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

141–150 of 413 posts

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

#141

Post by xiaolingxiao »

tgflynn wrote: post #131

This article makes for an interesting read. I'm not qualified to evaluate its historical claims but its claims about the current state of science in the Muslim world don't agree with what little knowledge I have in that area. That knowledge comes from having been acquainted with a number of Muslim students and scientists both in the US and in France. I did not at all get the impression that they came from a culture t…

Same. In college some of the smartest people I know come from Iran Syria Lebanon and such. Tehran university is good at producing scholars.

Not sure about the average person, but I do get a sense that scholarship is valued.

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

#142

Post by helen___keller »

merpnderp wrote: post #73
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.

But was it medical science when the CDC advised people, very strongly, to not wear masks or that the virus coming out of Wuhan was of no concern to everyday Americans? How are people supposed to believe in capital 'S' science when our scientific institutions make claims based on their guts instead of just admitting they don't know (which is the only acceptable scientific answer when you can't back up a claim with rep…

Serious question, why should we be so concerned that they were wrong the first time?

You say

> admitting they don't know (which is the only acceptable scientific answer when you can't back up a claim with reproducible experiments).

But what kind of response is that really, when there's an infectious disease and the center for disease control tells the public "We have no clue what the appropriate response is, we're going to tell you in a couple months after we've done some reproducible experiments"?

On the contrary, the ONLY ethical way for the CDC to act in the face of an emerging (potential) crisis is recommendations based on the current beliefs of the organization (which may be incorrect as they are, as you say, "based on their guts") and updating them the moment more evidence comes available (Which they did. Repeatedly.)

So in fact, I would not say I've had a loss of trust but a gain of trust by an institution acting in a very rational manner throughout the pandemic.

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

#143

Post by nashashmi »

tgflynn wrote: post #131

This article makes for an interesting read. I'm not qualified to evaluate its historical claims but its claims about the current state of science in the Muslim world don't agree with what little knowledge I have in that area. That knowledge comes from having been acquainted with a number of Muslim students and scientists both in the US and in France. I did not at all get the impression that they came from a culture t…

> your best bet is to emigrate to the west if that is at all possible

And THAT is the problem in any non-western country. The extent of brain drain by more flourishing economies are the prime reasons why certain countries are plagued by lack of education, lack of opportunity, spread of corruption, and spread of gang-like entities.

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

#144

Post by dennnis »

pjc50 wrote: post #13

> "We will turn to this question later, but it is important to keep in mind that the decline of scientific activity is the rule, not the exception, of civilizations. While it is commonplace to assume that the scientific revolution and the progress of technology were inevitable, in fact the West is the single sustained success story out of many civilizations with periods of scientific flourishing. Like the Muslims, th…

Lead poisoning?

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

#145

Post by konjin »

inglor_cz wrote: post #102
konjin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A civilization stops scientific activity when you kill its scientists and burn its libraries. Who would have thought? How much science would get done in the US if everyone in the 50 largest cities is killed or enslaved and the cities are razed?

Well, it is not as if other regions of the world, including Europe, did not have their own massive disasters. Vikings, Mongol attacks, Turkish attacks, the 30 Year War... An interesting question why was Baghdad so unique that its loss led to disaster. Could it be that the rest of the Muslim world was, by this point in time, not very interested in science? European science survived such events probably because of its…

Because Egypt was conquered by the Mamluks and Andalusia by the Spanish at the same time. There was no area under Muslim control that was not ruled by barbarians whose idea of hygiene was washing their posterior every time they crossed a river.

The Mongol invasion was a unique event in Eurasian history. They make every other invasion and conquest seem tame by comparison. If you have a choice of facing Macedon, Rome, Napoleon, Nazi Germany, the USSR or the Mongols never choose the Mongols.

