71–80 of 413 posts
1) Introduction of paper.
2) Latin translations of the 12th century from Toledo and Sicily, former Islamic territories.
3) Higher education (Madrasas -> Universities)
4) Philosophical reforms of the church that made science legal (Averroism -> Scholasticism), paving the way to Secularism.
> 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
For note, I am not implying that gender identification is not an important subject to understand in our current society. Rather lets not pretend that it's research has the rigor of physics as it does damage to the hard sciences to do so. I personally am fine if we redefine gender to a contemporary term that was not traditionally used in the past and I am fine with deciding how we deal with it as a society based on it's identifying it more in the lineage of philosophy. My sole issue, is that calling these items science is leading to the effect we are now seeing.
> 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.
[EDIT]My point is, is the self-inflicted loss of trustworthiness not well earned by the CDC? When the CDC said repeatedly that masks would only make you catch the virus or that Americans shouldn't prepare or panic about the new virus, when that turned out to be either lies or decisions based on nothing approaching the rigor or science, why should people believe things have changed? How does the layperson understand that now the CDC is basing recommendations on 'S'cience?
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."
Why does the article focus on "Arabic"? I think "Islamic" or "Muslim" would be a better term as large percentage of scientists and philosophers of the time were not Arabs but of Persian, Moore, Turkic origin.
Which ones? I'm curious to know, thanks!
> 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.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-...
Our current pandemic response is mostly a faith-based policy based on irrational fears rather than a science-based policy based on objective reality.
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 education very much rests on teaching and learning scientific methods and showing students how to prove the things they are learning.
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,…
If the Covid-19 situation taught me anything, it would be that it's apparently very, very easy to convince the vast majority of the population they need behave, think and feel in some way, based on 'facts' and figures that are unproven, incomplete, out-of-context, or based on 'science' that is not or only barely amenable to empirical verification. We (the world) are doing so many things at once now to try to handle the pandemic, but my impression of all of it, is that we really have no idea what we are doing, what works and what doesn't, why things seem to be out of control, and (controversially) how bad it actually is in the grand scheme of things.
IMO science is most definitely not comparable to religion, but I will concede that -for most people- its role in their lives is very similar.
Some Arab countries have money but have to use it to buy western consumer goods rather than invest it in knowledge or their own production capacity -- otherwise a coup might happen.
Autocratic Arab rulers are also understandably reluctant to invest in human capital. Knowledge and critical thinking are the basis of any scientific endeavor, but will also undermine their rule.
Finally sustained progress in science needs democracy to ensure technology is used in the interest of the many and not against them by the few.
To get things right, the Arab street needs "only" to get rid of their inept ruling class and cut the influence of their Western overlords. Islam is not the problem and will adapt to the new political rule, much better than Christianity could ever do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I want to point out that the concept of falsifiability, largely came around to distinguish between objective & scientific thought and the above.