4 ms·

"Your argument breaks down once you consider contemporary mainstream world history books." Not really. Most historians base their history books on those who ca

by astine 10y ago

"Your argument breaks down once you consider contemporary mainstream world history books." Not really. Most historians base their history books on those who came before them. The majority of texts available to western scholars are older western texts. Bear in mind that there is a big language barrier. Historical imbalances will persist without an attempt to counter them. The study of the middle eastern history/culture used to be a special field of study called 'orientalism' and required scholars to learn middle eastern and asiatic languages to make any of the history available in the west. In the 70's, traditional orientalist scholars came under fire for being overly western centric in their coverage and for exotifying their subjects, (mainly by Edward Said) but I think that sort of thing is almost inevitable when you are writing about someone else's history. If you are not a Turk, you'll have a harder time thinking from the perspective of the Turks. "It becomes even worse, and extremely xenophobic in my opinion, when you disregard the work of scientists who followed said religion." Most of the work of scientists and scholars from the Golden Age of Islam was unavailable in the West until much later so while much of it predated later Western developments, the later developments were still independent. Scholars such as Averroes and Avicenna on the other hand, who were very influential in the west, generally aren't ignored and haven't been. Religious scholars from the middle ages regularly cited Averroes and reference him in their work.

Cyph0n 10y ago
> Not really. Most historians base their history books on those who came before them. [...] Historical imbalances will persist without an attempt to counter them. This is exactly where the problem is, but I do agree that the language is probably the primary issue. > Most of the work of scientists and scholars from the Golden Age of Islam was unavailable in the West until much later so while much of it predated later Western developments, the later developments were still independent. Firstly, their work was unavailable, but now it is available, and yet you don't see mainstream books on the history of science adding this newfound information in. By now, science historians probably know about the well-known Islamic scholars, which is why my theory is that they are willfully ignoring such work because of cultural, ideological, and religious differences. Secondly, your point about later developments being independent is debatable. There are a number of prominent Muslim historians who argue that early Renaissance scientists used translated works from Muslim scholars without proper attribution. One such example is that Ibn al-Shatir's (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ibn_al-Shatir https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ibn_al-Shatir) mathematics was used by Copernicus.
- astine 10y ago
  "Firstly, their work was unavailable, but now it is available, and yet you don't see mainstream books on the history of science adding this newfound information in." Really? I don't think I've ever come across a book on the subject that didn't source well known borrowings like Arabic numerals or Algebra correctly. Other things like the Ibn al-Shatir example seems more speculative to me. Yes, it's possible that that 15th century Polish mathematician had access to a 14th century Arab astronomer's work, but as far as I know, there is no evidence for it aside from a similarity in the work. Considering that Calculus was invented independently by two entirely separate people it doesn't seem unlikely that Copernicus's model was independent. I'd like to know if there were any translations of Ibn al-Shatir's work in Latin, German, or Greek available at the time of Copernicus and in Poland. It would be easier to make a judgement in that case. But that's also beside the point with Copernicus. The reason we remember Copernicus at all is not for the most of the small innovations he made over the Ptolemaic model, whether he borrowed them from Ibn al-Shatir or not, but for the reason that he placed the Sun at the center of his model. That's not something that he borrowed from Ibn al-Shatir because Ibn al-Shatir was a geocentrist. So, whether not Copernicus borrowed from this specific Arab astronomer isn't all that important in this case. Perhaps there are other, more important, influences and I don't know about them because they aren't in the history books I've read, but I haven't seen evidence of this.

by astine 10y ago

Cyph0n 10y ago

> Not really. Most historians base their history books on those who came before them. [...] Historical imbalances will persist without an attempt to counter them. This is exactly where the problem is, but I do agree that the language is probably the primary issue. > Most of the work of scientists and scholars from the Golden Age of Islam was unavailable in the West until much later so while much of it predated later Western developments, the later developments were still independent. Firstly, their work was unavailable, but now it is available, and yet you don't see mainstream books on the history of science adding this newfound information in. By now, science historians probably know about the well-known Islamic scholars, which is why my theory is that they are willfully ignoring such work because of cultural, ideological, and religious differences. Secondly, your point about later developments being independent is debatable. There are a number of prominent Muslim historians who argue that early Renaissance scientists used translated works from Muslim scholars without proper attribution. One such example is that Ibn al-Shatir's (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ibn_al-Shatir https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ibn_al-Shatir) mathematics was used by Copernicus.

astine 10y ago
"Firstly, their work was unavailable, but now it is available, and yet you don't see mainstream books on the history of science adding this newfound information in." Really? I don't think I've ever come across a book on the subject that didn't source well known borrowings like Arabic numerals or Algebra correctly. Other things like the Ibn al-Shatir example seems more speculative to me. Yes, it's possible that that 15th century Polish mathematician had access to a 14th century Arab astronomer's work, but as far as I know, there is no evidence for it aside from a similarity in the work. Considering that Calculus was invented independently by two entirely separate people it doesn't seem unlikely that Copernicus's model was independent. I'd like to know if there were any translations of Ibn al-Shatir's work in Latin, German, or Greek available at the time of Copernicus and in Poland. It would be easier to make a judgement in that case. But that's also beside the point with Copernicus. The reason we remember Copernicus at all is not for the most of the small innovations he made over the Ptolemaic model, whether he borrowed them from Ibn al-Shatir or not, but for the reason that he placed the Sun at the center of his model. That's not something that he borrowed from Ibn al-Shatir because Ibn al-Shatir was a geocentrist. So, whether not Copernicus borrowed from this specific Arab astronomer isn't all that important in this case. Perhaps there are other, more important, influences and I don't know about them because they aren't in the history books I've read, but I haven't seen evidence of this.