|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 26, 2009 17:25:33 GMT
Zameel,
There was no observational data that could have shown that the earth was rotating. Alhazen could not have shown this.
And your Geber link is to a website run by an ex-henchman of the butcher of Damascus who has no history of science qualifications and depends on the useful idiots of Unesco to get published (and even this appears to have failed him now). Newman is a respected professor whose work is peer reviewed and published by US academic presses.
That is what I mean about exaggerations and dodgy sources.
My problem is that when I take the trouble to chase stuff down is so often doesn't add up. So I get nervous about bothering to continue doing it.
As I get time, I'll continue to investigate but I'm afraid much of this still fails the smell test.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 26, 2009 19:00:13 GMT
James, you seem to have ignored the Avempace-Avicenna distinction; Saliba's view on how one should assess influence especially during the renaissance in his article "Whose Science is Arabic Science in the Renaissance?" which touches on Ibn Nafis's probable (and likely) influence; and Avicenna actually beating Buridan to his supposedly new ideas. And your Geber link is to a website run by an ex-henchman of the butcher of Damascus who has no history of science qualifications Are you sure about that? I'm not sure somebody with no qualifications in the history of science would teach HPS at University College London and University of Toronto or get published by the Cambridge University Press on his works on that field. George Saliba refers to Ahmad Y Hassan in his book on the decline of Islamic science after the 16th century saying Hassan was on the right track (in his article "Factors Behind the Decline of Islamic Science after the Sixteenth Century"); Saliba also refers to him with regards to some important translations of the Banu Musa brothers, Jazari and Taqi al-Din al-Maruf and his joint work with Donald Routledge Hill (e.g. IS&MoRE p. 263). Furthermore, I don't think ad hominem is a valid argument. People have referred to Saliba as an "anti-semite" for a classroom incident. That does not detract from his scholarship. [On more solid grounds, I think one would be justified in rejecting Toby Huff's "scholarship", a sociologist who knows next to nothing of Arabic] Newman is a respected professor whose work is peer reviewed and published by US academic presses Correct me if I'm wrong, but Newman is not an expert on Arabic science - I'm not sure that he knows Arabic (surely if you claim Arabic material did not say something you must have a knowledge of that material). His views were basically taken from Berthelot, Julius Ruska and Kraus (you'll see them a lot in his footnotes). On the other hand, Hassan is not a lone scholar - he bases his views on Eric Holmyard, Henry Stapleton, James Partington (who opposed Berthelot), Fuat Sezgin and others. Furthermore, Hassan's article dealing with showing examples of nitric acid before the 13th century was a scholarly article read at an international conference: Al-Hassan, Ahmad Y. “Potassium Nitrate in Arabic and Latin Sources”, Proceedings of the XXI International Congress of History of Science. Mexico City, 2001. Or is that not scholarly and peer-reviewed? My problem is that when I take the trouble to chase stuff down is so often doesn't add up It's probably because you take apologists (like Huff) seriously and don't take scholars and experts on Arabic science (like AY al-Hassan) seriously? |
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 26, 2009 20:21:38 GMT
James, you seem to have ignored the Avempace-Avicenna distinction; No, I merely pointed out that the Avempace connection turned out to be a red herring. Avicenna may be different but I have not the time to dig into it now. That he influenced Buridan seems, prima facie, unlikely on the basis of what you have said, but it not impossible. He's wrong and I suspect, from his couched language, that he knows it. We've been over this before IIRC. I quote from your ow post above "The copy of Andreas’s translation which still exists at Bologna University, however, does not seem to include the section on the pulmonary circulation of the blood." Nor does the printed edition. His PhD is engineering (from Imperial). Assad Jr was educated in London as well of course. At the time Imperial pulled lots of poeple in to do HPS to get the department started. You are right which is why I've never brought up Saliba's racism and his nasty politics. Oh, hang on. Better ignore the last sentence.  