|
|
Post by timoneill on Oct 12, 2009 5:35:59 GMT
Thanks Tim. Is the book out in Australia? I saw a small pile of copies in the new books display in Abbey's Bookshop in Sydney on Saturday, so clearly it's finally made it way over the oceans. |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 21, 2009 5:34:52 GMT
My long-delayed review is now finally up. Thanks to all for their patience - life has been hectic lately ... |
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Nov 21, 2009 16:43:08 GMT
Awesome, Tim. Your review was a thoroughly engaging read.
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 21, 2009 20:05:42 GMT
Awesome, Tim. Your review was a thoroughly engaging read. Thanks. But I now have my first comment on the review and it's from someone who doesn't like James' book. Amusingly, it's also by someone who hasn't read James' book, but somehow still knows it's wrong. I've just fired a whiff of sarcastic grapeshot across his bow, so we'll see if he comes back for more.  |
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Nov 21, 2009 20:58:12 GMT
Perhaps one of the "lively" fellows from that whole Charles Freeman fracas has come back for another round?
|
|
|
|
Post by noons on Nov 21, 2009 22:06:18 GMT
Tim, the only issue I have with your review is that you characterize the Dark Ages chart as "THE STUPIDEST THING ON THE INTERNET EVER"
You're just setting yourself up for future disappointment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Nov 22, 2009 0:04:00 GMT
I've just fired a whiff of sarcastic grapeshot across his bow, so we'll see if he comes back for more. Yeah, that was a great one! I actually have to read books too, so you are not the only one. Funny, how many people have so easily "informed" opinions, which then are really worthless though. |
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 22, 2009 12:25:17 GMT
Thank you very much for the detailed review Tim. It is most kind of you to spend so much time over it.
As it happens, I have read Levi's book. It is quite good and purports to show that medieval theology could not solve the theological concerns about grace and works that gave rise to the Reformation. But I don't recall it had much to say at all about science. Perhaps your commentator has only browsed through that one as well. Certainly, it's a 500 page academic text so I would not recommend it for laypeople looking for an enjoyable read.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 23, 2009 9:49:08 GMT
As it's not online, I wanted to share the best line from Boris Johnson's review in the Mail last weekend. He's discussing the projectile motion of objects and their freefall:
"Aristotle, on the matter of balls, was talking spheroids."
Boris does exaggerate occasionally, claiming that Buridan discussed the earth orbiting the sum rather than the earth rotating, but it was a good review.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 25, 2009 18:32:41 GMT
As it's not online, I wanted to share the best line from Boris Johnson's review in the Mail last weekend. He's discussing the projectile motion of objects and their freefall: "Aristotle, on the matter of balls, was talking spheroids." Boris does exaggerate occasionally, claiming that Buridan discussed the earth orbiting the sum rather than the earth rotating, but it was a good review. I'm curious do you mention in your book that the theory of impetus as Buridan described it in the 14th century was first correctly explained by Avicenna in the 11th century? John Philoponus was aware Aristotle was "talking spheroids" (as balls obviously don't move downwards as soon as it leaves the hand/mover in an upward direction) and in the 6th century attempted to propose an alternative which wasn't all that detailed or mathematical (and wrong on counts of not counting gravity as a form of downward impetus and the false belief that impetus immediately dissipates without external resistance, both of which Avicenna corrected). Aydin Sayili in "Ibn Sīnā and Buridan on the Motion of the Projectile" (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 500 (1), 1987, pp. 477 – 482) shows Avicenna not only developed an elaborate theory of motion in Kitab al-Shifa (Book of Healing), but was likely imitated by and influenced Buridan after the book was translated into Latin in the 12th century. Avicenna distinguished between what he called mayl (inclination/impetus) and the force which was imparted by the thrower. He said the motion in a vacuum would not cease and the inclination only ceases because of external forces like air resistance. As Sayili wrote "[Impetus] was a permanent force whose effect got dissipated only as a result of external agents such as air resistance. [Avicenna] is apparently the first to conceive such a permanent type of impressed virtue for non-natural motion." Just like Buridan after him he proposed the theory of momentum: "Thus he considered impetus as proportional to weight times velocity. In other words, [Avicenna's] conception of impetus comes very close to the concept of momentum of Newtonian mechanics." Buridan in fact mentions Avicenna's follower Abu l-Barakat al-Baghdadi who said if the force is constant the motion will not stop due to acceleration and that the increasing velocity of a falling object was not due to its return to its natural place but because of the constant force i.e. acceleration as the rate of change of velocity (i.e. al-Baghdadi first came up with a = f/m or Newton's 2nd law). Similarly the earth's rotation was accepted by Alhazen, Al-Biruni and others who influenced the Europeans Oresme, Buridan and others. Nor were the Europeans the first to reject Aristotle's ideas of inherent properties of some forces, and the distinction between the perfect circular motion of supralunar bodies and the imperfect sublunar; these were challenged by Avicenna, Alhazen, al-Biruni and those after them. Don't you think it is dishonest to claim European origins when Buridan's physical theories came directly from the Arabs (I may be wrong, but I'm assuming you don't mention these antecedents of Buridan). |
