8 ms·

Johannes Kepler was not a lone genius

45 points by Hooke 11y ago

Cyph0n 11y ago
As usual with these kinds of books, there is no mention of the work done by Muslim astronomers hundreds of years before either Copernicus or Kepler. Do you actually think these two astronomers and other scientists just came up with their results? That's not how science works. Unfortunately many Western historians casually ignore or at best minimize the impact the Islamic scientific movement had on many fields such as philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Instead they jump from the Greeks to the pre-Renaissance era. "If Europe was in a state of academic decline, so was everyone else". As the saying goes, the winner gets to rewrite history.
- mherrmann 11y ago
  Interesting. Do you have some examples?
  - khnd 11y ago
    there's a wiki page on "Astronomy in the medieval Islamic world"
  - Cyph0n 11y ago
    A few of the more well known examples. Omar Khayyam (1100 CE): binomial theorem, Pascal's triangle, heliocentricity [1] Thabit ibn Qurra (850 CE): number theory, infinite series, length of year to within 2 seconds, non-Euclidean geometry, paved way for integral calculus, philosopher on the side [2][3] Al Hasan ibn Al Haitham (1000 CE): optics and visual perception, one of the first theoretical physicists, developed the scientific method 200 years before Renaissance, number theory esp. congruences [4] In addition, it is agreed that if not for the Graeco-Arabic translation movement, most of the works of the Greek philosophers would have been lost. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayyam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayyam [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C4%81bit_ibn_Qurra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C4%81bit_ibn_Qurra [3]: http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/qurra.html http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/qurra.... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen
    - mafribe 11y ago
      There is no reason to believe that Khayyam discovered Pascal's triangle, it's much older. Heliocentrism was discussed by the ancient Greeks and predates Khayyam by over 1000 years [2]. Number theory predates Qurra by almost 3000 years [3]. Infinite series were known to ancient Greek Archiemedes [4]. The history of non-euclidean geometry is complicated: the ancient Greeks already knew about some geometrical objects that we now recognise as being non-euclidean. The first to recognise non-euclidean geometry in a nearly modern form might have been Gauss, but he didn't publish this material because he didn't think he had hit on the full story. I'll stop here. the Graeco-Arabic translation movement, The preservation of the Greek is probably the main achievement of the medieval islamic scholars. We must remember that almost all Greek material is lost. For example nothing in the existing ancient Greek material tells us that the ancient Greeks were capable of building something like the Antikythera mechanism, which was found on ship carrying mundane goods, so it's unlikely to be the best the ancient Greeks had achieved in regards to automata. I suspect that like Renaissance Europeans, medieval islamic scholars were at pains to cover up just how much they got from ancient Greece. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_triangle#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_triangle#History [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory#Origins [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)#Development_of_infinite_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)#Developme...
      - Cyph0n 11y ago
        No, I do not possess deep historical knowledge. I was asked a question, which I answered using facts I've gathered from my reading, with some Googling added into the mix. Disproving examples provided by an amateur does not amount to much I'm afraid. Still, I will attempt to respond to your rebuttal using what little knowledge I have. > There is no reason to believe that Khayyam discovered Pascal's triangle, it's much older. A cursory glance at the article you linked shows that Khayyam was the first to formally define Pascal's triangle. However, the main issue in my view is that everyone still refers to it as Pascal's triangle, even though as you say there is evidence which proves that Pascal was not the first to discover it. > Heliocentrism was discussed by the ancient Greeks and predates Khayyam by over 1000 years Yes, I was aware that the Greeks tackled the issue of heliocentricity, but I added that point in the context of Copernicus. In addition, I did not state that he was the first. > Infinite series were known to ancient Greek Archiemedes I was not aware of Archimedes' work with infinite series'. This would have been a better reference though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)#Development_of_infinite_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)#Developme.... > the ancient Greeks already knew about some geometrical objects that we now recognise as being non-euclidean. The first to recognise non-euclidean geometry in a nearly modern form might have been Gauss I like how you perform the same jump in time I talked about in my original comment. So essentially, when it comes to the development of non-Euclidean geometry, Greeks -> nothing -> Gauss. Are you really saying that that's how it developed? > We must remember that almost all Greek material is lost [...] Why did you need to write a whole paragraph on how much of the Greek's work was lost? That's irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that the Islamic scientific movement preserved Greeks works. I kind of feel you added that just to undermine your previous statement. > I suspect that like Renaissance Europeans, medieval islamic scholars were at pains to cover up just how much they got from ancient Greece. Regarding attribution, on the contrary, Muslim scientists were actually quite open about how extensively they based their work on that of the Greeks, especially in the field of philosophy. The same definitely cannot be said about the early Renaissance scholars.
