Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011) • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by sangnoir » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

rob74 wrote: post #101

diegoholiveira wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess that Islam have no issues with good science, right? In my opinion, blaming religion for any decline of science is completely accepted even if there's no direct correlation between both, which is very bad because it's creates a false believe that religious people aren't educated.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being religious, I think the major problem is fundamentalism: if you consider your Holy Book (be it the Koran, the Bible or whatever else), or even more commonly a narrow interpretation of it, as the single source of truth and condemn all who deviate from it, that's a recipe for stagnation. That happened in Europe in the Middle Ages, and it's happening in the Arabic world now.

> That happened in Europe in the Middle Ages...

This is a common misconception - the church was fundamental to the development of the scientific methods, and a long list of scientific contributors were men(and was almost exclusively men) of faith[1]. To do ground-breaking science, you had to have free time and this meant you had to be independently wealthy, or had benefactor (e.g. church) sponsor your upkeep. I suspect clergy and peerage are overrepresented in science because everyone else had to work the fields (or boats) and upward mobility wasn't yet a thing.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scient...

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

#362

Post by sumedh » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:15 AM UTC

Slightofhand wrote: post #161

sumedh wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what do you mean by Nonsense, are you saying current state of Iraq and Libya is ok. This is what Australian Traveller Govt site says about Egypt Kidnapping is a risk for travellers in Egypt. Violent crime can happen. Take extra care if you're a women and alone. Terrorists have attacked places popular with tourists in recent years. https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/destinations/africa/egypt

You implied that the west keeping the devil dictator is better than having a revolution and for people to chose their own destiny. Even if it looks like a warzone now, assuming those people are left alone to decide their future, they will go back to peace and prosperity instead of having someone millions miles away decide what they eat, think and see.

> Even if it looks like a warzone now

So you are just going to ignore the hundreds of thousands of people getting killed in the warzone?

Is that the price for freedom and peace?

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

#363

Post by sumedh » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:17 AM UTC

DSingularity wrote: post #138

sumedh wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> had no problem working with dictators who are the main reason for the decline of scientific study in the region. If you get rid of the dictator you end up like Iraq and Libya after Saddam and Gaddafi were removed. Its better to deal with the devil you know.

Funny you mention Saddam. He was supported by the CIA to overthrow a government which leaned communist.

Yes that is why I said its better to deal with the devil you know but then Saddam later invaded Kuwait.

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

#364

Post by sumedh » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:23 AM UTC

mrwnmonm wrote: post #137

sumedh wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what do you mean by Nonsense, are you saying current state of Iraq and Libya is ok. This is what Australian Traveller Govt site says about Egypt Kidnapping is a risk for travellers in Egypt. Violent crime can happen. Take extra care if you're a women and alone. Terrorists have attacked places popular with tourists in recent years. https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/destinations/africa/egypt

So I was saying that the US is responsible for their destruction, and you thought that I think it is ok?

Gaddafi was not a friend of the US, Saddam was but then he changed. Why do you think US wont do anything?

and you conveniently ignored my point about Egypt

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

#365

Post by ncmncm » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:35 AM UTC

Anthony-G wrote: post #351

dragontamer wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (Romans -> Ottomans -> mandates) Hittites -> Assyrians -> Babylonians -> Macedonia (aka Alexander the Great) -> Egyptian -> Romans -> Byzantine -> Mongols -> Ottomans That area has been locked in war and conquest for pretty much all of human history.

Shouldn’t Persian (Achaemenid) follow the Babylonians and precede the Macedonian empire? In 334 B.C, he utterly beat the armies of Persia – Steve Harris

And the Neo-Assyrians. It's easy to lose track, but they get credit for arcade-supported aqueducts, while Romulus and Remus were still in diapers, to water the Hanging Gardens of ... Nineveh.

But they were known at the time mostly for impaling their enemies.

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

#366

Post by segfaultbuserr » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 4:02 AM UTC

feralimal wrote: post #291

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Science, as we do it, ie based on trust and without personal verification, is absolutely equivalent to religion. We call it Social Constructionism. It's the basis of all knowledge in society. Whether a concept exists or whether it's believed to be true does not necessarily have anything connected to an objective reality, all you need is making it believable (different groups of people and different societies have d…

Thanks for taking the time to respond. > We call it Social Constructionism. It's the basis of all knowledge in society. I object already! Knowledge does not reside in society. A library cannot know, nor can a computer. Knowledge that state that a man or woman over something in the objective world and can be objectively confirmed. You and I can know. It is not a societal exercise. You raise the flat earth. And you say…

> I object already! Knowledge does not reside in society. [...] You and I can know. It is not a societal exercise.