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 26, 2009 1:42:28 GMT
I just came across a recent article by James: www.historytoday.com/MainArticle.aspx?m=33790 in which he makes an interesting comment: " we should now give them the credit that is their due and acknowledge that modern science began in the Middle Ages". I'm not sure if this is merely a slip, or that contrary to what James said previously, he now believes modern science really did begin in the Middle Ages. He bases this on Bradwardine's mathematisation of nature; Heytesbury's mean speed theorem; Buridan's foreshadowing of Newton's first and second laws; and Oresme's graphical representation of motion and opposition to astrology. James I think should be aware that most of these developments occured centuries earlier in Islam. With regards to the mathematisation of nature, Copernicus did not borrow from his European antecedents (there weren't many) but he did from his Arab ones: Urdi, Shirazi, Tusi, Shatir (as demonstrated by George Saliba who drew from the earlier works of Otto Neugebauer, ES Kennedy, David King). These Muslim astronomers (who were also men of religion), as George Saliba says, "insisted on the need to match mathematics with the ‘real’ world surrounding them, as expressed within the cosmology of the time"; not only in astronomy/cosmology, but in mathematics these mathematicians, which included Khawarizmi, Karkhi, Alhazen, Tusi, made significant developments which their European counterparts did not (with few exceptions like Fibonacci who were Arab-influenced). Buridan's foreshadowing of Newton's first two laws in fact can be demonsrated to have been first properly formulated by Avicenna (and simultaneously Alhazen) for the first law and Abu l-Barakat al-Baghdadi for the second law. A strong opposition to astrology comes directly from the Prophet Muhammad which is why early scholars like al-Biruni distinguished between astronomy ( ilm al falak) which was based on empiricism, observation and mathematics and astrology ( ilm al nujum) which was based on superstition; astrology, though debated, was more welcomed in Europe and Christianity (and in fact astrology grew during the renaissance). The Arabo-Islamic developments in science of the kind James describes therefore, not only began centuries earlier, continued alongside Europe; genuine developments continued all the way into the 16th century e.g. with Taqi al-Din al-Maruf (d. 1585) in engineering and physics (optics); Dawud al-Antaki (1600) in medicine and biology; Shams al-Din al-Khafri (d. 1550) in astronomy and mathematics. The 17th century was a period of decline for a complex of historical factors, which included political and economic decline. So if as you say that we must "acknowledge that modern science began in the Middle Ages", the Muslim scientists cannot be excluded from this analysis or it must be acknowledged the Muslim scientists excelled even "modern science" if it is restricted to Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 26, 2009 10:35:00 GMT
I'm curious do you mention in your book that the theory of impetus as Buridan described it in the 14th century was first correctly explained by Avicenna in the 11th century? It wasn't. Avicenna's ideas were more wrong than Buridans since he seems to be a fully-fledged member of the Wile E. Coyote school of dynamics. Essentially, although Islamic thinkers played around with impetus, they got no further with it than Philoponus had done. For an example of this sort of speculation going badly wrong see Moody's work on Avempace (JHI 12:2) and subsequent criticism by Franco (JHI 64:4). It is possible that Avicenna did make mention of concepts later found in Buridan. But it seems most unlikely that Buridan got them from his book of healing since he was at Paris where the medical faculty had few connections to the arts faculty (and was pretty small in any case). So the question of influence becomes somewhat moot. Did Buridan get impetus from the Arabs or direct from Philoponus? Probably the former, but more likely via Francis da Marchia's Sentences commentary. Now this would be interesting, especially as Saliba makes no mention of it in Islamic Science and the Making. Perhaps you would care to elaborate? Best wishes James |
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 26, 2009 11:08:19 GMT