- johnchristopher 11y ago
  > Do you actually think these two astronomers and other scientists just came up with their results? That's not how science works. Sometimes it does, see Calculus. Moreover, coming from western Europe, I seldom met history teachers or erudites that would casually dismiss another culture's teaching and discoveries.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    Newton built upon the work of mathematicians such as John Wallis.
    - johnchristopher 11y ago
      My mistake, I wanted to point out independent discoveries (Leibniz/Newton), not dismissing the shoulder's giants.
  - Cyph0n 11y ago
    Ah so they discuss the Islamic Golden Age in school curriculums there? They don't even do that in schools in the Arab World :(
    - johnchristopher 11y ago
      No, I wouldn't say they actively discuss it. But it's certainly not censored or dismissed. But frankly it's a stinky debate. I recently found myself between an Indian and a Tunisian arguing over who invented the zero. Wikipedia, other sources, nuanced opinions and historical facts fell on deaf ears.
      - thedavinci2000 11y ago
        The Mayans also independently invented the zero.
    - maaku 11y ago
      Yes, it's covered in world history classes in the U.S. at least.
- deepnet 11y ago
  Jim Al Khalili has a gripping and informative BBC documentary on just this, he shows that books by Copernicus had the same errors as certain earlier Arab texts going back to Alhazen. He delves further and explores the book of doubt the first post greek published work to question the Ptolomaic cosmology. This was written at the hilltop fortress of the order of Assassins which ensured a golden age of peace by a network of espionage. Marco Polo famously described the Garden's there. Ibn al-Ḥaytham, Alhazen continued his work under the patronage of the Mongols. It is all very well presented by Al Khalili. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL41gX0fJng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL41gX0fJng
  - Cyph0n 11y ago
    Yes, I've heard about it. It's good to see that that some efforts are being made to bring these great scientists and their work to light.
- drieddust 11y ago
  You are right. Current western litrature just is so ignorant of the discoveries on which these advancements are build. Having said that not just muslims but a lot of ancient Egyptians,Sumerians, Greeks,and Hindus contibuted to it.
- frik 11y ago
  How about calling them Arab or south-west Asian people? Depending on the epochs and the country borders the religion trends changed a lot in that area.
  - Cyph0n 11y ago
    No, most of the great scientists were not Arab. Many people mix the two up. In addition, most of the funding came from the Islamic caliphate itself, especially during the Abassid Caliphate. One of the caliphs at the time gave scientists who wrote books on a scientific topic its weight in gold. The Abu Musa family paid salaries for translators to work full-time translating works from Greek, Syriac, and Persian to Arabic.
- smarinov 11y ago
  Do you have any evidence that all the Middle Eastern scholars from the Middle Ages (no pun intended) have been practising Muslims? Did they work in complete isolation from Europe? How so? Also, what exactly do you mean by „the winner” in this case? Do you imply that the Middle East has lost something particular due to external forces and hasn't been developing up to its potential? If so, what is that and what were those external forces? Did they come from Europe? How so? Even Eastern Europe? Even the parts of it that were forcefully joined to a Middle Eastern fiercely expansionist country like the Ottoman empire? How so?
  - Cyph0n 11y ago
    1. Yes, quite a few of them were regarded as scholars in Islam. Some have seminal works on different aspects of Islamic science. During a certain period, memorizing the Quran and learning the essentials of Islamic science was a prerequisite to further pursuing study in the natural sciences. Keep in mind that this is not the rule, and depends on the specific time period, region, and "flavor" of Islam the scientist followed. 2. Just after the decline in power of the Ottoman Empire (around 1500 AD or so), Europe began to flourish. The Ottomans were not able to keep up, and were overpowered both in military might and scientific advancement. This worsened with the expansionary period in Europe (1600s-1700s), and reached its peak with the colonial period. The colonization of the entire Arab World and the fall of the Ottoman Empire together were just too much - Muslims were lost. Unfortunately, they put the blame on Islam while the blame was simply on lack of unity, general decadence of the ruling elite, and pursuit of material gain rather than scientific advancement. In addition, the colonial powers themselves made sure their subjects didn't get much done. Even after they left, the effects remained for quite some time. So scientific development was put on the side, and that's where we are now. As an example, in 2013, South Korea (pop. 50 million) was granted 120,000 patents. The entire Arab World (360 million) was granted only 7,000. We are just too far behind.
