Jump to content

Talk:Science in the medieval Islamic world/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

"List of Muslim Scientists" or "Islamic science"?

"The introduction states: Islamic science is science in the context of traditional religious ideas of Islam, including its ethics and prohibitions. This is not the same as science as conducted by any Muslim in a secular context.."

And yet the article goes on to give a big list of scientists and mathematicians even though there is no cited evidence that their ideas were "science in the context of traditional religious ideas." The mathematics section confuses "Arabic science" with "Persian science" and states "Although some claim that Al-Khwarizmi's personal religion was Zoroastrianism, nevertheless his work has always been and remains in the mainstream of Islamic intellectual history." Thus it is not even known whether or not Al-Khwarizmi was actually a Muslim. None of Al-Khwarizmi's mathematical work is "in the context of traditional religious ideas of Islam." It isn't possible to frame mathematics in the context of religious faith (although that is not true for the natural science, where reigious faith may play a big role). This article seems a lot of like Golden Age of Islam and yet it is not able to establish that any of these mathematicians and scientists were even believing Muslims (as opposed to scientists born in a Muslim society), let alone establish that their scientific work was "in the context of traditional religious ideas of Islam." Most of the names dropped in the article don't belong there. And I entirely question the inclusion of a mathematics section under the heading "Islamic science" as it is defined in the introductory paragraph. Mathematics cannot be anything but a wholely secular pursuit. Religious zealots claiming the triumphs of science and scientists for their particular religion are all too common and their views cannot be taken as NPOV content. This article should not be a soap box for such people, it should remain true to its purpose, i.e. describing science done by Muslims in the context of Islamic beliefs. -- Zeno of Elea 10:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It is definitely possible "to frame mathematics in the context of religious faith" . Just ask the Pythagoreans. I am no expert on Al-Khwarizmi, so I wouldn't want to claim that his mathematical work is in the context of Islamic faith, but the existence of an "Islamic mathematics" is well documented. Here are some links: [1] and [2] --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 06:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Muslim mathematicians != Muslim mathematics, just as Christian mathematicians != Christian mathematics. Just because a scientist subscribes to a particular faith, it does not somehow give his scientific endeavors religious qualities. If there's going to be an article on so-called "Islamic science" (basically scientific achievements of Muslims of different cultures lumped together under the Islamic banner), then there ought to be appropriately sized articles on "Christian science" or "Hindu science" or "Olympian science" --SohanDsouza 01:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
"Just because a scientist subscribes to a particular faith, it does not somehow give his scientific endeavors religious qualities." I definitely agree with this point. But, as can be seen from the second source I cited, it is the case that there are/were religious qualities to, at the very least, mathematics and astronomy in an Islamic context: "As for mathematics proper, like astronomy, it received its direct impetus from the Quran not only because of the mathematical structure related to the text of the Sacred Book, but also because the laws of inheritance delineated in the Quran require rather complicated mathematical solutions." If it were true that the only way in which we could say a scientific endeavour was "Islamic" was that the scientists were Muslims, then this assessment would certainly be fair, but if there was (as the source claims) a theological motive behind the inquiry, then it is less fitting. --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
And my point is precisely that this "theological motive" (as opposed to practical necessity, pre-existing or imported secular cultural systems, or simply natural curiosity) needs to be proved to a reasonable degree for each of these alleged cases of "Islamic science", and not simply assumed because of the scientists' membership in a religious following. --SohanDsouza 13:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Which of these "alleged cases" need to be proved to a more reasonable degree? For each of the cases of Islamic science cited (mathematics, medicine, and astronomy), a rationale for the characterization is provided either on this page ("Prophetic Medicine (al-tibb) was a genre of medical writing intended as an alternative to the Greek-based medical system (See:Galen). It advocated the traditional medical practices of Muhammad's time (those mentioned in the Qur'an)") or in the article I cited (BTW, I deliberately omitted "scientific method" because it is misplaced as a field of science -- it should be moved). I'll go ahead and cite the article on this page regardless, but if you don't think that would suffice as a reasonable degree of proof, it would help if you could point out the specific claims that you see as lacking in justification and why. --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
To start off, what about all those mathematicians linked from the "Islamic mathematics" subpage? If their work can be considered "Islamic science", then there is an equally strong or stronger case for the scientific work of the many devout Christian scientists and even full-scale Christian scientist-clerics like Roger Bacon to be considered "Christian science". What is a "religious science" anyway? Can we claim that those individuals would (as a direct consequence, not circumstantially) not have been great scientists if it had not been for their religion? --SohanDsouza 15:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
1. I don't really understand the argument here. It seems like you are interpreting the claim that there is such a thing as "Islamic science" as somehow precluding the existence of similar faith-based sciences in other religions. But the fact that there is an Islamic science does not mean that there is no such thing as a a "Hindu science" or a "Christian science", far from it. I don't really see the controversy here; given the reality of Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, etc. as being worldwide established religions with influences over every facet of life, it seems to me that to claim that this influence extended to the sciences would be no more objectionable than the claim that there is a Hindu approach to art or a Jewish approach to government. So I don't see anything contradictory in saying there is also such a thing Christian science (Creation science, for instance).
2. I would say a "religious science" would be an approach to scientific inquiry rooted in the religious concerns of a particular faith.
3. "Can we claim that those individuals would (as a direct consequence, not circumstantially) not have been great scientists if it had not been for their religion?" I don't know, but this claim is not one at play here. Surely there have been "great" scientists of many different religions, and there is no way to definitively know the answer to the question you presented. But as to justifying the basic claim that there is such thing as "Islamic science" all thats necessary is to find cases in which science was interpreted in light of Islamic considerations, which has already been established in the source I've cited as well as the subpages for the fields of Islamic science (or at the very least, no sources have been brought up which would falsify these claims). --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 01:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, biblical creation science is a perfect example of Christian science, since it relates to the specifically Christian worldview, i.e. planned divine creation of all existence, as opposed to the continental drift theory, biological taxonomy, or other ideas that have no particular relation to Christianity, even though they may have been developed by scientists who happen to have been Christians. In fact, if you take a look at the Christian Science article, you will see only the "scientific" ideas that directly relate to Christian theology, which expectedly does NOT include Gregor Mendel's genetic theories, and rightly so. Are you saying that it should then? Islamic equivalents would be acceptable as Islamic science (for example, a treatise on djinn biology), but how are works of algebra or optics developed by scientists who happen to be Muslim a part of a similarly specifically Islamic worldview? To what "religious concerns" are these and many others "rooted"? In the light of precisely which "Islamic considerations" were these sciences interpreted? Lack of evidence to the contrary is not enough to prove a religious connection. So my question still stands as "What is particularly Islamic about this Islamic science?", and this question could be applied to most religious claims on various scientific endeavors. Frankly, to me, the idea of "Islamic science" smacks of scientific minorityism. --SohanDsouza 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, biblical creation science is a perfect example of Christian science, since it relates to the specifically Christian worldview, i.e. planned divine creation of all existence, as opposed to the continental drift theory, biological taxonomy, or other ideas that have no particular relation to Christianity, even though they may have been developed by scientists who happen to have been Christians. In fact, if you take a look at the Christian Science article, you will see only the "scientific" ideas that directly relate to Christian theology, which expectedly does NOT include Gregor Mendel's genetic theories, and rightly so. Are you saying that it should then?
I don't see how you got that impression.
Islamic equivalents would be acceptable as Islamic science (for example, a treatise on djinn biology), but how are works of algebra or optics developed by scientists who happen to be Muslim a part of a similarly specifically Islamic worldview?
I don't know, but the article doesn't claim that they are.
Though Ibn Al-Haitham's Optics is mentioned, the article does not claim that this is an example of Islamic Science, but (as should be obvious from being under the heading of "Scientific Method") an example of usage of the scientific method which "arguably developed in early Muslim philosophy" (i.e. a distinctly Islamic worldview).
This is true as far as algebra goes as well, all the article claims is that the word is derived from an Islamic scholar.
To what "religious concerns" are these and many others "rooted"?
In the light of precisely which "Islamic considerations" were these sciences interpreted?
To reiterate-
Medicine: "Prophetic Medicine (al-tibb) was a genre of medical writing intended as an alternative to the Greek-based medical system (See:Galen). It advocated the traditional medical practices of Muhammad's time (those mentioned in the Qur'an)"
Astronomy: "A major impetus for the flowering of astronomy in Islam came from religious observances, which presented an assortment of problems in mathematical astronomy, specifically in spherical geometry." (http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/phys/alshukri/PHYS215/Islamic%20astronomy.htm)
Mathematics: "As for mathematics proper, like astronomy, it received its direct impetus from the Quran not only because of the mathematical structure related to the text of the Sacred Book, but also because the laws of inheritance delineated in the Quran require rather complicated mathematical solutions."
Lack of evidence to the contrary is not enough to prove a religious connection.
Similarly, without evidence one cannot disprove a religious connection.
I see what you are saying, but as it stands, outside sources (the websites cited) have supported the articles claims (e.g. the characterization of Islamic medicine, astronomy, and math). If we follow Hume's advice that the "wise man proportions his belief to the evidence", it seems that we would be more justified to believe that there is such a thing as "Islamic Science", as no evidence has been provided to debunk that claim (or to discredit the sources which support it).
Frankly, to me, the idea of "Islamic science" smacks of scientific minorityism.
Perhaps, but without evidence to support your view, how can you be sure that your belief isn't merely mistaken?
Although the science performed in the Islamic world (or done by muslims) is very important, I'm not convinced (or haven't seen any reliable prove) that the science described here is indeed actually "Islamic science". Of course, the science was done by muslims, but this is not the same as "Islamic science". So therefore I have put the Template messages "POV-title" and "globalize" on the page. I suggest to change the name into: "Science in the Islamic world" or "Science in the Muslim world". Something like that Demophon 13:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Demophon is absolutely correct. "Science in the Islamic world" or "Science in the Muslim world". would be much better titles.

