Talk:Continuity thesis

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment The third sentence in the lede contradicts the Continuity thesis.

Some continuity theorists argue that the real intellectual revolution came earlier in the Middle Ages, usually referring to either a European "Renaissance of the 12th century"^[1] or a medieval "Muslim scientific revolution".^[2]^[3]^[4]

As defined in the lede (and the parathethical: See Scientific Revolution for the contrary view), either the continuity thesis refutes the notion of a Scientific Revolution as defined by the first two lede sentences or the first two lede sentences do not correctly define the Continuity thesis. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other scholars

I removed that part on the grounds of WP:Scope, WP:Synthesis, WP:Undue, that is

the article is about the continuity between the European Middle Ages and the European Renaissance, not Islamic civilization
there is no accepted notion of a Muslim scientific revolution.

I am ready to engage in any discussion of the cited sources, and, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability (footnote 2), I invite the original creator to talk them through with me, one by one if necessary. I start with Hill and Hassan which were quoted as proponents of a so-called "Muslim scientific revolution" (Ahmad Y Hassan and Donald Routledge Hill (1986), Islamic Technology: An Illustrated History, p. 282, Cambridge University Press):

While Islamic religion was the main impulse behind the renaissance of science at the zenith of Muslim Arab civilisation, it was partly the post-sixteenth century rise of clerical faction which froze this same science and withered its progress. Western Christendom had similar religious set-backs, apostatic movements which tried to hinder the scientific revolution in the West. But the triumph of religious fanaticism over science in Muslim lands would not have succeeded had there been sufficient economic prosperity to generate a demand for science and technology. For Islam, as we have mentioned, was the driving force behind the Muslim scientific revolution when the Muslim state had reached its peak. In the ages of decadence, however, the movement of religious fanaticism against science was no other than an outstanding symptom of political and economic disintegration. (p. 282)

So, while the duo indeed uses once the phrase of a "Muslim scientific revolution", the context within they provide it stresses very much the limitations of this phenomenon; it is important to notice that neither here nor elsewhere in their book (which deals with technology through and through) they described, defined or justified such a revolution. Thus, it is obvious that they do not mean to advance a concept comparable to the Scientific Revolution, but merely one of a significance mainly limited to Islamic civilization (if at all). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Briffault who is from 1919...His claim and terminology that a "real Renaissance" took earlier place among the Arabs is, moreover, intrinsically nonsensical. What was reborn then in Islam what had been dead before?

Saliba is WP:SYN here. While he does argue for Indian astronomical advances prior to the Copernican Revolution, he falls short of placing his observations into a wider context of the continuity thesis.

Same is true for Sabra and Hogendijk and their discussion of Arab advances in the field of optics. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference Grant was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Hill was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Salam was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Briffault was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Grant-1] Cite error: The named reference Grant was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Hill-2] Cite error: The named reference Hill was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Salam-3] Cite error: The named reference Salam was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Briffault-4] Cite error: The named reference Briffault was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]