No, but he is an expert on the medieval Latin and can see the syntax means that it is not a translation. He's traced the origin to another Latin treatise I believe. Conference papers aren't peer reviewed before delivery. They even let me do them. Huff is not an apologist in the sense that he appears to be a non-theist. Certainly, he is more reliable than al-Hassan but his work is a synthesis so he gets the details wrong on occasion. Al-Hassan's stuff on Geber is smoke and mirrors as becomes clear if you actually read it with a sceptical eye. He can never quite bring himself to admit that the Arabic texts of the Latin Geber corpus don't exist. And since Newman has shown they are not translations, the case is closed. I didn't present one scholarly view - I presented the view I take to be the correct one. Sorting through the huge number of alchemical experiments recorded in the Arabic corpus only tells us that they messed about a lot. And if they did chance upon something significant, it wasn't noted as anything special. No matter. Al-Hassan is a busted flush as far as I am concerned and you'll have to do better. On the mercury clock - it's a waterclock that uses mercury. The drum turns as the mercury pours from one chamber to the next. It's totally impractical and just a 'mechanical marvel'. That's why it never took off. That people dabbled in the idea later doesn't make it any more sensible. I'll leave off now until I have a chance to check on the rotation of the earth and Avicenna's ideas on impetus. Best wishes James |
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 26, 2009 22:23:20 GMT
James, I read your half-hearted answers, and I have to say I am not convinced, especially with regards to Geber, on which it seems you have consulted only one source, and have not considered that it is full of erroneous assumptions and false premises. More of that further down. I merely pointed out that the Avempace connection turned out to be a red herring But I didn't claim an Avempace connection, I claimed an Avicenna connection. Avicenna may be different but I have not the time to dig into it now I provided evidence from reputable historians of science Aydin Sayili (from Harvard) and Allan Franklin (from Cornell). Surely that's not all that difficult to verify? That he influenced Buridan seems, prima facie, unlikely on the basis of what you have said The Western notion of impetus which Aquinas and Bacon attacked was the Avicennan formulation not the Philoponian one - which I think is a strong indication it came from Avicenna. I quote from your ow post above "The copy of Andreas’s translation which still exists at Bologna University, however, does not seem to include the section on the pulmonary circulation of the blood." Nor does the printed edition. Yes and I recognised that - but that was not the point. I'll spell it out for you: Saliba says the Tusi-Copernican link is undeniable as it is near-impossible that the letters used as designators in the models would correspond exactly, but there is no direct evidence of a Latin translation of this part of Tusi's work present in Copernicus' time. Hence, influence does not necessarily originate from a translated form but from the original Arabic. It is all too suspicious that Andreas Alpago the translator of Ibn al-Nafis (who did not include the relevant part) would popularise Ibn al-Nafis's work and almost immediately (a couple of decades later) Colombo and Severtus come up witht the pulmonary circulation. Saliba is outlining an important principle in attemtping to pin down influence especially in Renaissance Europe. Do you understand this train of thought? His PhD is engineering (from Imperial) His PhD I thought was from UCL not Imperial. But he has degrees from other universities, and I can't discount the possibility he has qualifications in the history of science, especially since he has peer-reviewed books on the subject, important translations of Arabic scientific material, many citations from scholarly literature, professorships in HPS from UCL and Toronto - that does not sound like somebody who is not an expert in the field. You are right which is why I've never brought up Saliba's racism and his nasty politics Can you elaborate on his nasty politics? Politics is a matter of perspective, so I'll be interested. No, but he is an expert on the medieval Latin and can see the syntax means that it is not a translation. He's traced the origin to another Latin treatise I believe. Yes based on many assumptions which demand a knowledge of Arabic, hence Newman's almost total reliance on Julius Ruska. You misrepresent al-Hassan's arguments and portray it selectively as it seems you do mine and Saliba's: Al-Hassan's stuff on Geber is smoke and mirrors as becomes clear if you actually read it with a sceptical eye. He can never quite bring himself to admit that the Arabic texts of the Latin Geber corpus don't exist. This is quite a transparent lie. If you read the main work that I linked to ("The Arabic Origins of Geber's Latin Works"), he says, in reference to Berthelot's second assumption: " We have surveyed all the extant dated Arabic MSS attributed to Jābir.[26] The oldest ones (2%) do not go earlier than the 12th century. This is to say, all MSS by Jābir which preceded the 12th century have perished and, among them, most probably also the ones used by translators. All Arabic MSS were written on paper which deteriorates with the passage of time and the factors of the environment, and not on parchment which was the only writing material in the West before the advent of printing. On the other hand, we should remember that the Arabic originals of many significant Latin translations of Arabic scientific and philosophic works were also lost, surviving exclusively in Latin or Hebrew.