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

301–310 of 413 posts

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

#301

Post by feralimal »

sciprojguy wrote: post #233
feralimal wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

That kind of thing looks good on paper but fails miserably in reality. No individual has the bandwidth to verify everything themselves, and precious few have the numerical and statistical literacy to be able to even verify samples here and there and not get stuck in a local minimum. To me, this whole line of thinking sounds like the dorm-room libertarian bullshit that gets generated from the Dunning-Kruger effect on…

Absolutely. But you can't say 'you know'.

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

#302

Post by amai »

WorkLobster wrote: post #108

Something to remark on: Abdus Salam (the Pakistani Nobel Physics laureate mentioned near the top) and Steven Weinberg (quoted two sentences later as saying he hasn't read anything worthwhile from a physicist working in a Muslim country) collaborated together on the work that won them that same nobel prize (Glashow-Weinberg-Salam model of electroweak interaction).

Unfortunately the following happened according to Wikipedia:

"The epitaph on his tomb initially read "First Muslim Nobel Laureate". The Pakistani government removed "Muslim" and left only his name on the headstone. They are the only nation to officially declare that Ahmadis are non-Muslim."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam

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

#303

Post by feralimal »

kalenx wrote: post #247
feralimal wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It isn't much to ask at all, but what you describe makes little sense. 1) What's the issue with "showman pop and some water droplets"? What's the difference between producing 1 mL or 1 gallon of water in terms of _verification_? 2) You can verify it in various ways, including obtaining back oxygen and hydrogen from water. You can measure the weight of the water you've used (and derive the number of molecules), and th…

I want to see a gas canister that say oxygen, that is tested and proved to be so.

I want to see a gas canister that say hydrogen, that is tested and proved to be so.

Then I want the gases put into some sort of container, where some sort of process is undertaken, and water is poured out.

It should be straightforward, with no trickery or slight of hand trickery.

It must be simple to do that surely??!

Feel free to post a video.

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

#304

Post by aaronblohowiak »

vivekpandian wrote: post #300

It's incorrect to say that algebra was from Arabia or middle-east. Mathematics, science, medicine etc travelled from India to Arabia. During their trade with India, Sanskrit works were translated by arabs. And during their european conquest, these arabic works travelled to europe

this is explicitly addressed and refuted in the article.

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

#305

Post by pjc50 »

thisiscorrect wrote: post #248
rsynnott wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

National identity. Colonialism tended to produce totally novel countries, and often who was put in charge was largely random. It’s not just a colonialism thing either; in Europe wars often resulted in territorial change; the territory was then the cause of the next war.

Could you elaborate? In both Ireland's and Korea's cases, despite their relatively small size, both nations have notable scientific output. What's different about them?

Dublin has long been a cultural center, since early Christianity, but modern Irish science benefits hugely from the tax incentive to move Pfizer there.

South Korea is the successful planned economy, like Singapore; on paper it's an open economy, and people are free to start businesses, but the top level is heavily coordinated between the government and megacorps. It was a military dictatorship for years while growing at over 5% a year. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee

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

#306

Post by michaelt »

thisiscorrect wrote: post #240
rsynnott wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Japan went from insular agrarianism to a world power to collapse to continued scientific development through to the 21st century. As did much of the Far East. Why not the Middle east? There are lots of theories, of course, but one I find interesting is that East Asia, in addition to never being colonized to the same extent as most places, emerged with national boundaries largely intact. The Middle East was under fo…

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

The theory rsynnott is referring to is what you'll find if you google "colonial borders"

For example, some people have pointed out when European colonialists set borders, they were more concerned with natural resources and the opinions of competing colonial powers than with what the locals thought of the borders.

Some people go further, thinking in at least some instances colonial governments intentionally created the situations for internal strife, as doing so could make regions easier to control. Set the borders so that area is 75% Religion A, 25% Religion B then you can appoint powerful local deputies from Religion B. Your powerful deputies will never support a popular revolution, as it'd make them lose all their power.

Later the colonial power leaves, but the borders stay in the same place - along with a generous helping of resentment and fear between the groups - and the stage is set for internal strife, political blocs formed along ethnic lines, and so on.

And if European colonists produced messed up borders, why couldn't Ottoman colonists have caused the same effects?

That doesn't mean ethnic diversity causes the problem - but there are several elements that set the scene for problems, and ethnic voting blocs are an easily measured component, though not sufficient on their own.

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

#307

Post by 29athrowaway »

filterbubble wrote: post #254
29athrowaway wrote: post #71

The Islamic Golden Age is the true cause behind the European Reinassance. 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.

I've been saying this for years. At the risk of hyperbole, it's not an accepted explanation bc teaching such in school would be tantamount to saying something other than Western culture has value. Can down voters please explain why you disagree? (Unless hn is just overrun with deluded brainwashed lunatics.)

My guess is:

1) Because it is not a widely accepted POV, although there is overwhelming evidence for it.

2) Because Classic Islamic philosophy is often seen as mistaken by Scholastic philosophers (even if Scholastic philosophy would not exist without Averroism) and those philosophers are the precursors of modern philosophers.

3) Because Ancient Greeks are considered Western but Islamic caliphates are not.

4) Because the Crusades were associated with significant revisionism, including book burning of Arabic books, which makes it harder but not impossible to susbstantiate this POV.

5) Because some people (usually the far right people that listen to historically inaccurate podcasts and radio shows) believe that the West civilized the world and a POV that sounds opposite to that and credits their religious/ideological adversaries cause them to become very, very upset.

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

#308

Post by kalenx »

feralimal wrote: post #303
kalenx wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't much to ask at all, but what you describe makes little sense. 1) What's the issue with "showman pop and some water droplets"? What's the difference between producing 1 mL or 1 gallon of water in terms of _verification_? 2) You can verify it in various ways, including obtaining back oxygen and hydrogen from water. You can measure the weight of the water you've used (and derive the number of molecules), and th…

I want to see a gas canister that say oxygen, that is tested and proved to be so. I want to see a gas canister that say hydrogen, that is tested and proved to be so. Then I want the gases put into some sort of container, where some sort of process is undertaken, and water is poured out. It should be straightforward, with no trickery or slight of hand trickery. It must be simple to do that surely??! Feel free to post…

It is extremely simple to do that. But you won't accept it. You would say the gas canister containing oxygen to be "unproved", or the ignition source to be "unproved to be so", or the camera to be "unproved to truly reflect the reality", or the container in which the gases are put in "unproved to be empty".

You do not really care about knowing, you care about being right. And there's nothing I can do for you on this regard.

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

#309

Post by kalenx »

feralimal wrote: post #278
kalenx wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

First, you check for external factors which may have affect the test. If you can confirm you cannot reproduce past results, you may consider discussing with other people about your findings, and publishing if no one can find a reasonable explanation. In any case, you are happy because that's how science progresses.

> 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.

Sure, and that's the point of science: there is no truth, only better and better models. But we won't stop using the verb "to know" altogether. Knowledge is not a binary thing (you know or you don't).

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

#310

Post by kalenx »

feralimal wrote: post #274
kalenx wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> I'm saying, everyone - EVERYONE - is accepting claims all day long, without any proof.

You included. But saying "no one is checking" is false. For every claim, there are people who do, actually, check. But you ask for _everyone_ to check _every claim_, which, I repeat myself, is, plainly put, impossible. So either you still do not accept that this is impossible, and going further in the discussion without this axiom is just useless, or you accept that this is impossible yet you still hypocritically ask for it. In either case, I do not have much to add.

Post reply on HN