3 ms·

> Not really. Most historians base their history books on those who came before them. [...] Historical imbalances will persist without an attempt to counter the

by 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 Cyph0n 10y ago

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.