I ckecked, and there is no article for "confucian science" I also checked "christian science" silly me. the article was about Mary Baker Eddy. 

American Clio (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)AmericanClio

Agreed with the original poster. See my post "Bias". I have tagged several of the article's many questionable (and offensive) statements, and requested a neutrality check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.156.141 (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank goodness! The title of this article and many other "Islamic ..." articles have FINALLY been changed to something more appropriate (although "... in the medieval Islamic world" would have been preferable to " ... in medieval Islam"). I mean, c'mon, how ridiculous is the idea that Muslim physicians and inventors were doing their jobs for the glory of Allah, as opposed to meeting the real-world needs of people for better healthcare and better devices, and their own need for knowledge and personal achievement. Good to know that double standards do not fly on Wikipedia. --SohanDsouza (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Striver

A long list of Qur'an quotes is of no possible use to any non-Muslim readers. Do you really have to use the article to tell Muslims that it's OK to study? Furthermore, the non-quote text you added is incoherent and misspelled. The pre-Striver article isn't all that good, but the version you've created is much much worse. Zora 08:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The quotes is there to for the "Islamic" part in "Islamic science". --Striver 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Maybe a picture of this book?--Striver 16:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Why should we advertise that book? Zora 20:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Quranic passages regarding Science

The section "Quranic passages regarding Science" should be deleted, improved, or moved to Wikiquote. A list of out-of-context quotations is not encyclopedic. — goethean ॐ 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "out of context"? Its not like you found them in the Elephant articel, is it? --Striver 04:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Quran 17:36 was grossly mis-interpreted. It starts a section of verses that call for humility, that is not to inquire after things that are above you, not to be vain and proud etc. The quoted verse is translated by Muhammad Pickthal this way: "... follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge...", which calls for the exact opposite of open-minded inquiry. It is clear to anyone who has minimal knowledge of Islam, that it discourages questioning and inquiry, and 17:36 is a very good exmple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.52.40 (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC) U misinterpreted the verse u mentioned. Do not follow means do not do or do not witness. It does no mean do not follow with ur mind. The exact opposite in encouraged in the Quran. See 3:190,191 ((Verily, In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding. Those who remember Allah(God) standing, sitting and lying down on their sides and think deeply about the creation of the heavens and the earth, "Our Lord, you have not created this without purpose, glory to You!(Exalted are You above all that they associate with You as partners). Give us salvation from the torment of fire"))

NPOV

From the article: "the era that followed the Romans Era and is commonly refered to as the "Dark Ages", should fairly be named the "Muslim Era"."

This is plainly NPOV, like much of the rest of the article.

Furthermore, the Muslim contribution to science is overrated. Most "Muslim" science was actually ancient Greek science, in translation; this was determined when the Greek originals were discovered during the Renaissance. See André Servier's 1922 work, Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman. (Hey, I'm not responsible for the book's title.) Godfrey Daniel 22:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You can add that info here, where there is a special section made for this argument.--Zereshk 15:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The discussion of the periodization of Western European History doesn't have much relevance to the discussion of the History of Islamic science. I'd suggest removing the first two or three paragraphs (depending on how you count), and start the historical discussion with "Islam began to grow..." This would solve most of the NPOV issues, particularly if the remaining paragraphs were fleshed out with specific examples. --SteveMcCluskey 17:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to move the info around, but the info is relevant to the article, so dont delete it. --Striver 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Somehow I don't see the relevance of the periodization of Western European History to an article on Islamic science; a similar tabulation of the main periods of Islamic history would be much more relevant. --SteveMcCluskey 12:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read Andre Servier's book - it's racism in its purest form. Such references spek volumes about those who are ranting here about "lies", "distortions" and the allegedly "overrated" Muslim contribution. The claim that Muslim scientists were merely "transmitters" was westerners who tried to present science as an exclusively western invention by denying inconvenient evidence to the contrary, but now it seems ridiculous and is only held by Islam-haters. If one compares ancient "scientific" ideas with those of Muslim scientists will quickly see that the former seem naive and childish in comparison to the latter. Bertrand Russel's claim who exalted the ancient Greeks is of no value today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.241.229 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

History of Islamic science

Although I am not an expert on the history of science in Islam, this section is very weak and could be improved in several ways.

First, it merits detailed discussions of the contributions of specific Islamic scholars to the development of science, including a consideration of their interactions with the philosophical and scientific ideas of their neighbors.

Secondly, the section on the "Decay of Islamic Science" seems to be based on outdated interpretations. As I understand the historical literature, most historians of science in Islam no longer accept the picture of a decline of science after the eleventh century and have produced examples to demonstrate that innovative scientific research (especially in astronomy) continued through the fifteenth century. --SteveMcCluskey 14:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Split Section on History from Islamic Science

Two different groups are interested in the topic of Islamic Science, and these two groups define it in very different ways. I am concerned that the different assumptions of these two groups may lead to unnecessary conflict, which can be avoided by separating the topic into two separate areas.

  • The article "Islamic science" seems to have been founded by advocates of a modern intellectual movement called "Islamic science," which seeks to establish the practice of science within a particular set of traditional Islamic religious norms. Thus the article defines "Islamic science [as] science in the context of traditional religious ideas of Islam, including its ethics and philosophy. A Muslim engaged in this field is called a Muslim scientist. This is not the same as science as conducted by Muslims in the secular context."
  • Historians of science, on the other hand, find this definition excessively constraining, since they investigate the ways in which scholars within the Islamic world developed scientific ideas through original research and by drawing on and transforming the ideas of their neighbors and predecessors. It really doesn't matter to historians of science whether the particular scientist was Muslim (e.g., al-Khwarizmi), Sabian (e.g., Thabit ibn Qurra), Christian (e.g., Hunain ibn Ishaq), or Jewish (e.g., Hasdai ibn Shaprut), whether he advocated strict adherence to Muslim traditions (e.g. al-Ghazzali) or was critical of tradition and open to the ideas of foreign philosophers (e.g. Averroës), or whether he worked in a religious or secular context. If he studied natural phenomena and worked within the Islamic world, his work fits the historians' broader definition of Islamic science.

These contradictory expectations are likely to lead to conflict in two or more different ways:

  • When historians wish to discuss scholars who don't follow traditional Islamic religious norms, while advocates of the modern movement would wish to delete these from the discussion.
  • When advocates of the modern Islamic science movement wish to discuss those modern scholars who contribute to the development of that movement, while historians would wish to delete them as not relevant to the historical development of science in Islamic cultures.