Knowledge may or may not reside in society, but all practical effects and consequences of knowledge reside in society. A concept does not exist in an abstract and metaphysical world where you can go and find. And it's not possible to develop any concept, including scientific concepts, without social interactions. Thus, some (not all) Social Constructionists believe the process of scientific investigation is largely a societal exercise, and I don't find it's an unreasonable argument (I didn't say I agree, I say it's not unreasonable). For example, when one use the language of math to describe the physical phenomenon, some will represent it in terms of vectors, others will show it using complex numbers, or alternatively explaining it by a matrix. In practical, all are valid and useful, but their mental pictures are different. These concepts only exist in a society (an interesting article on this issue is Would Aliens Understand Lambda Calculus? [0]). Of course, if experimental physics is something to be accepted, it must explain observed phenomena and makes predictions. But how you exactly imagine the concept of "force" (or even this concept itself) and how you describe it in language depends on the history and culture of your society. Thus, I think it's fair to say that societal exercises are at least one part of any scientific investigations.

> Well, having given a bunch of detailed examples to show why it is not possible to prove a spherical earth, why do you call it an 'absurd' theory?

First, I didn't show it is impossible to prove a spherical Earth. I simply showed examples that some experiments are not as "obvious" as many have thought, and there exists practical problems. I also showed how these problems can be fixed and a spherical Earth can be demonstrated, by taking additional phenomena or concepts into accounts, which makes the experiment more difficult and non-obvious. But just because you cannot solve a problem for once doesn't mean the problem is impossible to solve. Speaking of atmospheric refraction, you can repeat the experiment in different time of the day, in different seasons, or try adjusting the heights of the objects, and you'll find strong evidences of atmospheric refraction, and how Flat Earth results are experimental errors.

> why do you call it an 'absurd' theory?

As I already mentioned in the original comment, arguments by Flat Earth advocates are 100% cherry-picked. They say the experiments are unable show a spherical Earth, not because they're serious experimenters, but that other experiments or additional concepts that would show a spherical Earth are intentionally ignored. For example, under some conditions, optical observations can show a spherical Earth, but it's not published by Flat Earthers. On the other hand, results show a flat Earth is published as a definite conclusion, and the concept of atmospheric refraction is rejected for being unnecessary and too complicated. However, if I use the same standard, I, too, can publish a single spherical Earth result and call it the definite conclusion, but this time, Flat Earthers will suddenly start rejecting my results on the basis of atmospheric refraction! Also, suggestions of improvement of the experiment that would clarify the problem will be intentionally ignored.

[0] http://tomasp.net/blog/2018/alien-lambda-calculus/

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

#367

Post by 082349872349872 » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 5:21 AM UTC

narag wrote: post #204

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…

...rich people happen where there are bottlenecks in trade. I was nodding all the way until "bottlenecks in"... and then the Expanse slang. Tsk tsk :)

For the bottlenecks: I like to think of value chains as a young seasonal river. In season, there are alternations of pools and waterfalls, and exploitable margins are where the topography protrudes, at the waterfalls. In the pools the topography still exists, but doesn't matter. Until it does, because something changes significantly upstream or downstream, and now the waterfalls appear in different places.

Kowltim vedi fong bap unte kuwang. Depelesh imim ge sekrip. (Watch out for bottlenecks and corners. That's where money is made.)

Compare the parts of a program worth optimising...

Kowltim vedi fong bap unte kuwang. Da Dzhin im showxa desh deplesh imim du fashting gut. (Watch out for bottlenecks and corners. Amdahl's Law says that's where to make speedups.)

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

#368

Post by m0zg » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 8:11 AM UTC

rsynnott wrote: post #223

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…

> 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…

> countries with huge natural resources

Can confirm. That's why Russia is sliding down scientifically. People gravitate to where money and prestige is, and when you have money squirting from the ground, that demands (and receives) disproportionate attention. Another side effect of this is that it suffocates technology and innovation by both depriving it of investment, and by shaping the tax structure that excludes the possibility of survival for most non natural resource businesses unless they cheat on their taxes. It's a complex problem without a clear solution. Only Norway has been able to manage it well so far.

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

#369

Post by rdiddly » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 8:18 AM UTC

An opportunity was missed to mention that al-Khwarizmi not only invented algebra but also is the namesake of the algorithm.

Another opportunity was missed to even breathe a word about the Crusades whatsoever.

Finally even I was insulted to hear about "Avicenna, also known as Ibn-Sina." By those who knew him best and first, he was known as Ibn-Sina, but he also later became known to faraway mispronouncers and romanizers as Avicenna.

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

#370

Post by netcan » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 8:33 AM UTC

masterphilo wrote: post #348

netcan wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I paused at that paragraph as well. It is very possible that the achievements of modernity have changed the game. That said, the game was (is?) rise and fall. Rising civilizations leave a heritage to be mined, so there is an overall direction of rise... but every one of the many scientifically advancing cultures in history has declined. It would be prudent to expect the same for ours. That said, modernity has almost…

There's common interests between the nations and modern technologies have helped facilitate the exchange of both goods and ideas, but I doubt if we can call ourselves a "global civilization" just yet. That would mean some sort of world government, which we definitely don't have. And to me, that just means that the rules of the game haven't changed at all.

Civilization and government aren't the same thing, and the rules.

The Phoenician civilization didn't have a single government, yet we consider them a single civilization. The definition isn't a hard one with a clear "is" or "is not," but I think we're clearly there.

Also, even the politics is highly intertwined. Political turmoil or change in one place causes an effect in other places.