[27]" www.history-science-technology.com/Geber/Geber%204.htmYou say al-Hassan's stuff is "smoke and mirrors" but it seems pretty convincing to me. Al-Hassan shows many of the central assumptions on which Ruska, Kraus and Newman (who doesn't know any Arabic) based their views are severely flawed and often outright wrong (e.g. the idea that Jabir had a high-standing in the West is not true at all - references present in above article). And not only this, this was shown long before al-Hassan and Newman by Holmyard (mainly), Stapleton and Partington. The main work of Geber, the Summa, is attributed to a previously unknown figure Paul of Taranto. Many of the important assumptions (esp to do with ideas that supposedly only emerged in the thirteenth century when the other work of Paul was written) are completely baseless. For example, Newman says "the corpuscular theory" was something new in the Summa but this an old idea present in Arabic alchemy right from the start. Furthermore, al-Hassan who does have mastery over the Arabic texts from authors like Avicenna, Jabir's extant works (like kitab al-sab'in), the Ikhwan al-Safa and others shows many of the supposedly new ideas in the Summa were already present centuries earlier. And not only this the language in the Summa is clearly reminiscent of a Jabirian work not the Latin Paul's, and contains language clearly of Arabic origin (shown in al-Hassan's article); Holmyard said all those decades ago that Bertholot's assumptions (just like Newman's) is based on a near-total ignorance of Arabic: "it is here [in declaring that there are no Arabic expressions in the Summa] that Berthelot’s ignorance of Arabic led him astray. As a matter of fact, the Summa is full of Arabic phrases and turns of speech, and so are the other Latin works" (Holmyard) Reading this article of al-Hassan, he is clearly meticulous and thorough. For some reason James has to attack the author's credentials, his political views, and even has to clearly misrepresent and even lie about his work in order to it seems dismiss this very long and devestating refutation of Kraus, Ruska and Newman. Readers can read Newman (partially) on google books - his book The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber - books.google.com/books?id=tZ-WXuo84ioC&printsec=frontcover&dq=newman+translation&cd=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false and can read al-Hassan's critique in the article linked: www.history-science-technology.com/Geber/Geber%204.htmAl-Hassan says in his home page "The papers that are given here on line were presented at international conferences and have been published or are in the process of being published. Because of the length of time associated with the publication process it was deemed useful to present them here." His new book I think is coming out soon, which deals with this very subject: "Studies in al-Kimya' Critical Issues in Latin and Arabic Alchemy and Chemistry" and his refutation of Newman, Ruska and Kraus based on Arabic sources that preceded the Summa (and contained material that supposedly first arose there) he takes to be a very important article. Huff is not an apologist in the sense that he appears to be a non-theist He is an apologist for so-called "Western civilisation" as was Berthelot, in being the first to doubt that Geber was actually a translation of Jabir which was never doubted before the end of the 19th century, who said unapologetically "it is necessary that we radically change the current ideas about the chemical knowledge of the Arabs, and on the influence exerted by this knowledge on the civilization and science of the West" (Berthelot). The drum turns as the mercury pours from one chamber to the next. It's totally impractical and just a 'mechanical marvel' According to al-Hassan "The mercury drum and the pinion made a complete revolution in 4 hours and the astrolabe dial made a complete revolution in 24 hours. Clocks incorporating this principle are known to work satisfactorily, since many of them were made in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries" I apologise if I came across as offensive in any way, but it seems to me the deliberate dismissal of an important work using tactics of misrepresentation and falsehood can only be pointed out without mincing words. |
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 28, 2009 22:12:00 GMT
Another of al-Hassan's important and relevant peer-reviewed articles with citations - The Arabic Origin of Jabir's Latin Works (Journal for the History of Arabic Science, Vol. 10, Numbers 1 & 2, 1994, pp. 5-11): www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11616316cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3720031Can be read here: www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%204.htm Let us summarize briefly the points that were raised in the above discussion:
1. Alchemy in the last part of the thirteenth century was still an unknown subject in the Latin world according to Bacon who wrote in 1266. It follows that such mature works like the Summa and the other Latin works of Jabir could not suddenly be written by a Latin writer in this same period.