Rather than go this unhappy route, I propose an amicable divorce, removing the section on the History of Islamic Science (perhaps renamed History of Science in the Islamic World) and making it a separate article under the History of Science portal, and leaving the remaining article on Islamic Science as part of the series of articles on Islam. --SteveMcCluskey 12:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree; and in general, "Science in the Islamic World" would be more fitting, unassuming and NPOV compared to the current title. --SohanDsouza 19:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see some merit in your suggestion. Some questions need to be answered before taking a definitive decision:

How does splitting this article into "history" and "concept" relate to the series of articles in the Islamic studies articles? Are they also splitted in "history" and "concept"? Should they? Is it possible?

Or are you suggesting a split into "Islamic view of Islamic science" and "non-Muslim view of Islamic science"?

I'm not sure i can forsee the full magnitude of the propose changes, but the idea seems worth discussing. Peace! --Striver 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Striver and others,
I understand your concern and am gratified by the positive attitude reflected in your questions. Let me give you my reading on those issues.
Splitting other parts of the Islamic studies articles into "history" and "concept" would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. I can see some merit in splitting Islamic astronomy and Islamic medicine, where strong historical traditions can also be separated from the modern Islamic science movement. I don't know enough about other fields to say what could happen there. In any event, links between the two would provide a way that those interested in the concept could find out about its historical background.
I don't see this as a split into "Islamic" and "non-Muslim" views of the same topic "Islamic science." In fact, some of the historians I rely on are Muslims (while others are not). Rather I see it as a split into two distinct topics whih draw on different intellectual foundations and premises: "Islamic science" and "Science in the Islamic world." The former is concerned with science as religiously guided (in fact, it seems to take the normative view that science should reflect a religiously based moral and ethical framework). The latter is concerned with science whatever the motives of its practitioners, and is purely descriptive without a claim of how or why science ought to be practiced. Historians seek the motives for science in the Islamic world in specific historical examples, not in modern interpretations of scriptural texts.
To see how this could go, I recently was tinkering with the article on al-Tusi and noted that his astronomical research was sponsored by the Mongol ruler, Hulagu Khan. Since in this case we have an Islamic astronomer working under the patronage of a non-Islamic ruler, it is hard to believe that Hulagu supported this research because of Koranic injunctions to study the heavens.
Conversely, the astronomical work of ibn al-Shatir flows from his role as muwaqqit (timekeeper) at the great Umayyad mosque in Damascus. Time keeping, of course, comes from the institutional need to determine the correct time to call the faithful to prayer. Here we have a religious motive, but not the textual one emphasized in the present articles on Islamic science and Islamic astronomy (Prayer times were ignored in those articles until I recently added a few brief mentions of them to the sections on sundials and quadrants).
Historical discussions tend to emphasize the complex and varied causes of scientific inquiry; this diversity is not stressed in the "Islamic science" discussion.
I hope this clarified the nature of my concerns. --SteveMcCluskey 14:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposal to split off the section on History of Islamic Science has been up since 30 May and there have been no comments since my remarks of 2 June. Are there any other concerns or can I take the recent silence as indicating a lack of major objections to this proposal? --SteveMcCluskey 03:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've drafted a pair of "hatnotes" (it's not my word, it's a Wikiword) for the two resulting articles. They will direct readers to the appropriate article. Do they look OK?

This will go at the head of the present article, Islamic science:

This page is about Science in a Muslim religious context. For science in the Islamic World, see History of science in the Islamic World.

This will go at the head of the new article, History of science in the Islamic World:

This page is about Science in the Islamic World. For science in a Muslim religious context, see Islamic science.

--SteveMcCluskey 13:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the (proposed) title to lower case "science," since it's not a proper noun.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ragesoss (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, the split is done. There is also a disambiguation page for Science in Islam that points to the two different pages. Hope this works to everyone's satisfaction. --SteveMcCluskey 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, bro, im really sorry that i forgot about this talk page! I have some many other areas of interest here in wiki, that i forgot this one. Anyway, i took a closer look, and although it doesn't feel 100% greeeeat, its ok, i aprove of the split. Maybe in the future ill come back and ill have a stronger opinion, but i can live with this until then. In any case, its good that it work to your satisfaction. Peace :) --Striver 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review citation needed

Please comment on the discussion at Talk:History of scientific method#Peer review in medieval Islam?. --SteveMcCluskey 16:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Resource?

I found a resource, but is it good? It is well referenced:

Khaleel, Kasem (2000). The Arabian connection: A conspiracy against humanity. Lincolnshire, IL: Knowledge House Publishers. ISBN: 0-911119-70-1.

A neighbor recommended it, and it is available on Amazon. While it does not appear to be biased, it does have a somewhat personal tone, however thoroughly referenced.

He asks the question: "Who originated the modern sciences?" The book purports to answer this question.

Cover bio: "Dr. Kasem Khaleel is a medical writer specializing in health and the history of science. The author of over twelve books, his ten year study in the field of scientific history culminated in the publication of this book."

--Anonymous writer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.24.41.50 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of Khaleel's books before but from a quick check I found that
  • None of his publications are listed in the History of Science online bibliography.
  • His books are not cited by any articles or book reviews in the Arts and Humanities, Social Science, or Science Citation Indexes.
  • His name does not appear in any of the articles or book reviews held in the J-STOR whole text database.
In sum, he does not seem to have made much of an impact in the places where serious historical scholarship would be recognized.
--SteveMcCluskey 03:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Islamic philosophy of science

This could be expanded. Avicenna and Averroes made some great advances here. I do not have time to work on this but can provide references to anyone who wants to. Arrow740 00:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Science and Chemistry

I was wondering if there should a bit on chemistry in this article. Islamic chemists laid down most of the foundations of modern chemistry and helped get rid of superstition from alchemy. Much of the equipment, techniques and lexicon of chemists today have their origins in Islamic science eg. distillation, alcohols. The article on alchemy dedicates a few paragraphs to alchemy in the Islamic world (see- Alchemy#Alchemy in the Islamic world). Afn 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Rubik's Cube invented by muslims? Are you sure? Gangeticus 10:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Islamic Science→ Science in the Muslim world– {This article does not discuss Islam and science. It discusses the acheivements of muslims in the early muslim world. Similarly, Islamic medicine and Islamic inventions are not Islamic, but are the inventions of the early arab muslims. There is not a direct relationship between the religion of Islam and these inventions.}--Sefringle 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And also

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Please note that the proposed targets are unobstructed, so anyone could perform these moves if they had a mind to, although I would suggest that sentence case should be used: Early Arabic inventions, Early Arabic medecine. --Stemonitis 10:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutly no objection to the move. How is that no consensus?--Sefringle 01:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

As the editor who split Islamic Science from History of science in the Islamic World, I agree with the proposal to merge the articles, effectively undoing the split.

When I proposed the split, the article on Islamic Science was quite different from the one which exists now. Thanks to the effort of Jagged 85, the article now presents the historical development of Islamic science, while the topic of the former article is now treated as The relation between Islam and science. The present aricle titles are much more appropriate. --SteveMcCluskey 15:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Do it. - Merzbow 17:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This article already covers the historical development of the sciences in the Islamic world. Jagged 85 01:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Article has been merged.--Sefringle 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The merge should have gone the other way. I made this pretty clear. This article should be titled History of science in the Islamic World, not Islamic Science.--Sefringle 03:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Merging this way was much easier. Renaming the article is an entirely different discussion. —Ruud 10:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it is a part of this discussion, as we have to decide which way to merge the articles, meaning whether to Islamic Science or to History of science in the Islamic World. We have to decide which is the better title, and History of science in the Islamic World is the most accurate title that provides no POV. This article is about The History of Science that occured in the Islamic world, and it does not discuss how science relates to the religion of Islam. Second, the History of science title in no way shape or form implies that the science discovered is a part of Islam itself, so it is less POV.--Sefringle 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle is right here, and that's what I thought I was supporting when I voted to support the merge. - Merzbow 04:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a day to see if there are any ohter opinions first before moving it back.--Sefringle 01:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest joining the discussion at Islamic mathematics instead, as these two articles should be similarly named. —Ruud 13:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems consensus there is to move it to mathmatics in the Medieval muslim world.--Sefringle 05:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

al-Zarqali's Ellipses?

