|
Post by dmitry on Dec 10, 2015 16:54:49 GMT
Il post this thread here because I might have posted it in the wrong part of the forum:
I would like to hear the opinions of people here on behalf of a question that plagues me.
It seems to me that before the scientific revolution took off in the west there were basically 3 periods of scientific development. The Greek/Hellenist one, the Islamic one (8-13th centuries) and the Medieval prescientific western one (13-17th centuries).
Now as far as I know there was quiet little scientific achievement during the roman imperial period (despite great technological improvements as well as a society that was far better ordered and structured than either the Hellenistic or the Islamic one (for most of its time)).
Now while I think that the Greek period was generally more productive in terms of accomplishments then the Islamic period it still seems to me that by the time the Arabs invaded the Middle East science was mostly dead. And not even because of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire but rather because it has already stagnated in the very same Roman Empire.
Now the Muslims have managed to revive scientific development, they didn’t just dig out the classics, they improved on them. Then in the 12th century the west started to build on this process of development and soon started to advance science by itself.
Now my question is: How crucial was Islam for reviving scientific advancement in the western world? Would Europe have developed its university system and system of scientific inquiry without it? while I believe that had the roman/byzantine empire survived as a Mediterranean spanning power with a developed (albeit stagnant) class of intellectuals, the west would have probably gained access to classical knowledge faster I wonder if it would have developed its tradition of intellectual curiosity or would have remained in the same stasis Rome was?
while I believe that the gradual spread of Christianity eastwards (especially after Heraclius victory over the Persians) would have improved European contact with India and china, giving it access to paper and Indian numerals I am wondering if Islam was necessary to reigniting a certain intellectual that the Greeks lost, and "infecting" the west with it.
I would be grateful for answers and I’m sorry for my bad English.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 10, 2015 17:36:09 GMT
Hello Dmitry,
I'm not sure it matters too much which forum you use, but I'll reply to this thread.
The issue is difficult because it is wrapped in politics as well as being poorly understood. We can dispense with the politics first. Lots of western politicians have said things intended to reassure western Muslims that they are not considered guilty by association with Islamic extremists. Likewise, anti-immigration politicians and commentators have used mangled history to make points about mainstream Islam being inimical to western values. I'd suggest leaving all that aside. There are also Muslim apologists (particularly active on Wikipedia) and rationalists with their own axes to grind.
My own conclusions are that a certain branch of Islamic thought picked up where the Greeks left off and took forward certain aspects of their scientific work, especially in optics and Ptolemaic astronomy. Muslims also combined Indian and Greek maths in fruitful ways and again made advances of their own. However, this was all very much work in the Greek paradigm. They did science like Greeks, only a bit better. Some of the fundamental problems that Greek science had also existed in Islam. These included:
- no settled metaphysical theories about reality. Muslim philosophy was extremely varied and there was no overarching Muslim pope to settle on a particular position.
- a truly miniscule number of people involved, largely dependent on royal patronage. We have the famous House of Wisdom in Baghdad as we do the Museum in Alexandria - both royal creations dependent on the royal whim and with much bumpier histories than is often appreciated. But generally, the only people who could do science and maths were those with wealth and leisure.
- no reason to do science. Science had very little practical application. While astronomy and maths were useful, the applications had been exhausted pretty early on.
- a blanket ban on human dissection and later, printing.
- an excessive, although not total, reliance on authority. We see no paradigm busting breakthroughs in Islamic science.
In all, Islam made contributions, some of them important. But they did not change the rules of the scientific game as happened in western Europe. On that basis, I do not regard their contribution as 'crucial' and they certainly did not invent the scientific method.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by dmitry on Dec 10, 2015 18:08:42 GMT
Thank you very much for your answer!
the idea that the Muslims invented the scientific method seems to be widespread among islamic apologists and has found some support in mainstream history sciense. explorable.com/who-invented-the-scientific-method?gid=1595
This article argues that there was a fundamental distinction between Aristotelian empiricism and the completly formulated scientific method of Arab scholars.
How would you argue against what is said on this site? namly that Aristotel invented empiricism but Islam invented the scientific method. For instance Richard carrier argues that the greeks/romans allready practiced all elements of the scientific method and just didnt take the step to seperate the good methods from the bad once...I guess the Muslims didnt either. He also claims that scientific development took place quiet intensly in pre 3rd century rome (were he contradicts saliba who argues that there was no development in Rome at all before Islam came along), he is also of the opinion that roman achievements far surpass that of Muslims and Hindus. I dont think carrier is reliable though, he seems to have a similar combination of genuine research and partisan ideology that for instance saliba shows (or your former commenter "zameel").
If I may ask what the majority position in western academia is on this topic? Is it the same as what you stated? Or does it more corespond with Saliba and co?
Im grateful for oyur time and am sorry for my bad english.
|
|
|
Post by dmitry on Dec 10, 2015 20:18:07 GMT
"a blanket ban on human dissection" iv seen some muslims arguing that there was no blanket ban and that rather dissections were likly preformed en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissection#Islamic_worldwhat is the general opinion in the scientific comunity on this topic if I may ask?