2. Jabir was not quoted by any of the thirteenth century writers on alchemy, namely: Michael Scot, Vincent de Beauvais, Albertus Magnus or Roger Bacon, and he did not enjoy a high prestige in the Latin West in that century. His fame arose suddenly only after the translation of his works at the end of the century. It follows that there was no reason why a Latin writer should ascribe his writings to an unknown Arabic alchemist.
3. Even if we assume that the pseudo-Latin writer made only compilations from the already translated Arabic alchemical works, the disputed Latin works of Jabir contain much vaster information than was available in the Latin translations until then. And again, the prevailing ignorance of alchemy as described by Bacon, could not enable any Latin writer to have access to such detailed and wide knowledge as given in the Summa corpus.
4. Quotations were given above from reliable literature of the seventeenth century, that the noted Arabist Golius, translated the Jabir’s works in question from Arabic manuscripts, and published the Latin translation in Leiden. This information is of the utmost importance and warrants an extensive investigation.
5. A new effort should be made to look again very carefully into the various Latin manuscripts to find out whether there is only one Latin text or more than one.
One main reason, in our opinion, for Berthelot's hypothesis was that The Sum of Perfection and the four other treatises were so important and influential that he felt that this distinction should not be left untainted. The treatises contain some important recipes for mineral acids, such as nitric. It was appealing also, to give this honour to a Latin Pseudo-Geber. [25]
In this short account we cannot discuss the matter in further detail. Holmyard who was always opposed to Berthelot's hypothesis, when discussing the treatises, concludes by saying: “we may safely say that they are not unwortby of Jabir and that he is worthy of them; and that we know of no other chemist, Muslim or Christian, who could for one moment be imagined to have written them." [26] |
|
rtaylor
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 97
|
Post by rtaylor on May 19, 2010 18:12:04 GMT
I do not believe that Philosophy and religeous believe are really compatible. They are two seperate subjects. One comes about as a result of 'Divine Revelation', the other comes about as a result of thinking. Belief in Divine Revelation requires 'faith' whereas the other requires understanding and reasoning.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on May 19, 2010 18:21:47 GMT
Then why, pray tell, does James' book explain at length how the church came to value the use of reason and logic in explaining and defending their beliefs? Why are there many religious philosophers out there? And why is the first sermon in the history of the church (by Peter in Acts chapter 2) essentially a logical, evidence-based apologetic for placing ones trust in Jesus?
|
|
|
|
Post by himself on May 19, 2010 22:37:40 GMT
I do not believe that Philosophy and religeous believe are really compatible. They are two seperate subjects. One comes about as a result of 'Divine Revelation', the other comes about as a result of thinking. Belief in Divine Revelation requires 'faith' whereas the other requires understanding and reasoning. I don't think it is quite fair to say that philosophy comes about as a result of 'Divine Revelation.' Now God grant I speak suitably and value these endowments at their worth: For he is the guide of Wisdom and the director of the wise. For both we and our words are in his hand, as well as all prudence and knowledge of crafts. For he gave me sound knowledge of existing things,
that I might know the organization of the universe
and the force of its elements
The beginning and the end
and the midpoint of times
the changes in the sun's course
and the variations of the seasons.