I've checked the reference here (and in the article on al-Zarqali) to the book by Ashgar Qadir and find he makes this, and a number of other, dubious and undocumented historical assertions in the introductory section to a book on physics. This claim, which contradicts the nature of Al-Zarqali's astronomical model based on eccentric circles and epicycles as used in the Tables of Toledo and as described in the discussion of his measurement in the solar apogee should either be fully documented or removed. --SteveMcCluskey 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now traced the evidence for and against this claim at Talk:History of astronomy/Common misconceptions#al-Zarqali's elliptical orbits and find it cannot be supported. --SteveMcCluskey 03:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Siauddin Sardar

Ziauddin Sardar has written about the rise and fall of Islamic science in the July 12, 2007 issue of Nature. It's most interesting and worth incorporating his ideas here.

Title

Why was this moved back from Science in the Muslim world?Proabivouac 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Islamic science" or "Arabic science" are the standard terms used for the science studied in the Islamic civilization, as described by A. I. Sabra:

"Let us begin with a neutral and innocent definition of Arabic, or what also may be called Islamic, science in terms of time and space: the term Arabic (or Islamic) science the scientific activities of individuals who lived in a region that might extended chronologically from the eighth century A.D. to the beginning of the modern era, and geographically from the Iberian Peninsula and north Africa to the Indus valley and from the Southern Arabia to the Caspian Sea—that is, the region covered for most of that period by what we call Islamic Civilization, and in which the results of the activities referred to were for the most part expressed in the Arabic Language. We need not be concerned over the refinements that obviously need to be introduced over this seemingly neutral definition."

Jagged 85 03:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Science in the muslim world is, however the more neutral name. And it is a shame to see the double standards on wikipedia. Islamic terrorism is the common name, yet that article is titled Islamist terrorism. Things that depict islam in a good way are islamic, while things that don't are not islamic. Talk about double standards. Besides, Science in the muslim world describes the topic better than Islamic science does. After all, who is to say that science is somehow "islamic"?--SefringleTalk 04:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should always represent the consensus view regarding a certain topic, or at least a view that is attributable to a reliable source. In this case, Islamic science and Arabic science are by far the most common terms used by most scholars in this field. Renaming it to Science in the muslim world would be original research, as there are hardly any scholars who name it in that way. Jagged 85 01:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

They did science to research the laws of Allah. Thus making it Islamic science.. end discussion over.. Burakius

Sefringle has a point. Calling this Islamic science is misleading, as the introduction of the article already acknowledges!
Furthermore, all this talk (here and elsewhere on WP) of "original research" is getting on my nerves. If the phrase "Science in the Muslim world" describes what the article is about then it is not original research!
Islamic science and Arabic science may well be popular terms. I would hazard to guess it's simply that they are shorter than phrases like "Science in the Muslim world". They can be retained as redirects.
The article title needs to accurately reflect what the article is about!
—DIV (128.250.80.15 09:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC))
By the way, Burakius, your argument has got very little to do with the article as it stands. You may be getting confused ...a good example of why the article title should be changed!
—DIV (128.250.80.15 09:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC))
The article isn't just about researching the laws of Allah - it's about any science in the Islamic civilization within a time period - see the opening paragraph: "In the history of science, Islamic science refers to the science developed under the Islamic civilization between the 8th and 16th centuries, during what is known as the Islamic Golden Age." Science in medieval and early modern Europe isn't called "Christian science" because the men involved were interested in finding out about the world God had created. However, if Sabra really does represent consensus views within the field, then following his example makes sense, though I personally disagree with the name as being accurate.NZUlysses (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Embryology

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Jafar Sadiq of the Muslim world at large preferred to the development of science, a great scientist Professor Jaber bin Hayyan.

The were no any information about him??? 84.235.2.36 (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

islamic natural selections??????

This is the reason why i have removed any refernces to islamic ideas on natural selection, yet another massive, gross misrepresentation of the so called "islamic science", clearly demonstrating that once again the proffessionals of islamic science have absolutely no clue about science themselves, or history and are only intersted in distortions of massive proportions.

here's little biology lesson for whoever writes this nonense about nautral selection and evoltuion on islamic thought. what is natural selection, well what darwin told is this species exist within a particular environment, then ones that posses certain charateristics, that is ones they are born with will be able to feed themselves better and survive and reproduce more then the species that do not have those traits, hence the fundemental principle of evolution though natural selection, nautral selection acts on individuals, but only populations can evolve, as Darwin said those species are naturally selected. So where does this apply here. Evolutionary thought has existed for millienia, what Darwin did is he provided us with the framework of how evolution happened, natural selection, as mentioned above. Nowhere has any muslim philosopher provided an ounce of a description of evolution through natural selection. all they have done is implied that certain species evoloved from others., but thats not natural selection. Natural selection is the framework within which evolution happens. Last and most importantly, Darwin went about scientifically proving natural selection, through his studies of species on the Galápagos Islands. He did not invoke God or any angles in his thesis, since thats not science, but mere religious philosophy, and he thesis consisted of several books, not a couple of paragraphs. when anyone here can provide something remotely resembling nautral selection, as proposed by Darwin, then you can post such claims. In short all muslim scholars described was evoltuion, but certainly not nautral selection, and it most definately was not scientific in the slightest bit

Natural selection is not the struggle for existence, they are totally seperate ideas, struggle for existence is just stating that animals compete in order to survive, nautral selection is the scientific framework in which adaptation occurs in species.


Other small changes

1) first the removal of the phrase saying islamic science marked the begining of microbiology. Thats has been removed since at most muslim scientists did was speculate that bacteria may exist, and mind you they had absolutely no clue to what the correst idea of microbes where. So why the removal, simple, merely speculating on something does not constitute the beginning of that field of science, that be like saying greeks and indians initiated atomic theory, since they speculated matter is made of atoms, even they could not prove it and that there theorie were absolutely wrong and philisophical in nature.

2) "Other advances in astronomy include al-Biruni's discovery of the Milky Way galaxy being a collection of numerous nebulous stars" Discovery hmmmm, how exactly did al-Biruni go about discovering this, since that would mean he had to have some scientific way of proving this, which would have involved the telescope, at a minimum. Hence it wasnt a discovery but merely a philisophical speculation, one of course which the greeks has speculated centuries before

3) "Ja'far Muhammad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir's discovery that the heavenly bodies and celestial spheres are subject to the same physical laws as Earth" Once again how could he have possibly discovered that since at a minimum it would require that he knew Newtons law of universal gravitation, and Kepler's laws of planetary motion, or had some instrument that could possible take measurments from outer space, which well is impossible.

4)"In the mechanics field of physics, Ja'far Muhammad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir (800-873) of the Banū Mūsā was a pioneer of astrophysics and celestial mechanics, as he was the first to discover that the heavenly bodies and celestial spheres were subject to the same laws of physics as Earth, unlike the ancients who believed that the celestial spheres followed their own set of physical laws different from that of Earth" Once again same thing, but now the statement is even more bold that he's a pioneer of astrophysics and celestial mechanics. At a bare minimum newtons law of universal ravitation and kepler's laws of planetary motion are required to study celestial bodies and and study astrophysics, none of which were known at the time. Merely stipulating something without any framework with which to evaluate results, scientific laws, and mathematical formulas does not mark the the beginning of any science, we might as well say the greeks, egyptians, and babylonians were also pioneers of these fields since they made unscientific speculations as well.

these are juist some of the changes i have to decided to make, but more are definately on the way (read next discussion)

a history of systemic lieing and distrotions

i have decided to write this little piece address certain problems that the authors of this article and other contributions that are made about islamic science. Why is it that the authors of this page systemically lie, and distort facts in wikipedia. I have already mentioned the above example, but here is a couple of others major examples. At one point, and one can check the history, it was claimed that Abbas Ibn Firnas invented glasses and it was even referrenced, but was later changed by someone who actually knew the real facts. It leaves me to wonder, how could have someone just mistaken reading stones for the invention of eyeglasses, like how does one go about making that mistake? Claearly it was a lie. Another example was the claim that somehow Reciprocating engine piston engine was designed by Al-Jazari. This has got to be the biggest distortion ever since rotary to reciprocating motion is a waterwheel-powered pump, which is what he really invented, is absolutely nowhere close to a Reciprocating engine piston engine, since psiton engines rely on thermodynamic processes and steam power, aspects which were not understood or known in the islamic world, and yet someone decided to post this outlandish claim. These are just some of the glaring examples of bad history being presented on this page.

