This morning, I woke up to
this in my email inbox. It links to
a paper that is very interesting, one that I think has something significant to add to the discussion in this thread.
Gist of This Paper:
While testing Mokyr’s thesis (that the primary Enlightenment ideal that was key to Britain’s Industrial Revolution was a progress‑oriented view of science), they found that:
1) Science secularized from religion by the mid‑18th century.
2) A progress-oriented mindset (due to that secularization) rose most strongly in the applied areas of science (i.e., not in “pure science”).
3) Industrial texts using science expressed in the language of political economy were especially progress‑oriented.
Conclusion:
During the Enlightenment, literate artisans and craftsmen encountered applied, industrial works of writing that had a strong progress-oriented mindset embedded in the language. The fact that they were literate was a necessary condition, but the decisive factor in industrialization was the diffusion of a progress-oriented mindset.
Bottom Line:
Enlightenment-era industrialization was more a function of embracing progress, not literacy.
---------
More Insight Based On a Second Paper:
On page 2 of the paper discussed above, there is an interesting mention of Enlightenment-era literacy rates in England, with a citation in footnote 4. Looking at
that paper, I found a related but even more concrete support of the importance of progress-oriented mindset over literacy.
Gist of the Second Paper:
While looking at book production in Western Europe (500–1800) compared to other areas of the world at that time, and then correlating the different book production levels with long‑term economic development of the different regions, they found:
1) Book production grew in Europe ~1% annually, accelerating after 1454 with the printing press.
2) Falling book prices + rising literacy created a mass market for books.
3) The mass availability of books during the Enlightenment correlated directly with Europe’s industrialization.
4) Suppression of the printing press in the Middle East (Ottoman Empire, specifically*) over the same period limited diffusion of information despite literacy.
5) The limited availability of books in the Middle East correlated directly with the failure of Enlightenment-era industrialization in that area.
* The paper recounts how the Ottoman Empire, embracing a more Luddite-oriented mindset and banning the new technology of the printing press, was likely to have virtually eliminated industrialization despite higher literacy rates than in England.
Conclusion of Second Paper:
Embrace of the new, progressive technology of the printing press (not literacy rates) during the Enlightenment correlated directly to whether a society experienced industrial revolution or stagnated following the Enlightenment. These correlations provide strong evidence that, while literacy mattered, without cheap, abundant books, industrialization was stunted despite widespread literacy.
Bottom Line:
There are correlative data to support the hypothesis that Enlightenment-era industrialization was more a function of embracing progress, not literacy.
-------------
Overall Conclusion of the Two Papers Combined:
Taken together, I think it is fair to conclude that there is strong evidence that Europe’s triumph of industrialization was plausibly driven by embrace of progress-oriented new technology (specifically, the printing press) during the Enlightenment, rather than literacy rates (which actually lagged other societies that did not industrialize).
------------
My Interpretation of the Relationship of These Research Results to This Thread:
I believe that if you substitute “AI” for “printing press” you can see that the different opinions today as to how to approach student use of AI in the classroom very closely parallels the different approaches to adoption of the printing press during the Enlightenment. I believe the research I cite here makes a very strong case that there is far more danger to the development of any society that bans the use of AI in the classroom than there is to a society that tries to find a way to incorporate AI into a more modern pedagogy.
Together, I think these two papers present strong evidence that anyone who implements blanket AI bans in the classroom, presented as Enlightenment wisdom, has clearly not learned those lessons themselves and have their conclusions 180 degrees backward.
These papers support what I believe to be the true lesson of the Enlightenment: There is great risk in clinging to an anti-progress mindset, a mindset that can do irreparable damage to a society.
------------
TL; DR Summary:
My response to points made in the thread regarding what the Enlightenment has to say about AI in the classroom: Adopting a Luddite/Ottoman mindset risks repeating the Enlightenment’s failures. Instead, America should follow England’s path of Enlightenment success: Embrace new technologies and reap their rewards.
---------
That is all.
