The scientific revolution was a new invention. There was philosophy and rationalism before, but it's incredibly reductive to just collapse the entire scientific method to be no different than the methods of inquiry that came before. It clearly had vastly different and more dramatic real-world consequences than the eras that came before. The Islamic Golden Age did not produce a self-reinforcing series of technological advancements that completely altered the lives of every living human being. The life of a peasant living in an Islamic country was virtually unchanged from before the Islamic Golden Age to after the Islamic Golden Age. I get rejecting imperialism. But you're being so performatively anti-imperialist that it's clouding your judgment.

The scientific method was something that was invented in its modern form in a particular place and time. Yes, it had precursors, but so what? Humans evolved from creatures that are a fundamentally different species to ourselves. Every invention and discovery has precursors, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. You have such an anti-West axe to grind that you can't recognize a truly remarkable discovery, simply because it happened to be invented by Europeans.

It was not normal for a tiny peninsula on the edge of the Eurasian landmass to, in a few centuries, go from being a global backwater to dominating the world. It's a historical aberration. To explain it, you have two choices;

Be a racist and conclude that there is something particularly different about European genetics that makes Europeans either particularly intelligent (positive racism) or particularly evil (negative racism) that allowed them to achieve this feat.
Recognize that it was an accident of history and that a uniquely powerful discovery/invention, the modern scientific method, happened to be invented in Europe.

Personally, I don't like Eugenics-based explanations. Maybe you do. But I reject racism, even for the sake of anti-imperialism. Maybe you think Europeans are just genetically evil geniuses. But my default assumption is that everyone is the same, and Europe just happened to roll a natural 20 when it came to where the scientific revolution would happen.

Sure, you can pretend that it was no different from other methods of rational inquiry that came before. But then you have to explain why the modern scientific method produced a knowledge explosion while previous methods didn't.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

Performative wokism taken to the point of farce.

Oh you silly little biscuit.

Western science never formed in a vacuum. It's always been a continuance of knowledge. Imperialism plays a huge part, because a stable empire with security tends to rise the life of its citizens and result in a greater scholarly presence, but scientific advancement and knowledge is not some strange, magical thing that only appeared in one place at one time due to magical butt fairies or whatever the hell else you're ascribing. It's standing on the shoulders of the ones who came before you, who stand on the shoulders of those before them.

It was not normal for a tiny peninsula on the edge of the Eurasian landmass to, in a few centuries, go from being a global backwater to dominating the world

It absolutely is if you understand your history. That pissy little kingdom around the Palatine hill did exactly that. That tiny spit at Aigai surrounded by the big boys. And also I think you're conflating "scientific revolution" with shipbuilding and trade there bud.