Last but not least, am finishing by saying that i would appreciate that whoever the authors of this and other pages related to it respond to this. Why does this keep occuring. Lastly, further changes will be made in the future and if this continues its going to be taken to the next step where these articles will be flagged, and then further after that.

clarify again

well it appears someone has decided to make the claim that Ibn Khatima and Ibn al-Khatib discovred microrganisms caused disease. Okay, how did they discover that exactly, in order to discover that you would first have to prove that such organisms existed, which they clearly couldnt have since, that would require a microscope, which didnt exist unitl 2 and half centuries later. Hypothesizing and speculating doesnt constitue discovery, lets get that clear, i know people that write on this website have a tough time understanding that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Parallels in other religions?

This article was pretty interesting to read. Are there other articles for other religions in this vein?-Wafulz (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible source to use

Just thought that if the article hasn't already, it could incorporate some of the information mentioned in the Daily Telegraph's article Science: Islam's forgotten geniuses. ITAQALLAH 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling many of the things stated in that Daily Telegraph article might have actually been lifted from this Wikipedia article? Jagged 85 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Terrible sourcing

Make that..TERRIBLE sourcing. This article needs a radical overhaul and quick. Quoting muslimheritage.com is NOT good enough! With so many inventions listed in this article it would be impossible to discuss opposing sources in the controversial cases in the body of the article. But I propose this:

1) We immediately remove all the content backed up by these references. Its embarrassing for everyone on wikipedia that these ever saw light. 9, 16, 33, 55, 57, 61, 67, 68, 83, 98, 99, 105, 106, 108, 110, 138, 152, 156

2) A higher standard of proof than "one scholar said so in a paper" be instituted. A minimum standard for the amount of times a source paper has been cited in the relevant literature should be applied. It's just not good enough. Same applies for secondary sources like encyclopaedias, especially old ones. If an article like this is going to state in uncertain terms that something was invented by someone, then the primary source should be identified.

If people agree, what say someone else compile a list of the citations that fall afoul of part 2) and we will remove this rubbish in one week?

Hardcoeur (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the references you've just listed are published by reputable university presses like Cambridge University Press. I just don't see how Cambridge University Press can qualify as a "terrible" source. Jagged 85 (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Grrrrr I stuffed up a few of the early ones. If you look through the references, there are still some shockers. I really rushed my edit yesterday. So, using the current version as of now, im picking references 17, 25, 26, 39, 47, 54 (from muslimheritage.com aka "The foundation for Science, Technology and Civilisation", 57, 75, 79, 92, 93, 99, 101, 105-108, 114,115, 124, 135, 138, 139, 147, 148, 151, 157, 158, 159, 167, 177, 184, 195, 198. Cite numbers that shouldn't be in this list please rather than criticising the general gist of this edit. Hardcoeur (talk) 10 am, 2 February 2008, New Zealand Time (GMT+12) —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So...any objection to my removal of these things? I'll go on to the secondary sources next if its cool. Hardcoeur (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Before deciding which references should stay or go, it would be better to list the full titles of those references rather than just the numbers to avoid any confusion:

Now that we've got all that out of the way, can you maybe give some reasons why you think these references should be removed? I agree that some of them should be removed, but not all of them.

Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply, the websites are not peer reviewed and are not a minimum standard reference for an encyclopaedia article. The books are by unrecognised authors that can't be found in JSTOR or ProQuest, and in . The journal articles are from unrecognised journals that can't be found in proquest or web of knowledge. Some, e.g. 195 and 115 are from publishing houses which, in addition to being obscure, have an explicit mandate to promote Islam (as a google search on either name (combined with islamabad in the former reference) and thus may be safely assumed to not be NPOV. Note i'm excluding 148 and 157 from the list, as the only two that are from reputable institutions. If there are any that should be retained, maybe you could mention them by name and justify their scholarship.

Which are worth keeping?

202.154.148.208 (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dang. ignore the 'and in'. My bad. logged in this time too. Hardcoeur (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine[3] and Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology[4] are recognized by the World Health Organization as academic health science journals, Medicinski Arhiv can be found on PubMed,[5] and Philosophia Islamica,[6] Third World Quarterly,[7] American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences,[8] Islam & Science[9] and Archives of Iranian Medicine[10] are all peer-reviewed journals, so I think these journal sources should stay. As for the self-published sources, WP:V states that self-published sources (online or paper) are acceptable if the author is a recognized expert in the field. In this case, I think we should find out which authors are recognized experts and which are not before we decide on which self-published sources to keep or remove. I'll try to get around to this later when I have some more time. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just removed 148 and 157 from the list above, since we've already agreed they should stay. Jagged 85 (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Assuming you don't have any objections for now, I'll remove the journals I just mentioned above (Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine, Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology, Medicinski Arhiv, Philosophia Islamica, Third World Quarterly, American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, Islam & Science, and Archives of Iranian Medicine) from that list as well, if that's okay with you. Jagged 85 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I've also tracked down the original sources for 47 (Sardar, Ziauddin (1998), "Science in Islamic philosophy", Islamic Philosophy, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and 198 (Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (1968), "The Principles of Islam", Science and Civilization in Islam, Harvard University Press) and updated them in the article, so I think I'll remove these from the list above as well. Jagged 85 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Accessibility is a criterion here, too. In many ways it's better to have a reference to a reputable website that anyone can access straight away, rather than to a journal locked up on a university library shelf. The MacTutor site is well researched, documents its sources, and is well regarded by the Maths project as a source of history of mathematics information -- that's why it has its own link template. These links should definitely be kept. Jheald (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

terrible article

i dont merely think this artcile is terribly sourced i think that this whole article is plain garabge and full of lies and distortions. look up my previous rant in this discussion page title "other small changes", and "a history of systemic lieing and distrotions". User:Jagged 85 it seems that ur the only one that seems to be writting on this page and seems to have some interest in writting about this article. So since you do i would like u to answer the major lies that were placed in this and other articles about islamic science from my previous comments. What exactly are the reasons for some of these outlandish claims that are made on this article, you know the so called invention of glasses, reciprocating piston engines, the orgins of the feilds of celestial mechanics, astrophysics, microbiology and so forth, and of course the crap about somehow "foreshadowing newton's laws???????

just to wanr u right know that unless you come up with some reputable sources for ur mechanics section in this article, large chunks of it are gonna get deleted. Here's the list:

1) "In his Astral Motion and The Force of Attraction, he was also the first to discover that there was a force of attraction between heavenly bodies,[116] foreshadowing Newton's law of universal gravitation."----how did he go about discovering that, i want some evidence of this so called discovery, and am gonna require more then for u to pull a quotation from a book, ur gonna need some material that shows how banu musa made this discovery

