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

261–270 of 413 posts

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

#261

Post by pknerd »

captain_price7 wrote: post #168
pknerd wrote: post #146

> 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 Is…

Not disputing you, just wanted to note that Shia Iran is doing far, far better than it's Sunni neighbors, which is even more impressive when you consider the kind of government they have and all those sanctions. And while we Muslims undoubtedly carry the biggest blame for our demise- lets' not forget the west has real interest in keeping the status quo- a free thinking, rational government is fundamentally at odds wi…

Tell me some recent Iranian inventions/discoveries. We are not talking about working in some existing field. I am clear about R&D.

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

#262

Post by jackcosgrove »

> At the heart of Ash’ari metaphysics is the idea of occasionalism, a doctrine that denies natural causality. Put simply, it suggests natural necessity cannot exist because God’s will is completely free. Ash’arites believed that God is the only cause, so that the world is a series of discrete physical events each willed by God.

Oof, that's a handicap. I never knew of this strain of thought until now. It's not unreasonable until you accept the failure of theodicy (or observe the long-term consequences).

Being a people of the book can get you far, but at some point you need to stop being a people of the book, and become a people of all books.

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

#263

Post by leetcrew »

travisoneill1 wrote: post #217
kmeisthax wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why not the Middle East? Well, when your region of the world has been torn asunder by everything, including colonial powers, fascist reactionaries and nationalists, liberal market economies, and international communism; the only remaining cultural artifact that you can call your own is religion. If you want to unify the Middle East, you have to do so under the guise of religion, and in practice that means conservati…

The vast majority of emigrants from the middle east are poor migrants to Europe, not educated scientists.

I would guess there are a lot more poor people than scientists in most countries. are emigrants disproportionately poor, uneducated people?

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

#264

Post by tuvan »

travisoneill1 wrote: post #217
kmeisthax wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why not the Middle East? Well, when your region of the world has been torn asunder by everything, including colonial powers, fascist reactionaries and nationalists, liberal market economies, and international communism; the only remaining cultural artifact that you can call your own is religion. If you want to unify the Middle East, you have to do so under the guise of religion, and in practice that means conservati…

The vast majority of emigrants from the middle east are poor migrants to Europe, not educated scientists.

That's only because the vast majority of middle eastern people are poor. Parent comment is correct saying that it is much easier for educated scientists to leave, and they do leave, which is a self feeding loop draining everyone capable of positive change out of the region.

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

#265

Post by abawany »

feralimal wrote: post #203
kalenx wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I verified a _lot_ at school. Simple stuff, sure, but it's the method which matters, not the thing you verify. I guess it may depend on the education systems, but seeing it as an 'indoctrination system' is just dishonest, given that by _definition_ you want to change the minds of the children. There is no --or so little-- spontaneous learning when you reach something more complicated than the basic action/immediate c…

To all those that are telling me how much verification is going on, I want to offer this very simple and basic question. How was water proven to you to be made up of 2 gases? Please don't refer me to youtube videos where a showman's pop is made, and we see some water droplets from the air condensate on the bottle. I want to see 2 gases being added together and making a liquid, that is water. We are apparently on a pl…

I recall doing an experiment in high school where I added a drop of HCl to water and then applied an electric current to the water in the vessel - there were two vents and applying a flame to one of the areas near the bubbling electrodes resulted in a clean flame pop, a signature of hydrogen. Edit0: syntax corrections.

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

#266

Post by jchb »

mrwnmonm wrote: post #211
simonh wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Arab nations decided to embrace science education and to industrialise their economies there's nothing the USA or Europe could, or would want to do to stop it. In fact the West would gleefully sell them the technical know how and equipment needed to do it. After all, they even did the same for Communist China.

Again, that happened in Egypt, and the US were very much happy to support a coup that undone everything gained by the Egyption revolution.

Even if that would be true (that US supported that coup), would the democratically elected Mohamed Morsi have promoted science education in Egypt? The Muslim Brotherhood's history of science education doesn't seem so rosy.

I am curious what you think of https://www.hudson.org/research/9881-the-muslim-brotherhood-... (yes, I know this is written by an Israeli)

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

#267

Post by thisiscorrect »

dx87 wrote: post #257
thisiscorrect wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this claiming that ethnic diversity within a country's borders causes strife, and in turn hinders scientific development?

Not ethnic diversity, but lack of a shared identity. Outside of the major cities, the people living in the middle eastern countries were more loyal to their tribe and village than whatever power happened to currently be in charge of the country. That's also why it seems like so much religious extremism comes out of the middle east; a shared religion is one of the only things in common among the people living there, s…

This is saying people are loyal to their tribes, and view the government's interests as unaligned with those of their tribe, presumably giving rise to a lack of common cause in something that a government might foster like scientific development. But if "tribe" were synonymous with "ethnic group" then you'd actually be saying that multiple ethnic groups sharing a government are a cause (not necessarily the only one) of scientific stagnation. But it sounds like you're not. So what defines these tribes if not ethnic group?

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

#268

Post by everybodyknows »

travisoneill1 wrote: post #217
kmeisthax wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why not the Middle East? Well, when your region of the world has been torn asunder by everything, including colonial powers, fascist reactionaries and nationalists, liberal market economies, and international communism; the only remaining cultural artifact that you can call your own is religion. If you want to unify the Middle East, you have to do so under the guise of religion, and in practice that means conservati…

The vast majority of emigrants from the middle east are poor migrants to Europe, not educated scientists.

@kmeisthax did not claim otherwise; your respective claims are not in tension.

However, the "We" is ambiguous: US or EU? Or Canada, Australia, Japan?

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

#269

Post by nradov »

reincarnate0x14 wrote: post #158
nradov wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not scientifically accurate. A significant fraction of influenza cases are also asymptomatic, and they are capable of spreading the disease to others. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586318/ You could have already killed someone without even knowing it by transmitting the flu to them. There's no way to know for sure. US federal and state handling of the pandemic has been mostly terrible. But eve…

Funny how places like Taiwan reacted far earlier and have near zero fatalities then. I sometime forget to not bother commenting on overly politicized things on HN. Your own links show 20% potential asymptomatic influenza infections, which is only a tiny bit different from the estimated 80-95% on SARS-COV-2. Downvote away though.

That is not scientifically accurate. During the USS Theodore Roosevelt outbreak only 19% of cases were asymptomatic. Those sailors were generally younger and healthier than the general population so if anything we would expect the overall rate of asymptomatic cases to be lower.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315794/

So where are you coming up with that 80-95% number?

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

#270

Post by feralimal »

rcxdude wrote: post #259
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,…

'no-one' verifying is too steep. Many people test many results from science all the time. I've personally followed and tested many papers because their claimed results were useful to me. Sometimes they aren't correct, or at least I am not able to verify them as such. More fundamental ideas are put to the test every time I design something, and they have held very strong in my experience. Equivocating religion with sc…

Thank you for your comment. Although you think you are arguing against me, I think you are supporting my point.

When you design and it works - that is what I am calling applying the scientific method personally. When you test other's papers you should have a 100% confirmation rate, unless you are making an error in methodology. It seem to me that you did not find that.

I'm not raising my standards high. When I have not personally verified something, I would say - that I haven't verified something. I just wouldn't say 'I know'. This a statement of reality - it is not a standards thing. There is no faith involved.

But most people, it seems to me, would take it all on trust and step out to say 'they know'. I would say their standard are too low. That they are acting on faith - they are believers.

Thanks again for your comment.

Post reply on HN