    - thedavinci2000 11y ago
      The past is the past. No use complaining about it. The Americas were also raped by European colonialism but it makes no sese to dwell in it. Work towards the future.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- thrawy4567 11y ago
  > As usual with these kinds of books, there is no mention of the work done by Muslim astronomers hundreds of years before either Copernicus or Kepler. Same logic applies for the Arabic/ Islamic Golden age astronomers who were dependent on previous Indian, Greek and other mathematicians to further translate/ popularize , improve upon and invent what was the state of the art in those times. Take a brief look at the wiki page for a continuity and cross-pollination of ideas across[1]. What matters is a conducive/ peaceful period where ideas flourish and new inventions are made. The historic progression of ideas is thus: (remember, there will be ideas cross-translated across individual years within this broad sub-periods, and isolated inventions which were independently/ semi-independently discovered). Babylonia (1800 BC) -> Egyptian (1800 BC) -> Greek (600 BC to 150 AD) -> Chinese (300 BC) -> Indian (200/500 BC to 1200/1400 AD) -> Islamic (1050 AD - 1400 AD) -> Medieval European (12th century) -> Renaissance (1400 AD) -> Modern Mathematics. Also, see [2] for Al-Khwarizmi's On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals (ca. 825), and Al-Kindi's four volume work On the Use of the Indian Numerals (ca. 830) > Unfortunately many Western historians casually ignore or at best minimize the impact the Islamic scientific movement had on many fields such as philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Instead they jump from the Greeks to the pre-Renaissance era. On the same token, one might be making the same mistake if the Indian influence of the Islamic golden age thought process is not acknowledged. By reason, the influence of Greeks on Indian thoughts and so on and so forth. Please take a look at [3] And lastly [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hindu%E2%80%93A... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_mathematicians#Ancient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_mathematicians#... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...
  - Cyph0n 11y ago
    > Same logic applies for the Arabic/ Islamic Golden age astronomers who were dependent on previous Indian Yes, but bookstores are not filled with books written by Muslim historians. There is only side to the story being presented, and that's what annoys me.
lemmy 11y ago
I highly recommend Arthur Koestler's 'Sleepwalkers'. It's a detailed history of Copernicus, Brahe and in particular Kepler, but is also about how new models of knowledge gain traction. So it goes way beyond simplistic 'lone genius' analyses but still celebrates the great achievements of individuals. A wonderful read.
- johnchristopher 11y ago
  Indeed, it's a nice read. I would like to add it also features a nice introduction to greek astronomy.
abecedarius 11y ago
The Discovery of Dynamics by Julian Barbour explains Kepler's work on Mars with enough technical detail and historical context that it made me think: holy crap, Kepler was a genius, or very lucky in some of his inspirations, like the guess that led to the equal-area law (it was meant at first to be an easier-to-compute approximation to another idea); along with the mathematical talent he worked really hard and earned that luck; and nobody else seemed to be thinking about the problems in the same way leading to Kepler's laws. I'd guess they'd have taken decades more without him, and appeared in stages. Of course his work was not done in a vacuum.
powertower 11y ago
> Do you actually think these two astronomers and other scientists just came up with their results? Yes. There is nothing in astronomy, science, and math, that requires the presence or knowledge of a Muslim for work to be done.
- Cyph0n 11y ago
  I was waiting for a bigot to come in. Welcome my friend!
  - powertower 11y ago
    When someone contradicts a statement you make, responding with name-calling does not strengthen your argument.
    - Cyph0n 11y ago
      Sorry, I meant an Islamophobe ;)
- jamestnz 11y ago
  >There is nothing in astronomy, science, and math, that requires the presence of a Muslim for work to be done. True, if snarky ;-) However rather than simply a hollow cheerleading of Islam, perhaps parent was referring to the fact that several of the mathematical/astronomical devices that Copernicus employed bear a remarkable similarity to those of earlier Muslim astronomers such as Urdi and Ibn al-Shatir (who had rejected Ptolemy several hundred years before). Indeed, the similarities are so strong that some scholars suggest that Copernicus simply MUST have been directly influenced by this earlier work. Now it surely remains possible that Copernicus independently discovered all this, and never read Urdi or Ibn al-Shatir. But I believe it's beyond dispute that many aspects of what eventually became Heliocentrism, originated earlier, in the geocentric theories of the Maragha school of Islamic Astronomy.
- dang 11y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10606381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10606381 and marked it off-topic.

