the time that they made this contribution, according to you.
David Landes: No, I don't say that.
Andre Gunder Frank: Well...
David Landes: No, I don't say that. I say that they become sloppy after they expel the Jews, whom they were making good use of in connection to navigation and the like. And, my argument is not that they lost whatever talent the Jews had, it's the terrible effect it had on their persecutors. People who kick other people around reduce their own capacity. It is a grave error. Okay.
William Fowler: If I may ask, I would like to, if I do have the permission of the participants, to go to a few questions from the audience. We will have some questions, and then both Professor Frank and Professor Landes will have an opportunity to make some concluding remarks.
Andre Gunder Frank: If I can, I would like to make some of my crucial arguments still some time.
David Landes: Go ahead.
Andre Gunder Frank: Which are in the next two questions. So...
William Fowler: Maybe. Yes, sir. I'd ask you to address your question to the participant you wish to address it to and try to be a brief as possible so we can get in as many questions as we can.
Questioner 1: Alright, so. On the recent debate on the internet there was a question about the, about the legal development of Great Britain. I believe that it was Bret Carstinson argued that, that British legal institutions were, by far, the most advanced by the, by the 1700's and you, Professor Frank, responded that there were several parts of China that had comparable development of legal institution. I was wondering if you could comment a little more about that and also, if Professor Landes could respond to that, please.
Andre Gunder Frank: Briefly, yes. And there are Sinologists in the audience here, who are perhaps in a better position to answer the question about China, certainly in a better position than I am. That China and other places also had legal institutions and that's, after all, to be expected, considering the kind of empires they were. And, secondly, the real point is that the legal institutions are not relevant to what we're talking about. Not only are legal institutions, and know that nobody's going to like this argument, but, unfortunately, now I'm like David Landes. You gotta believe me that it's the truth. No institutions are crucial because institutions are derivative and adaptive and permissive rather than generative of change or obstacles to change. This was true in Europe and among the Ottomans and in China and everywhere else. The entire argument of North, who received the Nobel Prize for emphasizing the role of institutions in the rise of the West, is shot through, full of holes, nearly as much, not quite, I grant you, nearly as much as David Landes' argument that also is based on institutions, but David Landes' institutions are more derived from culture; whereas, North's institutions are derived from, at least, from some kind of a demographic/economic argument. But in either case, nobody can ever demonstrate and has not demonstrated that the institutional structure, let alone the legal part of it, is in some way an independent variable that, on which you can hang economic or any other kind of development or failure to develop. So, that's not only my position. To quote David Landes... “That's a fact!”
William Fowler: Professor Landes, would you care to comment?
David Landes: Yes. Economists have been fascinated by the role of institutions and North picked up from Coase, who got an earlier Nobel Prize for his work on institutions and their role in economic behavior and the like. On that kind of thought, there is now a large, I gather, society for the study of institutions in economy that has been created and that's been holding, now, one or two international meetings, etc... We shall see more of this. But I predict we'll also see more from the economists on the role of culture, not only because culture, to a greater extent, shapes institutions, but also because, when economists begin to realize that a certain factor is important, they look for ways to incorporate it, integrate it, in their analysis, particularly if they can find ways measure it. And they're beginning to find ways to do that with culture and we're gonna see much more of that, as well. That's all I'd say by way of explaining and predicting where the trend of economic theory is headed.
William Fowler: Yes, sir. Would you please stand so that we could all...
Questioner 2: Sure. Hi. As I understand this argument, it's a lot about when a change took place. I mean, nobody denies that the West, if I may use that term, is richer today. And there was sometime, it wasn't. So there was a change that took place. So, I'm not quite clear on the importance in your different arguments about pin-pointing the timing of that change, number one. And related to that, in giving the origin of that change to culture, I don't understand how you, Professor Landes, can both give the importance to culture and say, but culture changed. Because there has to be something, then, that explains the change in culture, presumably, that lies behind that. And, so I appreciated if you would address both the time, the importance of the time in question and why does culture change and if it does, how is it explanation.
Andre Gunder Frank: That's one of the twenty internal contradictions...
Questioner 2: No, I asked him.
Andre Gunder Frank:...in the Landes argument.
Questioner 2: No, I asked him, not you, Professor.
Andre Gunder Frank: I'm not answering you.
David Landes: He's just helping you.
Andre Gunder Frank: No, he's helping you.
Page 1 / Page 2 / Page 3 / Page 4 / Page 5 / Page 6 / Page 7 / Page 8 / Page 9 / Page 10 / Page 11 / Page 12
Photo 1 / Photo 2 / Photo 3 / Photo 4 / Photo 5 / Photo 6 / Photo 7 / Photo 8 / Photo
