|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 28, 2009 13:59:19 GMT
you seem to rely on scholars who have no qualifications in Arabic or Arabic science or Islamic history for information on them - sure, they (like Huff and Newman) Just to be clear, I don't rely on Huff and I rely on Newman only in his own field. For Islamic science, I rely on Saliba and Sabra among others but certainly not amateurs like AY Hassan or that medical doctor you linked to whose stuff on Al-Nifis turned out to be fantasy. Hope that has cleared things up. Best wishes James |
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 28, 2009 15:21:59 GMT
I was going by your reference to him in the preview to your book (http://jameshannam.com/medievalscience.htm) in which although you briefly refer to Arabic science in order to dismiss it, you do not mention any scholar specialised in the history of Arabic science (except a real amateur, Huff, and George Sarton who is probably now dated) I rely on Newman only in his own field His study that you referred to assumes a knowledge of Arabic science, in which he is not an expert. certainly not amateurs like AY Hassan On what basis do you call him an amateur? Clearly scholars that you recognise (like Saliba) recognise him as an expert in his field, so refer to him extensively - why would he cite and reference an amateur? And since when does the Cambridge University Press publish amateurish work? or that medical doctor you linked to whose stuff on Al-Nifis turned out to be fantasy It didn't "turn out to be fantasy" as there was no evidence either way. As I showed Savage-Smith did not address the particular issues that Dr Sulayman Oataya (Oataya S "Ibn ul Nafis has dissected the human body". Presented at a "Symposium on Ibn al Nafis" Second International Conference on Islamic Medicine: Islamic Medical Organisation, Kuwait 1982) was referring to (but she did seem to imply what Oataya offered proof for). But granted, he is not a historian of science. Also, the person in question is "Ibn al-Nafis" not "Nifis". |
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 28, 2009 17:28:39 GMT
I forgot to mention AY al-Hassan is not the only one that rejects the scholars that Newman bases his views on (Ruska, Kraus and Berthelot). Eric Holmyard, Henry Stapleton (Oxford) and John Partington also refuted this line of reasoning. So if al-Hassan is an "amateur" are they? Also, I just discovered some of al-Hassan's articles related to this topic appear in Cambridge journals which I think reveals your opinion of him is far from correct: THE ARABIC ORIGINAL OF LIBER DE COMPOSITIONE ALCHEMIAE The Epistle of Maryanus, the Hermit and Philosopher, to Prince Khalid ibn Yazid, 2004 journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=236463AN EIGHTH CENTURY ARABIC TREATISE ON THE COLOURING OF GLASS: KITĀB AL-DURRA AL-MAKNŪNA (THE BOOK OF THE HIDDEN PEARL) OF JĀBIR IBN xs1E24AYYĀN (c. 721–c. 815), 2009 journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3931484Do you take back your view that he is an "amateur"? |
|
