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

271–280 of 413 posts

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

#271

Post by mrwnmonm »

leftyted wrote: post #243
mrwnmonm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel has that because the US accepts and supports that development. They won't allow that in the islamic countries.

Israel does not have successful academic institutions because of the US. They built it themselves. The theory that the US "does not allow" the establishment of academic institutions in Islamic countries is equally wrong. edit - There is a common attitude among Arabs (evident in this poster's comments in this thread) that everything bad in Arab countries is due to some combination of the US and Israel. One of my teach…

You missed my point. I am not talking about who built it. I am saying that the US doesn't allow true democracy in the Middle East which should be followed by scientific development.

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

#272

Post by kkshetty »

JPLeRouzic wrote: post #200
082349872349872 wrote: post #91

Heterodox explanation: > ”Nothing in Europe,” notes Jamil Ragep, a professor of the history of science at the University of Oklahoma, “could hold a candle to what was going on in the Islamic world until about 1600.” Before the portuguese (1498-1974?) and the spanish (1492-1976?) overseas empires, the arab world was in the middle of the prime trade routes between asia and europe. Afterwards, their status as middleman…

> As they say in the asteroid belt: na desh walowda walowda peyeting; imim na xunyam sasating? That's a language which is still missing in Google's translator.

Most likely Belter Creole => https://expanse.fandom.com/wiki/Belter_Creole

It is a fictional language :)

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

#273

Post by mrwnmonm »

jchb wrote: post #266
mrwnmonm wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Will take my time reading this. But will tell you my opinion.

No, I don't think the MBH would accept ALL the results of science. But I do think they would have made what they could to make the education system better.

But again this is not the point, What about after the MBH? Maybe someone else would came to establish a better system. But now it is all gone. No real elections, and no peaceful transfer of power.

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

#274

Post by feralimal »

kalenx wrote: post #252
feralimal wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it is possible, and costs nothing, to listen to another point of view. Surely testing what you know against a contrary opinion can only be a positive experience. > > But, I see science as an individual's pursuit. I really mean it when I say that science is something one should verify personally. > Sure. But you can't. You literally can't. And since you can't, it means, given this sentence, that you consider al…

> Surely testing what you know against a contrary opinion can only be a positive experience. Trivial counterexample: if I repeat "you are an [insert your favorite insult here], what you say is false" again and again, which can be considered a "contrary opinion", you will not have a positive experience. > Yes, but when you haven't verified, you can't say you know. You literally can't. You believe. How are you sure tha…

> How are you sure that your senses provide you with an accurate representation of the world?

I agree - you don't even know that your senses are providing you with an accurate representation of the world. But, if I say 'this is a table' you can come and check the truth of it. In the objective world, I can confirm a thing and say 'I know'. I can tell you how I found out, and you can check the veracity of my statement.

If, say, I have a box, and I say 'inside the box is a potato', in the context of what we are talking about you have a couple of options. You can check (verify) whether that's true. Or you can accept it as true without checking.

I'm saying, everyone - EVERYONE - is accepting claims all day long, without any proof. No one is checking.

And this has become the basis of people's reality. A consensus group think determined by what is presented on a screen.

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

#275

Post by acituan »

hannofcart wrote: post #170
nashashmi wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

While your point is well taken, note that the brain drain would not be as rampant if the countries themselves as a matter of policy emphasised investing in research. Note also that a significant portion of the current problems bogging these nations down stems from conflict along religious and sectarian lines (Shia-Sunni enemity).

> brain drain would not be as rampant if the countries themselves as a matter of policy emphasised investing in research.

That is far from the only reason. If you check metrics on HDI indices, economic and social freedom indices and other institutional performance metrics, you will see those countries having multiple problems. Those who emigrated are not doing so in the name of science but because they happen to have desirable, transferable skills and can leave their homelands.

> Note also that a significant portion of the current problems bogging these nations down stems from conflict along religious and sectarian lines

By the same token this is an oversimplified mischaracterization. Problems are due to authoritarian regimes with corrupt institutions; from higher education to a lack of functioning justice system, which both hamper things internally but also reduces foreign investment in those countries.

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

#276

Post by aaronblohowiak »

thisiscorrect wrote: post #267
dx87 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

I think implicit in your argument is a belief that utility ("interests") trumps identity ("who we are") in loyalty dynamics. I think that belief is.. not universal..

I believe the OP was suggesting that externally-imposed boundaries can hold areas in an unstable state for long periods of time, but when they are gone there is unrest that takes time to achieve a stable society and that scientific progress is best achieved when people arent worried aobut their food/safety/corrupt warlord.

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

#277

Post by 082349872349872 »

JPLeRouzic wrote: post #200
082349872349872 wrote: post #91

Heterodox explanation: > ”Nothing in Europe,” notes Jamil Ragep, a professor of the history of science at the University of Oklahoma, “could hold a candle to what was going on in the Islamic world until about 1600.” Before the portuguese (1498-1974?) and the spanish (1492-1976?) overseas empires, the arab world was in the middle of the prime trade routes between asia and europe. Afterwards, their status as middleman…

> As they say in the asteroid belt: na desh walowda walowda peyeting; imim na xunyam sasating? That's a language which is still missing in Google's translator.

Yes, sorry, it was just a restatement. The english would be: "no massive trade flows; no science researched."

(sasating is not attested, but sasa is. I would draw the line between sciences and humanities as sasating and kengting)

(Anyone at google or yandex who cares to get cracking on this? The grammar is small and the vocabulary miniscule. Unfortunately the corpus as well...)

Edit: OTOH, maybe it may be useful to have a creole without extant sentiment analysis, etc. tools?

"Look at me still talking when there's science to do"

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

#278

Post by feralimal »

kalenx wrote: post #129
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,…

That's the kind of argument that could make sense in a vacuum, but does not apply at all in practice. Sure, _in theory_, I would be glad to know enough, to have enough time and to have enough money to verify every scientific theory since the dawn of times. In practice, it's been totally not scalable for a single person for about 500 years. _Careful trust_, with verification systems in place, is then the second best c…

When you test, and in one case you find something different to what is presented, what do you do?

Do you, blame yourself? Accept that everything else is true? Accept that nothing else is true?

My position is that I am happy to continue as before, but I won't overstate my case. I won't say 'I know' when I don't. I can accept that what is presented as true, may in fact be true, but I don't know it. I would be lying if I did.

So, when you say viruses, or atoms, or whatever exist, but you have not personally verified that, you should be clear that you do not know. You may think such-and-such is the case, but if you state something without personal verification, you run the risk of repeating a lie, and misleading the next person.

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

#279

Post by feralimal »

GuB-42 wrote: post #133
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,…

Many people consider science like a religion. For example, many people don't understand evolution, they think some magic force gradually turned fishes into humans. No wonder it is sometimes put on the same level as creationism. But to be honest, it doesn't really matter. If you are not a scientist, faith is a shortcut that allows you to focus more on what matters more to you. The difference is that you don't need fai…

Have you seen evolution? What proved evolution to you personally?

I would expect that you were presented with Darwin and evolution at school and accepted. With no verification. You were propagandised. Just like creationists.

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

#280

Post by nradov »

ozborn wrote: post #159
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.

The link you cite is a very rough estimate of CFR as described in the paper. CFR varies tremendously based on the underlying demographics of the population and the treatment available - it's unclear why you focus on this metric. COVID-19 in the United States and other countries as well will be (if it isn't already) the 3rd leading cause of death. This is something that many people will change their behavior around, w…

Did you actually read the link? It provides estimated ranges for both CFR and IFR.
Post reply on HN