Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

thenewatlantis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 413 posts

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#51

Post by jariel »

feralimal wrote: post #34

Ha ha - primitive Islamic religionists!! Only we are exactly the same, but are blind to our failings. This narrative plays on our conceited, flabby, unreasoned thinking. But its nice to laugh to others, eh? Science to me, is the application of the scientific method. This is to say that whatever is being looked at should be repeatable, and consistently provide the same results. Strictly speaking, when we say we know,…

"With the virus, has anyone here ever used an electron microscope? Did you see a virus with it? Why do you think it is a virus? Etc etc - its all on faith."

You're in the wrong forum.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#52

Post by bonoboTP »

Some interesting excerpts:

> [...] this view sees natural things that appear to be permanent as merely following habit. Heat follows fire and hunger follows lack of food as a matter of habit, not necessity, “just as the king generally rides on horseback through the streets of the city, and is never found departing from this habit; but reason does not find it impossible that he should walk on foot through the place.” [...] tomorrow coldness might follow fire, and satiety might follow lack of food. God wills every single atomic event and God’s will is not bound up with reason. [...] “Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.” [...] “Nothing in nature can act spontaneously and apart from God.” [...] Mohammed Yusuf, the late leader of a group called the Nigerian Taliban, explained why “Western education is a sin” by explaining its view on rain: “We believe it is a creation of God rather than an evaporation caused by the sun that condenses and becomes rain.” [...] the 2010 eruption of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano was the result of God’s anger at immodestly dressed women in Europe.

We often overlook in hindsight how unclear it was how the world works at its basics in earlier times. In other words, it could have turned out that way. It was partially luck that the West got it right. For all they knew, it could have been really God micromanaging everything with no humanly discernible consistency or laws to it. Certainly not ones that are as simple as Newton's laws for example. It was not at all inevitable that, say, the intricate dance of celestial bodies can be reduced to 3 laws of motion plus the inverse square law for gravity.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#53

Post by hef19898 »

bonoboTP wrote: post #29

Having read the article, the suggested root of it seems to be the non-distinction between politics and religion in Islam. Muhammad was a powerful ruler and prophet. In Christian terms, he was both Christ and Constantine in one.

Which did not prevent the islamic world to influence mathematics and medicine, among other things, in Europe until they were driven out of Spain.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#55

Post by joshuahughes »

gomox wrote: post #49
feralimal wrote: post #34

Ha ha - primitive Islamic religionists!! Only we are exactly the same, but are blind to our failings. This narrative plays on our conceited, flabby, unreasoned thinking. But its nice to laugh to others, eh? Science to me, is the application of the scientific method. This is to say that whatever is being looked at should be repeatable, and consistently provide the same results. Strictly speaking, when we say we know,…

Science and religion are belief systems and therefore share some commonalities but the radical difference is that science is based on testable hypothesis, whereas religion is just religion. To say they are "absolutely equivalent" is a massive stretch.

Worth pointing out that there was an important caveat that the GP included... "Science... BASED ON TRUST AND WITHOUT PERSONAL VERIFICATION is absolutely equivalent to religion."

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#56

Post by Yetanfou »

xvilka wrote: post #18

> There's always the risk that the West might internally reject the scientific revolution This risk is real. Just see how many American citizens rejecting medical science in times of pandemic.

Or the sudden appearance of a multitude of 'genders', the statement than there is no such thing as biological sex, the denial of the existence of facts which are now to be seen as interpretations and many more of these results of the introduction of 'critical theory' [1,2] in academia.

[1] https://newdiscourses.com/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory#In_academia

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#57

Post by jariel »

netcan wrote: post #48
jariel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that's a very good point. The 'rise of Arabic Science' was totally consistent with conquest. It seems there's a lot of hubris in Science, just like Imperialism, Art, etc. - and you need a lot of 'excess wealth' to delve into things that are not 'subsistence'. The Renaissance probably would not have happened without the concentration of wealth in Venice and nearby areas. I mean who on Earth is going to pay for thos…

My point is that any such theory is untestable, and we're good at convincing ourselves of "truths" that appeal to us. A 19th century nationalist would have liked your first sentence. A 19th century marxist would have liked your second and third one. Any one of them can be challenged with counterexamples. EG, a great modern cognate to Venetian lords and bishops pouring money into prestige projects are the gulf Emirs.…

It's not 'untestable'; we have a historical record to determine what happened, it would just be a lot of work.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#58

Post by feralimal »

Retric wrote: post #44
feralimal wrote: post #34

Ha ha - primitive Islamic religionists!! Only we are exactly the same, but are blind to our failings. This narrative plays on our conceited, flabby, unreasoned thinking. But its nice to laugh to others, eh? Science to me, is the application of the scientific method. This is to say that whatever is being looked at should be repeatable, and consistently provide the same results. Strictly speaking, when we say we know,…

> has anyone here ever used an electron microscope? I am not a scientist, but yes. It’s not that hard to directly access most scientific tools. Verification takes effort, but random verification should reasonably give you confidence and can be a fun project on it’s own. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVbdbVhzcM4 PS: One of the most famous experiments off all time is replicated whenever you can something. https://en.…

You've used an electron microscope? They've been around since 1933 you know - we should all have ready access by now, no?

If you look at a video, do you believe its true? Take a look at this one, to see the problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFLs6nufCj4

You really cannot trust what is presented on a screen. There really is no equivalent to personally testing science or any thesis personally. You will be illuminated, rather than falsely believing you 'know', when all you know is a story.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#59

Post by feralimal »

joshuahughes wrote: post #55
gomox wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science and religion are belief systems and therefore share some commonalities but the radical difference is that science is based on testable hypothesis, whereas religion is just religion. To say they are "absolutely equivalent" is a massive stretch.

Worth pointing out that there was an important caveat that the GP included... "Science... BASED ON TRUST AND WITHOUT PERSONAL VERIFICATION is absolutely equivalent to religion."

Thank you!

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#60

Post by ralmidani »

throwaway123x2 wrote: post #8
tasogare wrote: post #4

Short answer to the title: "With the rise of the Ash’arites, the ethos in the Islamic world was increasingly opposed to original scholarship and any scientific inquiry that did not directly aid in religious regulation of private and public life" My opinion on the matter is that, in the islamic world, religious careers are more socially rewarding than scientific ones. Thus the best minds seeking a good social position…

I'm from a Muslim country and now living in the West: and I can say that this is incorrect. Generally speaking where I am from, the best minds go to medicine, the next best to engineering and law, and the leftovers go to the military / religious study. The failure of those best minds to produce results is an artifact of non-reason based education (in my country there was a huge emphasis on rote learning) and a lack o…

My parents immigrated from Syria, and I lived there for a few years. What you describe is precisely how the educational system works, apparently by design; oppressive regimes don’t want smart people questioning certain platitudes about the proper relationship between rulers and those over whom they rule.

Ironically, a more “originalist” reading of primary Islamic texts would be more politically liberal than rulings which were issued centuries after the death of Muhammad -- these later rulings severely restricted the conditions under which people could rebel against their rulers.

Later, clergy aligned with the rulers, such as Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia, took an even more absolutist position which made any public criticism against rulers a form of rebellion which is punishable by death.

These perversions are, of course, a failure of the clergy. But they have been set up to fail by the political regimes which designed these systems, as well as by their societies which reinforce and legitimize the intellectual caste system.

Post reply on HN