2) "Ibn Bajjah (Avempace) (d. 1138) was the first to state that there is always a reaction force for every force exerted, a precursor to Gottfried Leibniz's idea of force which underlies Newton's third law of motion"---once again same questions as from the previous, but also what context was it in, the reaction for every action

am just gonna let the authors of this terribly written article, rammed with falsities digest these questions and post a reponse, but if no replies are offered in a reasnobale time, this sections are geting deleted it that simple, and of course there are more problems with his article but am gonna be taken this one by one sooooo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik (talk • contribs) 10:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article has major problems. This are typified by the beginning: "A number of modern scholars such as ... Bertrand Russell,[8] ... consider Muslim scientists to have laid the foundations for modern science with their introduction of the scientific method and a modern empirical, experimental and quantitative approach to scientific inquiry. " Its badly one-sided. It needs the opposing point of view: that traditionally (and its probably still the majority opinion), everything from Greece to the Renaissance has been considered trivial. There is the curious use of "innovations" in the "rise" section to refer to various things that were imported. I'm sure all or most the statements here are correctly sourced, but are suffering from positive bias - no-one is interested in balancing them.
To return to Russell: I happen to have his book. The islamic chapter is short. I quote "Arabic philosohy is not important as original thought, Men like Avicenna and Averroes are essentially commentators... Mohammedan civilisation in its great day was admirable in the arts and many technical ways, but it showed no capacity for independent speculation in theoretical matters. Its importance, which must not be underrated, is as a transmitter." I'm not suggesting that view is the whole truth. But its a predominant opinion, and its entirely absent from the article. Instead we have a curious second-hand quote from Russell that is unsourced in the quote, and which just happens to be favourable to Islamic science William M. Connolley (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
William is spot on. Unschool (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of the "garbage" you're referring to are from relable sources. Nevertheless, I've taken your complaints on Musa and Avempace into account, and elaborated on those parts, attributing them specifically to the authors who made those claims, and explained how Avempace's theory differs from Newton's theory. Jagged 85 (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Many things that pass WP:RS often talk nonsense. We don't have to report them if they do William M. Connolley (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I see we disagree somewhat about the current conventional view [11]. I certainly disagree that this view ended with the 20th C. Its still dominant, despite a certain amount of low-key revision. "Recent" is odd too: most of those folk are older than Russell! And the Humboldt claim is not reliable; the source appears to be here [12] and that not science or history William M. Connolley (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the traditional view of Muslim scientists as nothing more than preservers and transmitters has widely been discredited over the past few decades. This view may arguably still be dominant in popular culture, but only a minority of scholars today still support it. Jagged 85 (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Then you'll need RS for that claim. Most of the current lot used have been dead for the past few decades, so are unlikely to have contributed much over that period William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

finally some agreement

all i have to say is that i am thrilled to see all these postings with people challenging the sheer stupididty and garbage that has been posted by these articles on islamic science. when i first strated like reading these articles, it was well it was a jaw dropper, some of the stuff posted here it was to say the best incredicle. Like i know i keep repeating but how the hell does one confuse recirocating piston water pump for a piston engine, how the hell does one do that. Just as adacious was the claim that somehow microbiology bgen with muslim docotrs, that astounding since one would have to prove that suck organisms exist and observe and provide some description, yet for some reason for the authors of this article seem to think that a sentnce about contagious entities is enough. hmmmmmm does anyone see a probelm with this Anyways i hope that this the beginnning of a patter and other aspects of these garbage articles are investigated, and of course i have still to hear any repsonses to my questions about the dubious claims made the authors of this page. I can aonly assume it has to do with the fact that they know they lied and distorted and thought it would go unoticed and be passed of as ligit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


i see that still no one is responding to the inquiries that i have posted, although curiously when i edit the somewhat baised intro. about modern science it gets changed in a less then a day. Well am gonna leave my inquiries up for another 5 days and if no one comes up with at least a quotation ,on the discussion page, from a book resembling the claims made am gonna delete those sections its that pure and simple. I sincerely hope that the many authrors of this page start coming up with some responses and proofs cause if not the amount of text on this page is gonna get smaller and smaller by the week

Bias

This article attributes to several figures (and to Islamic Civilization generally) the "original" genesis of a number of ideas and practices that either find historical precedent in earlier times and other civilizations, or were not developed as such (i.e. by their contemporary definitions) until much later in history. The phrase most grossly used in the article is 'father of X' (X = a certain branch of science). For example, one of the Muslim scientists is doubtfully credited as being the 'father of the scientific method', when in fact empiricism finds a clear analogue in Aristotle (among others) a thousand years prior. The article needs to be examined, resourced and rewritten in these areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.156.141 (talk • contribs)

I've removed all the "father of" statements from the article, which should now make it more neutral. As for empiricism, it has been around since the time of the Babylonians and Egyptians, but that is not quite the same thing as a scientific method, which refers more specifically to a method of proof by experiment. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


still waiting

User:Jagged 85, what me and other wikip bloggers want to know is why these corrections are just being made now. why is that we have had to take it upon ourselves to change the lies and distortions that have been posted on this article. Is wiki not about honest research done by individuals that are concerned only about writting about the facts. Why have claims that are totattly inaccurate, distorted, and completely not neutral been posted on this page. Would any of the changes that are finally coming about have even been done if it werent for bloggers and other wiki users who exposed the garbage claims posted on this page. Why is it that authors of this page have decided to start with the premise of lieing and decieving and then waiting to be caught, and then make corrections. I can only think that it is becuase the authors of this web page arent really concerned about facts but only pushing their own form islamic nationalism, and then hoping that somehow it would go unnoticed. Needless to say their are still countless errors and factual inaccuracies on this web page, and everyone can rest assured cause they will be dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk • contribs)

If this comment is meant to be a personal attack against me rather than the article itself, then I'm afraid this is the wrong place to post it. Nevertheless, my recent edits have only been changing the wording of certain passages, not the actual content, so don't be getting any funny (conspiracy theory) ideas now. Just because I've re-worded certain passages more neutrally, does not mean the information was wrong to begin with. Most of the information in the article is based on what's written in reliable sources. If you think any of the sources in the article are unreliable, then you can always mention them on this talk page like what User:Hardcoeur has done above. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If its a PA against you, it doesn't belong anywhere on wiki. I share some of the same concerns, but they need to be much more carefully phrased. I think your recent removal of the father-of stuff goes a way towards solving the problems, though William M. Connolley (talk) 13:20, 2 * March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. I'm a bit busy to be working on the article for now, but I'll get around to improving it some more when I get more free time. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Jagged:
It seems that one of the problems underlying your recent edits to articles touching on various aspects of Islamic science has been a search for precursors. You tend to pick out a particular person who had (or is said to have had) an idea similar to a later scientific idea and identify him as a precursor -- or perhaps as an uncredited source -- of the later discovery. This variety of Whig history has plagued the history of medieval science since Duhem's Le Systeme du Monde. It interferes with any attempt to get at a genuine historical understanding of the questions early scientists were asking, the approaches they took to answer those questions, and the influences of prior scholars in shaping their thought. I would recommend that you look carefully at two areas for guidance:
  • First is the historiographical literature on appropriate methods in the history of science, especially those discussing Whig history and precursorism.
  • Second are the critical reviews of some of the sources that have been used to propagate these ideas (the published sources I am concerned about are the works of Dick Teresi and George Gheverghese Joseph; the web sources based on these are even less reliable).
The volume of your edits in the last year has been truly impressive; the quality of the material you have inserted, however, has varied from the good to the terrible. My advice would be to read and evaluate your sources more carefully and if you can't find good support for an edit you'd like to make, don't make the edit. You shouldn't rely on other editors to clean up after you and you shouldn't take their reluctance to dive into the complex structures you have created as a sign of agreement.
--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Steve, I have a few questions. If I was to write about the original developments in Islamic science, how would it be possible to do so without comparing them to future developments in the history of science? In other words, how else would it be possible to write about the significance of these developments in Islamic science without comparing them to later developments? I'm having a little trouble with this, so some advice would be appreciated. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Jagged
You’ve put your finger on the critical problem, which historians always find as something of a balancing act, especially when writing an introductory survey or an encyclopedia article. My personal answer is twofold.
On the one hand, we may wish to identify that someone has done something significant – say, that Nicole Oresme discussed the possibility that the Earth might rotate on its axis – because we now recognize in it an anticipation of a concept that we now recognize to reflect a correct understanding of the order of the universe.
On the other hand, however, we do little credit to him by calling him a medieval precursor of Copernicus. Oresme’s text has been edited, translated, and discussed by modern historians and its clear that Oresme was raising an entirely different question – expressing his doubts about whether we can answer the question of if the Earth moves at all.
In an encyclopedia – even an immense one like Wikipedia – we’re forced to summarize. In summarizing we do tend to pick out those events that can be compared to later developments. But we’ll be misleading our readers if we imply that Oresme was similar to Copernicus. You used the right word when you asked how we can compare them with later developments.
Comparison will do several things:
  • It will emphasize the differences between what the earlier figure (Oresme) was doing (or trying to do) and what the later figure (Copernicus) did.
  • It will not imply that their difference represents a failure to achieve the later solution.
  • In describing their achievements, it will show how what they did reflects the different interests, conceptual and observational tools, and institutional support specific to their time and culture. For example, it will relate Oresme’s discussion with the concern of his contemporaries with epistemological questions about how we can know, with the concepts of Aristotelian natural philosophy which he used to argue the alternative positions, with the astronomical methods used by his contemporaries, and with the place of such discussions in the instructional framework of the medieval university curriculum.
To get back to your question, the best way to discuss original developments in Islamic science is to discuss them within the specific context of the time and place in which they developed. We may select certain achievements to discuss because they fall on the path of (or anticipate in some way) the development of modern ideas, but we should discuss those achievements from the perspective of the time in which they developed. Butterfield advised that the historian should make the past his present – an ideal we can’t really attain but one we can strive for. If we place a Fourteenth-century scholar in the context of his time and place, we can understand something of the nature of his achievement. If we look back on the Fourteenth century from the perspective of the Twenty-first century – or even from the perspective of the Sixteenth century – we present our reader with a misleading (or even false) perspective on things.
Thanks for inviting me to think about this; I hope I haven’t rambled on too long. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful ramble. Like you said, it's a bit tricky to explain the full context behind an achievement when one is forced to summarize. In individual articles for a specific person or topic, this shouldn't be a problem, but in general overview articles like this one, I think it's a bit tricky to summarize while maintaining the full context. Nevertheless, I'll keep it in mind when making future edits. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In the neurosciences and psychology, al-Kindi (Alkindus) was the first to experiment with music therapy,[1] and Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari was the first to study psychotherapy.[2] The concept of mental health was introduced by Ahmed ibn Sahl al-Balkhi,[3] who also pioneered cognitive therapy, psychophysiology, and psychosomatic medicine, and was the first to study cognitive psychology and medical psychology, differentiate between neurosis and psychosis, and classify neurotic disorders. may well be relevant. This is using lots of present-day terms to refer to things which were, presumably, presented very differently then. Neuroscience? Etc William M. Connolley (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've already re-written the main article for Islamic psychology some time ago in order to avoid the use of presentist terms (and did some more work on it today). Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats good. Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
First, I would like to thank Jagged 85 for his invariably reasonable responses. Second, I want to stress emphatically that his methods of collecting - convenient - content from everyhwere by copy and paste, but letting others editors doing the review of the vast material, should better be stopped. Generally, any user should only include that material that he has read and understood. Finally, I have to say I am not the only one who has noticed that Jagged's original entries are all too often one-sided and consistently lack balance. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