45 points by Hooke 11y ago

As usual with these kinds of books, there is no mention of the work done by Muslim astronomers hundreds of years before either Copernicus or Kepler. Do you actually think these two astronomers and other scientists just came up with their results? That's not how science works. Unfortunately many Western historians casually ignore or at best minimize the impact the Islamic scientific movement had on many fields such as philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Instead they jump from the Greeks to the pre-Renaissance era. "If Europe was in a state of academic decline, so was everyone else". As the saying goes, the winner gets to rewrite history.

mherrmann 11y ago
Interesting. Do you have some examples?
- khnd 11y ago
  there's a wiki page on "Astronomy in the medieval Islamic world"
- Cyph0n 11y ago
  A few of the more well known examples. Omar Khayyam (1100 CE): binomial theorem, Pascal's triangle, heliocentricity [1] Thabit ibn Qurra (850 CE): number theory, infinite series, length of year to within 2 seconds, non-Euclidean geometry, paved way for integral calculus, philosopher on the side [2][3] Al Hasan ibn Al Haitham (1000 CE): optics and visual perception, one of the first theoretical physicists, developed the scientific method 200 years before Renaissance, number theory esp. congruences [4] In addition, it is agreed that if not for the Graeco-Arabic translation movement, most of the works of the Greek philosophers would have been lost. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayyam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayyam [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C4%81bit_ibn_Qurra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C4%81bit_ibn_Qurra [3]: http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/qurra.html http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/qurra.... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen
  - mafribe 11y ago
    There is no reason to believe that Khayyam discovered Pascal's triangle, it's much older. Heliocentrism was discussed by the ancient Greeks and predates Khayyam by over 1000 years [2]. Number theory predates Qurra by almost 3000 years [3]. Infinite series were known to ancient Greek Archiemedes [4]. The history of non-euclidean geometry is complicated: the ancient Greeks already knew about some geometrical objects that we now recognise as being non-euclidean. The first to recognise non-euclidean geometry in a nearly modern form might have been Gauss, but he didn't publish this material because he didn't think he had hit on the full story. I'll stop here. the Graeco-Arabic translation movement, The preservation of the Greek is probably the main achievement of the medieval islamic scholars. We must remember that almost all Greek material is lost. For example nothing in the existing ancient Greek material tells us that the ancient Greeks were capable of building something like the Antikythera mechanism, which was found on ship carrying mundane goods, so it's unlikely to be the best the ancient Greeks had achieved in regards to automata. I suspect that like Renaissance Europeans, medieval islamic scholars were at pains to cover up just how much they got from ancient Greece. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_triangle#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_triangle#History [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory#Origins [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)#Development_of_infinite_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)#Developme...
    - Cyph0n 11y ago
      No, I do not possess deep historical knowledge. I was asked a question, which I answered using facts I've gathered from my reading, with some Googling added into the mix. Disproving examples provided by an amateur does not amount to much I'm afraid. Still, I will attempt to respond to your rebuttal using what little knowledge I have. > There is no reason to believe that Khayyam discovered Pascal's triangle, it's much older. A cursory glance at the article you linked shows that Khayyam was the first to formally define Pascal's triangle. However, the main issue in my view is that everyone still refers to it as Pascal's triangle, even though as you say there is evidence which proves that Pascal was not the first to discover it. > Heliocentrism was discussed by the ancient Greeks and predates Khayyam by over 1000 years Yes, I was aware that the Greeks tackled the issue of heliocentricity, but I added that point in the context of Copernicus. In addition, I did not state that he was the first. > Infinite series were known to ancient Greek Archiemedes I was not aware of Archimedes' work with infinite series'. This would have been a better reference though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)#Development_of_infinite_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)#Developme.... > the ancient Greeks already knew about some geometrical objects that we now recognise as being non-euclidean. The first to recognise non-euclidean geometry in a nearly modern form might have been Gauss I like how you perform the same jump in time I talked about in my original comment. So essentially, when it comes to the development of non-Euclidean geometry, Greeks -> nothing -> Gauss. Are you really saying that that's how it developed? > We must remember that almost all Greek material is lost [...] Why did you need to write a whole paragraph on how much of the Greek's work was lost? That's irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that the Islamic scientific movement preserved Greeks works. I kind of feel you added that just to undermine your previous statement. > I suspect that like Renaissance Europeans, medieval islamic scholars were at pains to cover up just how much they got from ancient Greece. Regarding attribution, on the contrary, Muslim scientists were actually quite open about how extensively they based their work on that of the Greeks, especially in the field of philosophy. The same definitely cannot be said about the early Renaissance scholars.
johnchristopher 11y ago
> Do you actually think these two astronomers and other scientists just came up with their results? That's not how science works. Sometimes it does, see Calculus. Moreover, coming from western Europe, I seldom met history teachers or erudites that would casually dismiss another culture's teaching and discoveries.
- danharaj 11y ago
  Newton built upon the work of mathematicians such as John Wallis.
  - johnchristopher 11y ago
    My mistake, I wanted to point out independent discoveries (Leibniz/Newton), not dismissing the shoulder's giants.
- Cyph0n 11y ago
  Ah so they discuss the Islamic Golden Age in school curriculums there? They don't even do that in schools in the Arab World :(
  - johnchristopher 11y ago
