I'm a medievalist with a focus on brothels in Spain between the 14th and 15th centuries. So most of what I do is eurocentric and I get how it seems logical. However, in my opinion the downside to making anything the center of your study without considering the other points of view is that you're only getting a single piece of the picture.

The early modern period was a time of expansion and arguably globalization. If you only focus on Europe's contributions to that a lot is missed.

Especially now that primary sources exist in many languages from Asia, and the Americas.

I think it's important to always remember there are two sides to any story, and Europe, although the most documented region was not the only powerful area in the early modern period

A Eurocentric view of history tends to distort things in Europe's favor.

So in the field I study, Ottoman history, the Eurocentric story says that the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were characterized by Europe gradually gaining an economic and military edge over the Ottoman Empire. The existence of this trend was believed rather implicitly for many decades, and led to unbalanced research. For instance, trade between the Ottomans and Europe was studied extensively while local trade within the Ottoman Empire was neglected, further strengthening the bias, and with it the belief that Europeans were more dominant in the Ottoman economy than they actually were. Likewise on the military side: Europeans were always assumed to be superior, and the Ottomans were assumed to be in decline, so the Ottoman military of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was portrayed in older histories as much weaker than it actually was.