I'm not sure if this is merely a slip, or that contrary to what James said previously, he now believes modern science really did begin in the Middle Ages. It's a slip and I should have picked it up in the proofs. Still, the piece is supposed to be polemic for the general reader to nudge them out of the scientific revolution paradigm, so little harm should be done. Christians got a similar message from Augustine, of course, but as you say took a broader view of what astronomy could achieve. Astrologers who would have been ruled out of court in the Islamic world could thrive in Christian Europe and it isn't clear to what extent this was a good or bad thing. I cover Shatir and al-Tusi's influence on Copernicus in my book you will be pleased to hear. Likewise, Alhazen on optics. But, as I've said before, I find much of what is claimed for Islamic science turns out on closer examination to be exaggerated, as we have discovered before on this board before you hiatus. Have you seen my piece in the Spectator? I'm afraid you won't like it much. www.spectator.co.uk/essays/5482023/did-al-farabi-really-invent-sociology.thtmlI should say, however, that I am very happy to give Islamic thinkers their due when it has been demonstrated that they deserve it. It is just that so much of the material in this field turns out to be unreliable and I'm afraid that Zameel himself has not always helped in this respect. Saliba I respect, read and use but several of the others that we have been introduced to can be very misleading. Recall our dispute on Geber and al-Nifis on the circulation. The post on universities looks interesting and I'll try to get to it later. Best wishes James |
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 26, 2009 12:48:32 GMT
Thank you for your reply, James. Essentially, although Islamic thinkers played around with impetus, they got no further with it than Philoponus had done. For an example of this sort of speculation going badly wrong see Moody's work on Avempace (JHI 12:2) and subsequent criticism by Franco (JHI 64:4) Avempace is not Avicenna, and it is completely untrue "Islamic thinkers...got no further with it than Philoponus". A fuller treatment from primary sources comes from "Principles of Inertia in the Middle Ages", Allan Franklin (American Journal of Physics Vol 44 No 6 June 1976), who discusses in detail the views of Aristotle (and the atomists' dissent), Hipparchus's and Philoponus' views, Avicenna's remarkable elaborations, Avempace's agreement with Philoponus, and Buridan's Avicennaism. Franklin quotes Avicenna describing three different views [see the clarity with which he writes - as Renaissance thinker Guillaume Postel said "Avicenna says more on one or two pages than does Galen in five or six large volumes": "As for the case where there is (motion with) the separation of the moved (from the mover) like the projectile or that which is rolled, the scientists disagree in their opinions. 1. There are some who hold that the causes lie in the tendency of the air which has been pushed to get behind the projectile and to unite there with a force which presses against that which is in front of it. 2. There are others who say the pusher pushes the air and the projectile together, but the air is more receptive to pushing so it is pushed more swiftly and thus pulls that which has been placed in it. 3. And there are those who hold that the cause is in that force which the moved acquires from the mover and which persists in it for a time until it is abolished by that (medium) which touches it and is displaced by it. And just as the force is weakened in the projectile so the natural inclination (mayl) and the action of friction becomes dominant over it, and thus the force is abolished and consequently the projectile passes in the direction of its natural inclination 4. And some have spoken of the doctrine of "engendering". They say that it is in the nature of movement that (another) movement is engendered after it ... But when we have verified the matter we have found the most valid opinion to be that of those who hold that the moved received an inclination from the mover (i.e. no. 3)." On first look the view offered by Avicenna does correspond to Philoponus' but differs in some important aspects as Franklin goes on to say: "Avicenna...offers a different view in the mayl theory [to Philoponus]. His mayl resists changes in its state of motion making it similar to the vis ineritae of Newton. Most importantly his theory differs from that of Philoponus in that his mayl is seen as persisting indefinitely in a void: "If the violent movement of the projectile is produced by a force operating in the void, it ought to persist without annhialation or any kind of interruption". Avicenna states, therefore that since such everlasting motions are not seen in nature, a void does not exist... Avicenna also attempts to give a quantitative treatment of mayl. The action of mayl depends on the weight of the body on which it acts; bodies moved by a given mayl travel with velocities inversely proportional to their weights [i.e. this comes very close to momentum as Sayili said in the above]" Franklin shows that Koyre and Moody are wrong when they claim Avempace's and Philoponus's views (which were very similar, unlike Avicenna's) are not important in working towards the inertial principle (because they believed uniform motion in void would indicate force, unlike Avicenna); but it is an important step to go from Aristotle's view that motion cannot occur without resistance nor can it occur in a void to say resistance is not only unncecessary but impedes motion and that motion in a void is at least hypothetically possible; by considering the idea of motion without resistance, Descartes and Gassendi arrive at the principle of intertia. But of course - this is an attack on Avempace and Philoponus, not Avicenna's more nuanced view. But it seems most unlikely that Buridan got them from his book of healing since he was at Paris where the medical faculty had few connections to the arts faculty Did Buridan get impetus from the Arabs or direct from Philoponus? That assumes Philoponus and Avicenna said the same thing, but Buridan made important new steps to Philoponus' that corresponds with Avicenna and not with Philoponus. Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics was not published until 1542 and the important sections in Avicenna's book of healing were not translated until 1528 (Michael Scot's translation in 1217 was too brief). But the notion of impetus was known to Aquinas and Bacon in the 13th century who wrote refutations of it. But as Franklin writes the kind of impressed force they refuted was of the "non-expending type" (the one that does not die in a void) - i.e. it seems they were reading Avicenna's views not Philoponus'. So when it comes to influence Avicenna is certainly a better candidate. Now this would be interesting, especially as Saliba makes no mention of it in Islamic Science and the Making. Perhaps you would care to elaborate? Roshdi Rashed writes in The Celestial Kinematics of Ibn al-Haytham (Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, vol. 17 (2007) pp. 7–55, doi:10.1017/S0957423907000355 2007 Cambridge University Press) that Ibn al-Haytham knew the observational data (as opposed to philosophy) showed the earth was rotating about its axis. Tusi and al-Qushji later provided empirical proof for this, the same proof which Copernicus used (Tusi and Copernicus: The Earth's Motion in Context journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=SIC&volumeId=14&seriesId=0&issueId=1-2). |
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 26, 2009 13:17:22 GMT
I find much of what is claimed for Islamic science turns out on closer examination to be exaggerated, as we have discovered before on this board before you hiatus Of course there are apologists on both side, but I think it is disingenuous to simply reject scholarly literature on the basis that there are exaggarations in popular literature and the cyberworld. It seems to deal exclusively with wikipedia. As I've heard said to me on many an occasion, Wikipedia is only as good as its sources. If it provides references for the statements it makes I think it is a good idea to chase up those references to find if reputable scholars have said the same. Saliba I respect, read and use but several of the others that we have been introduced to can be very misleading. Recall our dispute on Geber and al-Nifis on the circulation Saliba himself says about Ibn al-Nafis's influence: "Or consider again, in fields other than astronomy, the appearance of the description of the pulmonary movement of the blood first in an Arabic text of the Damascene physician Ibn al-Nafis (d. 1288) (slides 19&20), who lived around the same period as the astronomers who produced the two mathematical theorems mentioned above and whose medical text was written before 1241, and the later appearance of the same description of the pulmonary circulation of the blood in the works of Michael Servetus (1511- 1553) and Realdo Colombo (1510-1559), both sixteenth-century contemporaries of Copernicus. In the same context, recall too that Harvey, to whom the discovery of the circulation of the blood is attributed, graduated from the university of Padua in northern Italy whose medical faculty had included among its members, about a century earlier, the distinguished Venetian physician by the name of Andreas Alpagos (d. 1520). This Andrea had spent close to 30 years in Damascus as the physician of the Venetian consulate towards the latter part of the fifteenth and early part of the sixteenth centuries. While in Damascus he learnt Arabic enough to re-translate the philosophical and medical works of Avicenna as well as the same medical work of Ibn al-Nafis where the pulmonary motion of the blood is mentioned. 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." www.columbia.edu/~gas1/project/visions/case1/sci.3.html Tusi's couple which was almost certainly borrowed by Copernicus (as the letters used are exactly corresponding) was also not translated; in the same way, as Saliba says, since the influence is known to have existed, it would be rather obvious that we must speculate that a link was probable. As Saliba concludes in this study (Whose Science is Arabic Science in Renaissance Europe?) "This evidence will demonstrate that there was no need for texts to be fully "translated" from Arabic into Latin, in the same fashion that was done in the earlier Middle Ages, in order for Copernicus and his contemporaries to make use of the contents of those Arabic manuscripts" - would you agree with this principle? As for Geber, I think it dishonest to present one scholarly view - that of Newman - and not that of other scholars like Holmyart, James Partington, Fuat Sezgin and Ahmad Y Hassan [see his detailed articles on the Geber issue, where he deals directly with Berthelot, Newman and Kraus, here: www.history-science-technology.com/Geber/Geber.htm which includes an article called "A Refutation of Berthelot, Ruska and Newman on the Basis of Arabic Sources" and here: www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles.htm ]. These dissenters are not wikipedia-authors but published historians from Western universities who have made lasting contributions in the field of Arabic science. Also, AY Hassan shows examples of "some recipes involving the production of nitric acid and aqua regia before the thirteenth century" i.e. before it appeared in Europe, see: www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%203.htm |
|