    No, I wouldn't say they actively discuss it. But it's certainly not censored or dismissed. But frankly it's a stinky debate. I recently found myself between an Indian and a Tunisian arguing over who invented the zero. Wikipedia, other sources, nuanced opinions and historical facts fell on deaf ears.
    - thedavinci2000 11y ago
      The Mayans also independently invented the zero.
  - maaku 11y ago
    Yes, it's covered in world history classes in the U.S. at least.
deepnet 11y ago
Jim Al Khalili has a gripping and informative BBC documentary on just this, he shows that books by Copernicus had the same errors as certain earlier Arab texts going back to Alhazen. He delves further and explores the book of doubt the first post greek published work to question the Ptolomaic cosmology. This was written at the hilltop fortress of the order of Assassins which ensured a golden age of peace by a network of espionage. Marco Polo famously described the Garden's there. Ibn al-Ḥaytham, Alhazen continued his work under the patronage of the Mongols. It is all very well presented by Al Khalili. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL41gX0fJng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL41gX0fJng
- Cyph0n 11y ago
  Yes, I've heard about it. It's good to see that that some efforts are being made to bring these great scientists and their work to light.
drieddust 11y ago
You are right. Current western litrature just is so ignorant of the discoveries on which these advancements are build. Having said that not just muslims but a lot of ancient Egyptians,Sumerians, Greeks,and Hindus contibuted to it.
frik 11y ago
How about calling them Arab or south-west Asian people? Depending on the epochs and the country borders the religion trends changed a lot in that area.
- Cyph0n 11y ago
  No, most of the great scientists were not Arab. Many people mix the two up. In addition, most of the funding came from the Islamic caliphate itself, especially during the Abassid Caliphate. One of the caliphs at the time gave scientists who wrote books on a scientific topic its weight in gold. The Abu Musa family paid salaries for translators to work full-time translating works from Greek, Syriac, and Persian to Arabic.
smarinov 11y ago
Do you have any evidence that all the Middle Eastern scholars from the Middle Ages (no pun intended) have been practising Muslims? Did they work in complete isolation from Europe? How so? Also, what exactly do you mean by „the winner” in this case? Do you imply that the Middle East has lost something particular due to external forces and hasn't been developing up to its potential? If so, what is that and what were those external forces? Did they come from Europe? How so? Even Eastern Europe? Even the parts of it that were forcefully joined to a Middle Eastern fiercely expansionist country like the Ottoman empire? How so?
- Cyph0n 11y ago
  1. Yes, quite a few of them were regarded as scholars in Islam. Some have seminal works on different aspects of Islamic science. During a certain period, memorizing the Quran and learning the essentials of Islamic science was a prerequisite to further pursuing study in the natural sciences. Keep in mind that this is not the rule, and depends on the specific time period, region, and "flavor" of Islam the scientist followed. 2. Just after the decline in power of the Ottoman Empire (around 1500 AD or so), Europe began to flourish. The Ottomans were not able to keep up, and were overpowered both in military might and scientific advancement. This worsened with the expansionary period in Europe (1600s-1700s), and reached its peak with the colonial period. The colonization of the entire Arab World and the fall of the Ottoman Empire together were just too much - Muslims were lost. Unfortunately, they put the blame on Islam while the blame was simply on lack of unity, general decadence of the ruling elite, and pursuit of material gain rather than scientific advancement. In addition, the colonial powers themselves made sure their subjects didn't get much done. Even after they left, the effects remained for quite some time. So scientific development was put on the side, and that's where we are now. As an example, in 2013, South Korea (pop. 50 million) was granted 120,000 patents. The entire Arab World (360 million) was granted only 7,000. We are just too far behind.
  - thedavinci2000 11y ago
    The past is the past. No use complaining about it. The Americas were also raped by European colonialism but it makes no sese to dwell in it. Work towards the future.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
thrawy4567 11y ago
> As usual with these kinds of books, there is no mention of the work done by Muslim astronomers hundreds of years before either Copernicus or Kepler. Same logic applies for the Arabic/ Islamic Golden age astronomers who were dependent on previous Indian, Greek and other mathematicians to further translate/ popularize , improve upon and invent what was the state of the art in those times. Take a brief look at the wiki page for a continuity and cross-pollination of ideas across[1]. What matters is a conducive/ peaceful period where ideas flourish and new inventions are made. The historic progression of ideas is thus: (remember, there will be ideas cross-translated across individual years within this broad sub-periods, and isolated inventions which were independently/ semi-independently discovered). Babylonia (1800 BC) -> Egyptian (1800 BC) -> Greek (600 BC to 150 AD) -> Chinese (300 BC) -> Indian (200/500 BC to 1200/1400 AD) -> Islamic (1050 AD - 1400 AD) -> Medieval European (12th century) -> Renaissance (1400 AD) -> Modern Mathematics. Also, see [2] for Al-Khwarizmi's On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals (ca. 825), and Al-Kindi's four volume work On the Use of the Indian Numerals (ca. 830) > Unfortunately many Western historians casually ignore or at best minimize the impact the Islamic scientific movement had on many fields such as philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Instead they jump from the Greeks to the pre-Renaissance era. On the same token, one might be making the same mistake if the Indian influence of the Islamic golden age thought process is not acknowledged. By reason, the influence of Greeks on Indian thoughts and so on and so forth. Please take a look at [3] And lastly [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hindu%E2%80%93A... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_mathematicians#Ancient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_mathematicians#... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...
- Cyph0n 11y ago
  > Same logic applies for the Arabic/ Islamic Golden age astronomers who were dependent on previous Indian Yes, but bookstores are not filled with books written by Muslim historians. There is only side to the story being presented, and that's what annoys me.