It was the first and only time a single power could have destroyed all other civilizations and came very close to it. To the point where they managed to destroy both the Polish, Hungarian and Romanian crusader armies within days of each other, with minimum casualties and would have continued depopulating Europe to the English Channel if the Khan had not died and the majority of the army returned home for a civil war.

The reason Europeans aren't riding horses fighting a rear-guard action against the Aztec conquistadors is because the Mongol court liked silks and perfumes enough to not raze every city they conquered.

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

#146

Post by pknerd »

> Sunnis embraced al-Ghazali as the winner of the debate with the Hellenistic rationalists

Let's assume it is true and Sunnis followed Ghazali and stopped thinking, pondering and doing research work but what about Shias and other factions of it? Why did not they produce something amazing in science? One can't blame Ghazali for all the mess, especially when he was not followed by all Islamic sects. I will not blame Islam or Quran either. It is something else, probably some kind of excuse or laziness. I wanted to say that the "Hunger for Heaven" might have made them not to use brains but then I see non practising and liberal/modernist Muslims, they did not do anything remarkable either.

I guess it is a culture, some kind of viral disease like thought that propagated in entire Muslim world and it affected regardless of someone is practising Muslim or not. Being a Pakistani muslim I observe that people have no interest of asking questions, they never ask questions. They accept things as it is which is quite irritating. They just accept things as a "gift of God" and prefer to move on rather than finding out WHY is it around.

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

#147

Post by nradov »

loudmax wrote: post #124
nradov wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it disappointing to see so many Americans panicking over the disease when medical science tells us the infection fatality rate is likely under 0.35%. 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.

An infection fatality rate of 0.35% means 500,000 deaths if half of Americans are infected. Not the end of civilization, but certainly something to take seriously. The single worst aspect to America's Covid response was that what should have been a medical or scientific debate became politicized.

Yes that would be terrible, but the death rate is trending down in most areas (even those with minimal pandemic control measures) so I predict the final death toll will be under 500,000. For comparison purposes we lose about 600,000 per year to each of cancer and heart disease. The pandemic is bad and needs to be taken seriously but it's certainly not the end of our civilization.

The politicization of anything to do with public health is inevitable. Science can provide useful inputs, but ultimately the decisions have to be made by elected politicians. We live in a republic, not a technocracy.

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

#148

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

thom_nic wrote: post #82
pjc50 wrote: post #13

> "We will turn to this question later, but it is important to keep in mind that the decline of scientific activity is the rule, not the exception, of civilizations. While it is commonplace to assume that the scientific revolution and the progress of technology were inevitable, in fact the West is the single sustained success story out of many civilizations with periods of scientific flourishing. Like the Muslims, th…

> There's always the risk that the West might internally reject the scientific revolution. In the US I am pretty sure we are already on the decline. I think it has to do with, during the industrial revolution and post-war, huge scientific advancements and tech grew the economy, fed capitalism by means of providing new desirable goods to consumers (e.g. dishwashers, nicer cars, etc.) I wonder if we've reached a "peak"…

I feel we're on decline, because "science, bitch" is used to harass people into doing something they don't want or not ready. And people generally don't like to be harassed, they begin to resist no matter how reasonable things you're talking about are.

I wish society could pick its battles more carefully.

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

#150

Post by Cederfjard »

feralimal wrote: post #84
blackbear_ wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a fair point^, but instead of attacking science in particular you should attack societies in general. Can you trust the food you buy at the supermarket or at the restaurant is not poisonous? That your doctor or partner isn't going to kill you in your sleep? That policemen will not shoot you? That drivers won't run you over? It's not about science. Society is impossible without trust. ^ except that scientists…

Fair enough. It is absolutely wider than science. The problem more widely, is that we trust others. Bear with me - I know this sounds bad. The fact is that we trust too much. We should be verifying all the claims that are made to us. We would soon learn discernment over what sources are trustworthy (friend's personal experiences - ie anecdotal evidence) versus evidence presented by those that govern us on the media (…

How much free time do you think people have on their hands?
Post reply on HN