Cycles of years, positions of the stars,
natures of animals, tempers of beasts,
Powers of the winds and thoughts of men,
uses of plants and virtues of roots. Such things as are hidden I learned and such as are plain; for Wisdom, the artificer of all, taught me. Wisdom 7:15-22 |
|
rtaylor
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 97
|
Post by rtaylor on May 22, 2010 13:12:24 GMT
You quote the wisdom literature which is not available in the cannon of the Hebrew scriptures. Which probabably means that it was rejected by some 'learned' fellow during the compilation of the Christian bible. It was probabaly rejected because the author of the wisdom books is unknown. Although borrowing from unknown authors is not something that the compilers of the Christian bible have ever been bothered about. Some say it was 'good king Solomen' who wrote these books, others that the Psalms, Wisdom, and Proverbs originated in ancient Eygpt . They where 'borrowed' by the Jews during their captivity and taken back to Jerusalem when they where released. The Jewish Pentateuch as we know it was only written down about 400 BC. Also authors unkown. This type of wisdom literature could actualy apply to any of the ancient Gods or religeons of almost any period in history.
I have a book called, 'The Wisdom of Eygpt and the Old Testament', subtitle, 'In the light of the newly discovered 'Teaching of Amen-em-ope'. By W.O.E. Oesterley, D.D.
My copy was printed in 1927. The Eygptian text of this work is contained in a hieratic papyrus, numbered 10474 in the British Museum. The length of the papyrus is 12 ft 1/2 inches long and 10 1/2 inches wide at its widest point.
The work was evidently held in high estimation, and it must have enjoyed a wide circulation, since it appears to have been used as a school book, as is shown by an ancient Eygptian writing tablet preserved in the Museum at Turin. On this tablet a schoolboy copied out daily four or five verses from the Teaching. It cannot be said for certain what even the approximate date of this work is. Possibly 1500 BC.
The roots of Judaism are lost in the mists of time. But you can find some small trace of them if you look hard enough.
If God is a God of Truth then Truth is what God wants us to seek.
Truth cannot be found in 'Faith'. Faith is blind. Those who have faith know without knowledge. Knowing without knowledge is called 'Delusion'.
|
|
rtaylor
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 97
|
Post by rtaylor on May 22, 2010 13:31:55 GMT
The difference between Philosophy and Divine Revelation.
Philosophy comes about as a result of much thinking. usually by a man. It can be argued with and rejected if it does not make sense.
Divine Revelation comes about because someone claims to have had a vision or dream. Sent to them by God. It cannot be argued with or rejected if it does not make sense.
The ancient philosophers never claimed Divine Revelation. Although they where quite wise, most of them, but it is possible to say that all wisdom comes from God. Even the wisdom of those who don't believe.
The ancient Hindoo describes God thus.
'He whom the mind alone can percieve; whose essence eludes the external organs, who has no visible parts, who exists from eternity... and is the soul of all beings, whom no being can comprehend'.
All Divine Revelation is 'Delusion'.
|
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on May 22, 2010 13:50:37 GMT
*sigh*
Sources?
|
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on May 22, 2010 18:22:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on May 22, 2010 21:07:27 GMT
I haven't seen it on the shelves here in Sydney. If there's a bookshop that will stock it it's Abbeys - they have several shelves of Medieval stuff. So far their online catalogue isn't listing it. But it can take a couple of months for British books to finally make it out here to the colonies. I think they send them on disused convict ships or something. An update on the above - Abbey's has stocked it for several months now. They had about ten copies prominently stacked on the new books table inside the main door for about four weeks. They must have sold most of them, because there are now only two copies shelved in their extensive Medieval History section. I can't say I've seen it anywhere else though, but Australia's book market is dominated by two major chains - Dymocks and Angus and Robertson - both of whom specialise in shifting large quantities of bestselling pulp crap and not much else. Depressing really. Hopefully we'll see more copies pop up in more places once the paperback hits our distant shores. |
|
|
|
Post by himself on May 22, 2010 21:24:02 GMT
taylor
It was in the Septuagint, in the Orthodox bible, and in the Roman bible. The later Masoretic text dropped it along with all the other texts originally written in Greek. The Protestants dropped it even later, because it was not in the Masoretic.
|
|
rtaylor
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 97
|
Post by rtaylor on May 25, 2010 16:45:26 GMT
Who needs sources when you have faith? John 18.24.
But of course for those who have doubts I will try to provide sources. If I can. But most people are'nt interested in that sort of stuff. People qoute Josephus but I've never yet met a christian who has read his work.
|
|