response to jagged85

well it seems that jagged has decided to start responding. All i have to say its about time. Am hoping he responds when i finally provide a full detailed account of the gross lies and distortions he has posted under islamic science. Rest assured jagged its coming, and since wiki allows us to retrieve past edits and who made them your not exactly gonna be able to claim ignorance. Needless to say its taking a while just becuase the depth and breath of ur lies and distortions is so large in quantity, that its really hard to do justice to the topic, plus i have job and go to school, so i dont have all the time in the world, but it is coming, in 3-4 weeks. Ohh and by the way jagged i dont even know ur real name so it would be pretty hard for me to lauch a personnel attack on u, but however; i will tell u what i and others take personnaly, ur many unqualified and unverified claims claims.

Here's a quicky for u and hopefully u can answer this one for me soooo u made the claim at one point that Bertrand Russel claimed muslims originated modern science, and u even used a book ref. to back that up, thats is of course until another user William M. Connolley happened to have the same book and it clearly stated that he thought muslim contributions were trivial in nature. So the question remains how does one go from interpreting what Russel actaully said and u claim and there is sharp difference and is completely contradictory. Is that ur just illiterate or are their other motives here. Anyways hopefully u respond cause if u dont i think me and others can make the appropriate conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik (talk • contribs) 05:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are attacking an editor rather than the article itself would qualify as a personal attack according to WP:NPA.
I may have exaggerated it a bit, but Bertrand Russell did state that the Arabs introduced the scientific method according to the source I cited, which was different to the one William cited. You can check the edit history for yourself.
Fortunately for you, I won't be on Wikipedia for at least 3-4 weeks either. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

oh so u actaully admitted that u exaggerated, hhmmmm this isn't the place for exagerations, were here to talk about facts, and id say u did plenty of exagerating and lieing, by the way jagged i just slapped the entire mechanics section here with a tag cause frankly the stuff u put here isnt really adding up, especially the part were alhzan discovered inertia and sourcing Ideals and Realities: Selected Essays of Abdus Salam, 2nd ed. I checked that book out and in fact its fully available online on google scholar the whole thing and guess what there is absolutely not quote like that, in fact the book not only does not talk about islamic science, its doesnt have anything on history of science period, the pages u sourced for it have to do wwith abdus salam's thoughts on the future of partcile physics. hmmmm am not sure if thats stupidity or just reckless, oh ya i forgot u have a tendency of exagerrating. As for as not being around for next 3-4 weeks, thats perfectly alright am gonna need much longer then that to justice on the matter, and either way ur gonna have to repsond one way or another. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik (talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that page numbering varies from edition to edition and is different between hardcover and softcover printings, etc. Just search the book for "law of inertia". I looked at the searchable copies on Amazon and found the claim about the law of inertia on page 181 in the 2nd edition (paperback), and on page 264 in the first edition (hardcover). It's on page 283 in the 3rd edition copy I looked at on Google Scholar. You might find it on different pages depending on whether you look at a hardcover or softcover edition, etc. The quoted text is from the second edition; the text in the first and third editions is a bit different.--Srleffler (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm changing your tag to the NPOV tag. The OR tag is inappropriate for a section that is fully-sourced. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Science in the Middle Ages" article

FYI: For any contributors here who are interested I have made some recent enhancements to the Science in the Middle Ages article to eliminate some bias and make it more complete. In particular I added a section at the front of the article giving some of the major discoveries of the Middle Ages which, of course, were mostly made by the Arabs and Persians. Please feel free to add your own insights and enhancements.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. With respect to some of the discussions above about who contributed what, I tried in my edits to Science in the Middle Ages to be fair about mentioning cases where Medieval scholars built on the work of previous civilizations as opposed to inventing all the concepts from scratch. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


section postings

i will soon be uploading sections that states problems with sections of this page and their are quiet a few. whoever the respondent should happen to be you can just post the response on the discussion page with the sited material and breif explanation, there is no need to make edits on the actual page if the points made are legitimate. I think this is a little more progressive then posting a huge article outlining all the previous misinformation posted on this page, which of course would also take large amounts of time, and no doubt it would be labelled as being a "little exaggeration", i.e. jagged85. However someone will be held accountable for certain interpretations of what the orgins of moderns science are, and what the scholars actaully said, ie salam and others. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

my post shall be coming up very soon, in 2 weeks or so, i havent had the time, since i had my finals, work, social life etc, but also i have decided to track down the sources listed here and read them, let me just say it aint pretty, as shall be demonstrated. The first section i am going to be posting on is the mechaincs, needless to say their are countless facutals errors and destortions present their, and even that would be a gross understatement. Here are some ideas, concepts, and definitions for readers to ponder over before i make my post.

Science is procedure for gaining and processing knowledge, which employs the scientific method and experimentation.

Scientific law describes the behavior of physical processes.

