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

321–330 of 413 posts

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

#321

Post by feralimal »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #250
feralimal wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you heard of the reproducibility/replication crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis "A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments). In 2009, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally knowing someone who did. M…

The replication crisis is only possible precisely because scientific claims are by definition falsifiable. What's the religious equivalent of the replication crisis? Holy wars? The replication crisis is an alarming and embarrassing problem, driven largely by the slavish "publish or perish" incentive structure. But I don't think this relates to your original claim that "no one - NO ONE - is verifying anything personal…

There's plenty of good stuff and bias in religion too.

Science is meant to be about knowing things on a personal level.

What we actually have is the illusion of knowing things that we don't.

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

#322

Post by feralimal »

kalenx wrote: post #308
feralimal wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Seriously, post a video of you doing that. Or someone else's.

If you think I will refute it whatever the case, what can I do? I can only say that I will watch in good faith.

If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you?

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

#323

Post by wobbly_bush »

webmobdev wrote: post #188
bg117 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were more than one university in India thousand years back and hosted thousands of students. Islamic Invasions destroyed the culture.

And the Mongols destroyed the Islamic empire. All that's in the past, and it feels good to live in the imagined glory of the past - but what's the excuse today for us indians when our idiot Prime Minister Narendra Modi claims that ancient India had nuclear weapons, aeroplanes and spacecraft and did inter-species head transplant by citing religious mythology as the proof for it? Or when his government wants to promote…

Reducing the problems to one person/party is disingenuous. In recent history we have data on all major political parties and their work on improving the scientific ecosystem. The problem is much deeper than one person.

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

#324

Post by feralimal »

kalenx wrote: post #310
feralimal wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 axio…

You are mis-representing what I'm saying.

I'm saying people are relaying information as if it was true and that they had verified it, when they haven't. Its hearsay, gossip. Or even, lying.

I don't say check every case. That's impossible.

I'm saying be a bit clearer about what you know and what you believe. Don't say 'I know' when you haven't verified whatever it is. To say you do, is in fact, a type of lie. You are simply re-stating what you have been told was true. The effect is that you may deceive others. Why should they be deceived because your threshold is to trust whatever is being presented to you as true? You don't know, but you say you do.

If you like, I can deconstruct this a little more. It hinges on the verb 'to be', 'is'.

Contrast these statements:

"The earth is a sphere".

"The evidence that I have seen indicates that the earth is a sphere".

The first statement is not verifiable personally. It is parroting a line, and is a very common linguistic shortcut. The effect is a form of lie, where you are overstating the case of what you know.

The second statement far more accurately reflects what I at least know.

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

#325

Post by dragontamer »

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…

> Why not the Middle east?

When Japan was conquered by USA in 1940s, the USA treated it with much more respect than the Europeans did vs the Ottoman Empire from WW1.

As a result, Japan was able to regrow into a world power. While the countries that formerly constituted the Ottomans are under a constant civil war (and major military groups, like ISIS, dream of re-establishing a religious empire of old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Caliphate)

Its not very hard to imagine a "cut up Japan", a hypothetical disarmed Japan where the USA would split between Britain / France / Russia / other members of the allies.

In fact, we can look to the (eastern part) of the Soviet Union to see how well splitting up countries went during WW2. The East / West Germany thing almost surely stunted Germany's growth back into its world standing.

--------

With that being said: the Ottomans were certainly in a decline by the late 1800s, before WWI broke out. But I can't imagine that WWI did those countries any favors.

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

#326

Post by wobbly_bush »

webmobdev wrote: post #185
simonh wrote: post #90

The reason for this is that historically most civilizations, or phases of civilizations have lacked two things. One is the strong, persistent social institutions needed to maintain the momentum of scientific progress. The other is a solid socialised understanding of scientific methods. To maintain consistent scientific and engineering development you need both, and possibly a third in the from of the printing press,…

More than all of this - the key is political leaders. Visionary political leaders make or break their country or end civilizations. Both India and America are witnessing this currently with their respective elected right-wing "leaders" in Narendra Modi and Donald Trump. In India Astrology is now being treated as a Science and the Modi government is considering allowing alternate medicine (Ayurveda / Homeopathy / Unan…

The period from 1947-2014 didn't really lead to major improvements in scientific ecosystems, apart from creation of few educational institutes (IITs, IISc). The left-wing governments weren't much better. The problem is much deeper than a simplistic left-wing vs right-wing debate.

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

#327

Post by feralimal »

Retric wrote: post #297
feralimal wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all respect, I think you missed the point. I am talking about how information is presented to us, and how we are put in a position of having to accept whatever is presented despite not being presented any evidence. This is not a conspiracy, it is logic. The video is saying that information is presented to us in such a way that it is impossible to know whether it is true or false. When you edit the shots and do n…

> with CGI technology being as good as it is, we still cannot be sure nowadays. CGI is still extremely limited. There is an ever expanding list of things that can be reasonably faked, but high definition turbulent flows for example are not one of them. Now you personally may simply not know where that line is, but that doesn’t mean nobody does. Which is my point, your personal level of ignorance isn’t universal. Scie…

You are engaging with my argument - it is not a personal attack, and I don't take it that way.

You say I'm ignorant. My response is that you are over-stating the level of your knowledge.

Do you really know what is possible with CGI? You may be an expert in the field, but can you really say that? Is it possible that the military, google, the Russians, or someone else, has an advance on what you believe to be the cutting edge?

The problem as I see it is that for most people a slick video IS enough. To accept all sorts of things that they have no evidence for. And they say 'they know' and that 'its true'.

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

#328

Post by feralimal »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #295
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…

This makes the mistake that science is there to be verified. It's not. It's there to be falsified. We don't require verification of science above and beyond its contribution to our ability to predict and control the world. As the famous slightly cliched saying goes: all models are wrong, some models are useful. There are some people who think that the point of science is to move us closer to truth. Some of those peop…

I love this comment - thanks.

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

#329

Post by feralimal »

kalenx wrote: post #309
feralimal wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. > M…

Knowledge IS a binary thing.

Either it is coherent with reality or it is not.

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

#330

Post by 29athrowaway »

nickbauman wrote: post #241
29athrowaway wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point that marks the end of the Islamic Golden Age is the Siege of Baghdad of 1258. As the Mongols expanded, each time they encountered an empire, they offered them two alternatives: a) Pay tribute to the Mongols, b) War with the Mongols and their vassal nations. The caliphate chose the war option, unaware of the true military strength of the Mongols, who they considered primitive barbarians. The result was the c…

Yes. But the Mongols (Golden Horde) reached Germany eventually in the late 14th century, but that was their apotheosis; they never came back after that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe#Agai...

By the time that happened Baghdad had been already razed to the ground and looted by the Mongols.

This defeat made the Islamic civilization become militaristic, less secular and lose their interest in science.

From there, it was a downwards spiral. Ottoman rule followed by the Arab revolt, Sykes-Picot and perpetual war.

Post reply on HN