lemmy 11y ago

I highly recommend Arthur Koestler's 'Sleepwalkers'. It's a detailed history of Copernicus, Brahe and in particular Kepler, but is also about how new models of knowledge gain traction. So it goes way beyond simplistic 'lone genius' analyses but still celebrates the great achievements of individuals. A wonderful read.

johnchristopher 11y ago
Indeed, it's a nice read. I would like to add it also features a nice introduction to greek astronomy.

abecedarius 11y ago

The Discovery of Dynamics by Julian Barbour explains Kepler's work on Mars with enough technical detail and historical context that it made me think: holy crap, Kepler was a genius, or very lucky in some of his inspirations, like the guess that led to the equal-area law (it was meant at first to be an easier-to-compute approximation to another idea); along with the mathematical talent he worked really hard and earned that luck; and nobody else seemed to be thinking about the problems in the same way leading to Kepler's laws. I'd guess they'd have taken decades more without him, and appeared in stages. Of course his work was not done in a vacuum.

powertower 11y ago

> Do you actually think these two astronomers and other scientists just came up with their results? Yes. There is nothing in astronomy, science, and math, that requires the presence or knowledge of a Muslim for work to be done.

Cyph0n 11y ago
I was waiting for a bigot to come in. Welcome my friend!
- powertower 11y ago
  When someone contradicts a statement you make, responding with name-calling does not strengthen your argument.
  - Cyph0n 11y ago
    Sorry, I meant an Islamophobe ;)
jamestnz 11y ago
>There is nothing in astronomy, science, and math, that requires the presence of a Muslim for work to be done. True, if snarky ;-) However rather than simply a hollow cheerleading of Islam, perhaps parent was referring to the fact that several of the mathematical/astronomical devices that Copernicus employed bear a remarkable similarity to those of earlier Muslim astronomers such as Urdi and Ibn al-Shatir (who had rejected Ptolemy several hundred years before). Indeed, the similarities are so strong that some scholars suggest that Copernicus simply MUST have been directly influenced by this earlier work. Now it surely remains possible that Copernicus independently discovered all this, and never read Urdi or Ibn al-Shatir. But I believe it's beyond dispute that many aspects of what eventually became Heliocentrism, originated earlier, in the geocentric theories of the Maragha school of Islamic Astronomy.
dang 11y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10606381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10606381 and marked it off-topic.