Theory is a series of experimentally verified hypothesis, and provides an explanation for scientific laws, hence it explains the why part of a scientific law. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

While going over Inventions in the Islamic world, I noticed that this page mirrors a lot of the former. Much of the former contains factual errors, which I have been gradually correcting. Frotz (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck. Its a monumental task William M. Connolley (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Has anything changed in 1 year? Faro0485 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "islamic science"

Muhammadism is religion. It has no common with science. At least, Omar Khayyam is famous for his antimuhammadist, perhaps, atheist position, but he is still put in this list! I cannot help regarding this as promuhammadist rhetoric. I suggest to rename this article to "Science in medieval Arabic-speaking world". Codeholic (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

very good proposal. i support it strongly. but guess what: the current article will become 2 lines and the rest should be moved to "science in persia". thanks for suggestion.--Xashaiar (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Islam was a civilisation so renaming the article would be WP:OR. And yes Islam has connections with science just like Christianity does. And most of the sources refer to the culture as Islamic. LOTRrules Talk Contribs 16:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Eh, Christian Science is a Christian sect with basically no connection to actual science as it is understood today.
But this article is not about "islamic science". Its about science as performed in the cultural sphere in the early islamic expansion. So whether Omar Khayyam was pro or con islam is not as interesting as whether his opinions and research could get a firm hold within this cultural sphere. It seems it could. And that "muhammadist" talk is improper, it is "islam", not "muhammadist".
"Science in medieval Arabic-speaking world" is improper because many of the discoveries and developments were made by Persians (an "indoeuropean" culture). Arabic was the lingua franca solely because of the islamic expansion, and the islamic expansion also provided the organization that allowed science to be spread and cultivated. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "Islamic Science" does not mean to express any connection between Islam the religion and Science. It just means "science practiced in Islamic countries in certain period of history". Taking its literal meanings may similarly invalidate the terms like "western science", "greek science" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.175.219 (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is about scientific developments under Muslim rule, from Morocco to India, and the title should remain as is... Fatima586 (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(random heading inserted)

(moved to bottom by ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm fuzzy on if I should put my comment here or at the bottom, so I'll apoligize before I get going. I think everyone here understands this page is absurd and enters the realm of religious propaganda. There was no unified Islamic state after 750; prior to 750 you MIGHT be able to refer to "Science in the Ummayad Caliphate," but that's about it. A good deal of these scientists were lip-service Muslims, especially the Persians, and some of them were not in fact Muslim at all. It seems as though the original article is attempting to portray a unified Islamic state very deliberately jumping into science, which wasn't the case at all. In addition, many of these "discoveries" and "inventions" are wildly exaggerated. Futher, I keep reading about how Islam transmitted such vast knowledge to the West, but read precious few examples. I hope people realize that the Greeks fleeing the fall of Byzantium to Italy had a much greater impact on the Renaissance than nebulous "transmission."

This page, and the "inventions of Islam" page, should be folded into one "Science of the Middle Ages" page, as well as being fully verified, no exaggerations, and mention of knowledge "transmission" to the West backed-up with specifics, not just the statement "the Muslims helped preserve and transmit knowledge to the West."

I understand wiping-out this apge and the other one and making one bug 'Scienc of the Middle Ages" is a HUGE task, doing it right (ina verifiable way) is SUPER HUGE, but it has to done. Propaganda and unverified info is exactly why Wikipedia gets attacked.

Gunslinger1812 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the comment at the bottom, despite probably being obsolete by later edits. Comments should generally be put at the bottom and get a heading in order to (presumably) reduce edit conflicts. Headings have initial and final double equals signs == in one line.
I regard the criticism as invalid: a religion usually forms a certain cultural sphere which affects how easy or hard it is to get scientific results accepted in the rest of the society outside the science itself. So Science in medieval Islam is very well motivated. Such an article is very well needed, at least by astronomers, who otherwise get a harder time explaining why their stars have arabic star names. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review section

Is the peer review section disputed? Faro0485 (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing Event Reference

There is, what seems to me at least, an important reference missing in this article. It should also be included in other articles dealing with Islam and science. If I have missed it somewhere on Wikipedia, please let me know. It has an important bearing on the discussions of the decline of Islamic science, insofar as a decline occurred.

What I am talking about is the Baghdad conference of 1100AD. At this conference a decision was reached that the only proper study for a Moslem was the Koran. The study of science was not to be pursued.

What is a good reference for this conference? I cannot find the reference I came across a number of years ago and hope that someone can help me. It was a fairly extensive treatment, not so much of the conference itself but of its subsequent impact.

It might have been in David Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage or Age of Faith, Hoodbhoy, Islam and Science, Nathan Rosenberg, How the West Grew Rich, or in any of several books by Lynn White, Jr. I know I did not see it in al-Hassan (and Hill?) or Bernard Lewis, but only because I know I was not reading them when I came across it. They may very well discuss it somewhere. Especially Lewis. Please help. VictorLacy (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)VictorLacy


I believe you'd have to add Al ghazali and his sufic influences into islamic law with that. [13] Faro0485 (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Islamic science different in some way?

The article uses Islamic science in many places that imply there is a different way of knowing the world (or something else special) about what is discovered. If this is not what is meant, we better stop using the term.

There are people (multiculturalists?) who oppose Western science (or are maybe just a bit jealous of it) and who began saying - a couple of decades ago - that there were other, non-Western ways of approaching the world which were just as good or maybe a bit better. I thought that an article entitled Islamic science would at least explain the differences. It seems rather that we are showing what aspects of the world were studied early on in Islam's first millennium - and that with the exception of optics they didn't produce much.

On the other hand, I'd hate to think that Renaissance Europeans discovered everything worth knowing, if it isn't true. My bias tends toward giving credit where credit is due. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically one should use the term "Islamic science" only when it makes sense. The term is basically "meaningless" (in that "islamic" is an adjective here!) as islam did ZERO cause for contribution in science. Here I am very kind because Islam was infact an obstruction for scientific developement. On the other hand "islamic science" does exists and that's what is related to their book nothing more and nothing less. This is the view supported by Xwarizmi, Biruni, etc. (cf. The Cambridge History of Islam). Xashaiar (talk)
Well, apparently Islamic scholars refined the astrolabe, even if the Arab claim that they invented it [14] is contradicted by other sources. [15] Is there any way to get a balanced view of just how much (or little) was contributed by Arabs and/or Muslims? Surely it's more than the digit zero. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is your first mistake. Islam=Arab. (BTW astrolabe as we now it today is a Persian device). Your second mistake is to "give credit to Islam for the undeniable contributions of Muslims in science" (see this apparently Muslim view). It is laughable to give credit to Christianity for the undeniable contribution of Newton, obvious isn't it? Xashaiar (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm making mistakes right and left. I need to understand the difference between the following three terms:
  1. Arab
  2. Muslim
  3. Islamic
Can we assume that Arabs are a subset of the Islamic world, or is that too simplistic? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Ed,
Here are a few thoughts. The historiography of Islamic science is a tricky problem, but it raises several different issues:
  • The many significant contributions of people living within the Islamic world to the development of science. Anyone who skims the Dictionary of Scientific Biography or the Encyclopedia of Islam will find many examples of such contributions.
  • More problematic are those claims that seek to exaggerate those achievements far beyond what is supported by the historical record. A lot of sources on the web do this.
  • Especially difficult to deal with are those ideological claims that Islam as a religion leads to a different (superior) approach to nature and to a different kind of science.
Any serious discussion of science in medieval Islam has to cope with at least the first two of these. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes these are problematic even in informal discussions in everyday life. @Ed:No that's too simplistic. An arab can be muslim or not (still there are many Arabic speaking people who practice other faiths like Judaism, Christianity,..., and they did not convert, they were simply non-Muslim). Every muslim can act non-"Islamic!". (you do not need example for this, do you?). Finally Islamic. I am not able to define this term, I can only say "Islamic is an adjective meaning related to Islam the religion". Xashaiar (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Muhammed ibn Musa and gravitational attraction

I have removed the claim that ibn Musa "hypothesized that there was a force of attraction between heavenly bodies" because it is not supported by the source cited (which fails Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources anyway). More details can be found on the Astronomy in medieval Islam talk page.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Saoud, R. "The Arab Contribution to the Music of the Western World" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-01-12.
  2. ^ Amber Haque (2004), "Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim Scholars and Challenges to Contemporary Muslim Psychologists", Journal of Religion and Health 43 (4): 357-377 [361-363]
  3. ^ Nurdeen Deuraseh and Mansor Abu Talib (2005), "Mental health in Islamic medical tradition", The International Medical Journal 4 (2), p. 76-79.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world/Archive_1&oldid=1138134829"