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 11, 2015 8:40:01 GMT
Hello Dimitry,
On dissection, if you read the Wikipedia article carefully, it actually presents no evidence that human dissection ever happened in the Islamic world. Likewise, Emile Savage-Smith's classic article which it references, presents no such evidence. The closest we have is a Christian Arab dissecting Barbary apes, as Galen did. However, Islamic jurists did lay down blanket bans on dissection, as Wikipedia admits.
On the other article, it looks like it was written by a freelancer and researched from wikipedia. If I had a couple of days, I could note everything that was wrong with it. I would note here that Alhazen said some interesting things and used empirical demonstrations of what he thought he knew already. But this was unusual and did not give rise to a method among Islamic natural philosophers.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by dmitry on Dec 11, 2015 10:08:08 GMT
Dear Dr.Hannam, Im very grateful for your answer! In the Wikipedia article it is stated that some islamic jurists did support dissection (albit they dont say how widespread such support was). Also the evidence seems contradictory en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Nafis "Although he states in his writings that he was prevented from practicing dissection because of his beliefs, other scholars have noted that al-Nafis must have either practiced dissection or seen a human heart in order to come to his conclusions.[19] According to one view, his knowledge about the human heart could have been derived from surgical operations rather than dissection.[20] Other comments found in al-Nafis’s writings such as dismissing earlier observations with a reference to dissection as proof, however, support the view that he practiced dissection in order to come to his conclusions about the human heart and pulmonary circulation. [21] Ibn al-Nafis’s comments to the contrary and the alternate explanations, however, keep his possible practice of dissection in question." Maybe dissections took place in secret? Were hints at dissections only dropped in private writings that wouldnt become public knowledge? Also was anyone ever punished for practicing dissections? were there any laws made by Muslim rulers against it? Also to repeat my previous question "If I may ask what the majority position in western academia is on this topic? Is it the same as what you stated? Or does it more corespond with Saliba and co?" basicly what is the majority position today on Islamic sciense (in the west since I can quiet guess what it is in Islamic countries)? Is it generaly closer to yours or Zameels? Im again grateful for your answer!
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 11, 2015 11:45:42 GMT
Hi Dmitry,
The consensus opinion of western academics is a lot closer to my view than Zameel's or even Saliba (although the later is a real scholar and well worth taking seriously).
On dissection, the evidence is a slam dunk. There was a blanket ban and if dissections took place, they were secret and we have no record of them. It is best to assume that they didn't happen. The Wikipedia article references Savage-Smith on Al Ghazali. However, in her article itself Savage-Smith is careful to note that Al Ghazali provides no clear endorsement for human dissection. He merely notes that anatomy reveals the wonder of God's works, a religious rather than scientific point.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by dmitry on Dec 11, 2015 15:41:24 GMT
Thank you very much for your answer!
Do you mean academics who deal with this topic? If the majority of them disagree with muslim revisionism I would be glad to hear that!
well dosnt savege-smith write that there was only one Islamic text that realy bans (or rather discoureges) discection?
also how can one explain the hints at discection thrown by Nafis?
Also I saw that you stated a few times that you believed that modern sciense only arose in the 19th century (I think thats also salibas point).
Do you believe there was a qualitative jump in the 17th century that was indeed unique to world history? at least the quantitative output of sciense massivly increased at this time. saliba atributes this to new world wealth, but it seems he just dosnt know that most economic history rejects the idea that the new world had any great impact on the economies of Europe (exept crippling that of spain), whous exeptional growth has began much earlier (13th and especialy 14th century). Even the Turkish historian Pamuk who in my knowledge has produced the only more or less broad assesment of the Middle easts GDP writes that the west was equal in per capita GDP in the 12th and started to surpass the muslim world in the 13th century (especialy northern Italy, which soon became the wealthiest place in the world). Also most of the scientific advance hapened in France and england and started before bouth countries even became important colonial powers (when the royal society was established the "british empire" was limited to a few caribian islands, north american enclaves and trading ports in India). btw had saliba argued that the rise in western global trade from the 16th century onward provided the money to fund science he would have still been wrong but less wrong then his original argument...But I guess he just couldnt resist to use the "west got rich by exploiting other peoples" argument.
But what do oyu think of his argument that it was mostly royal academies (structures similar to the "house of wisdom") rather then universities that created most of the scientific revolution of the 17th century? Wernt the 2 structures linked?
Im again grateful for your answer!
|
|
|
Post by dmitry on Dec 11, 2015 17:04:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dmitry on Dec 11, 2015 21:52:25 GMT
One other thing: No other then the (strongly hated in muslim circles) toby Huff writes: "Our concern is with the fact that from the eighth century to the end of the fourteenth, Arabic science was probably the most advanced science in the world, greatly surpassing the West and China. In virtually every field of endeavor – in astronomy, alchemy, mathematics, medicine, optics, and so forth – Arab scientists (that is, Middle Eastern individuals primarily using the Arabic language but including Arabs, Iranians, Christians, Jews, and others) were in the forefront of scientific advance. The facts, theories, and scientific speculations contained in their treatises were the most advanced to be had anywhere in the world, including China."
Would you agree with that? It seems your position is that western science started to make contribution on its own that were independant of islamic sciense earlier then the 15th century and was much more vibrant and dynamic then islamic sciense since at least the 13th century?
|
|