24 ms·
Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)
- jononomo 6y agoIt seems to me that the connection between Europe and Science has to do with the prevalence of Christianity in Europe.
- amai 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam is one of the mentioned nobel prize winners (Physics 1979). Unfortunately the following happened according to Wikipedia: "The epitaph on his tomb initially read "First Muslim Nobel Laureate". The Pakistani government removed "Muslim" and left only his name on the headstone. They are the only nation to officially declare that Ahmadis are non-Muslim."
- vivekpandian 6y agoIt's incorrect to say that algebra was from Arabia or middle-east. Mathematics, science, medicine etc travelled from India to Arabia. During their trade with India, Sanskrit works were translated by arabs. And during their european conquest, these arabic works travelled to europe
- aaronblohowiak 6y agothis is explicitly addressed and refuted in the article.
- quda 6y agoIslam ruined the Arabic world. And still continues today to ruin others. Europe is next.
- rdiddly 6y agoAn opportunity was missed to mention that al-Khwarizmi not only invented algebra but also is the namesake of the algorithm. Another opportunity was missed to even breathe a word about the Crusades whatsoever. Finally even I was insulted to hear about "Avicenna, also known as Ibn-Sina." By those who knew him best and first, he was known as Ibn-Sina, but he also later became known to faraway mispronouncers and romanizers as Avicenna.
- boyadjian 6y agoIt's maybe, because science explains that there are limits in this world, where Islam does not want to hear about any limit.
- zeveb 6y ago> Pre-modern science, while not blind to utility, sought knowledge primarily in order to understand philosophical questions concerned with meaning, being, the good, and so on. Modern science, by contrast, grew out of a revolution in thought that reoriented politics around individual comfort through the mastery of nature. Modern science dismisses ancient metaphysical questions as (to borrow Francis Bacon’s words) the pursuit of pleasure and vanity. Curious, because I think to a pre-modern philosopher the pursuit of knowledge and mastery is itself the pursuit of vanity & pleasure. After all, (pace Aubrey de Grey) all men will some day die, no matter how much knowledge they have or what levels of technological control over the natural world they achieve.
- tasogare 6y agoShort answer to the title: "With the rise of the Ash’arites, the ethos in the Islamic world was increasingly opposed to original scholarship and any scientific inquiry that did not directly aid in religious regulation of private and public life" My opinion on the matter is that, in the islamic world, religious careers are more socially rewarding than scientific ones. Thus the best minds seeking a good social position go the religious studies instead. The idea of science is also not really important to a lot of muslims, who views their holy book as a revelation that explained the world already.
- rat9988 6y ago>My opinion on the matter is that, in the islamic world, religious careers are more socially rewarding than scientific ones. Thus the best minds seeking a good social position go the religious studies instead. The idea of science is also not really important to a lot of muslims, who views their holy book as a revelation that explained the world already. I do really doubt it.
- throwaway123x2 6y agoI'm from a Muslim country and now living in the West: and I can say that this is incorrect. Generally speaking where I am from, the best minds go to medicine, the next best to engineering and law, and the leftovers go to the military / religious study. The failure of those best minds to produce results is an artifact of non-reason based education (in my country there was a huge emphasis on rote learning) and a lack of institutional support. My friends in the West from other Muslim countries have corroborated this. It's always the bottom tier of students or the particularly devout that end up in the clergy.
- ayende 6y agoYou are talking about the situation now. What was it like in the period of time that article is talking about?
- Juliate 6y agoWhat the article seems to notice is that some parts of a civilization succeed to institutionalize themselves (and gain momentum over others thanks to it) and some don't. In a very sketchy way: - you may have excellent scientists and prestige for science, but no institutional structure/ecosystem to support, promote and benefit from it; - you may have lousy clergy but a well-working institution/structure of religion that helps with its prominence over society. (and the other way around, and mid-ways as well)
- temptemptemp111 6y agoThere are now 3 TED talks promoting pedophilia & a mainstream TV show depicting pedophilia... Seems like the "Arabic world" is winning when it comes to the most basic criteria for a good society (they really mean "Islamic," but they're dishonest).
- charliebrownau 6y agoYou can either have Freedom or Goverment Region or Truth Truth or Narritive All region is based on exiling anyone that rejects the narritive
- AndyMcConachie 6y agoMore white supremacist garbage on HN.
- blackbear_ 6y agoCare to point out what is racist in there and what you disagree with?
- LandR 6y ago> white supremacist This term is being so over used that it's essentially meaningless. Calling everything white supremacist actually hurts whatever cause you think you are fighting.
- goodluckchuck 6y agoThat’s such a wired to response to seemingly true facts. Do you mean to say that the author is wrong? If so, I would love to know what’s incorrect.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- petre 6y agoDo you know where the words algorithm, algebra, arithmetic come from? "Born into a Persian family in Khuwarizm (present-day Xorazm Province, Uzbekistan), Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (also known by the Latin form of his name, Algoritmi, circa 780–850 AD, 164–236 AH) was a Muslim mathematician, astronomer, and geographer, and a scholar in the famed House of Wisdom in Baghdad. Al-Khwarazmi wrote Kitab al-Jabr wa-l-Muqabala (The compendious book on calculation by completion and balancing) around 830 AD, with the encouragement of Caliph Al-Maamoun, the reigning Abbasid caliph of Baghdad in 813–33 AD. It is meant to be a useful work, with examples and applications for everyday life, in areas such as trade, legal inheritance, and surveying. The mathematical term algebra is derived from al-jabr, one of the two operations he used to solve quadratic equations. Also, the words algorism, algorithm, and arithmetic stem from Algoritmi. Similarly, his name is the origin of the Spanish term guarismo and of the Portuguese algarismo, both meaning digit."
- pjc50 6y ago> "We will turn to this question later, but it is important to keep in mind that the decline of scientific activity is the rule, not the exception, of civilizations. While it is commonplace to assume that the scientific revolution and the progress of technology were inevitable, in fact the West is the single sustained success story out of many civilizations with periods of scientific flourishing. Like the Muslims, the ancient Chinese and Indian civilizations, both of which were at one time far more advanced than the West, did not produce the scientific revolution." .. so far, so good. There's always the risk that the West might internally reject the scientific revolution. This paragraph is a useful reminder that historical "progress" isn't linear or monotonic. This article is very good on the background in the era of the Caliphate and early scientific progress in medieval Europe. Where it falls down is the past century. We can draw comparison with the Meiji restoration; Japan went from insular agrarianism to a world power to collapse to continued scientific development through to the 21st century. As did much of the Far East. Why not the Middle east? Anyway, excellent longread.
- dragontamer 6y ago> Why not the Middle east? When Japan was conquered by USA in 1940s, the USA treated it with much more respect than the Europeans did vs the Ottoman Empire from WW1. As a result, Japan was able to regrow into a world power. While the countries that formerly constituted the Ottomans are under a constant civil war (and major military groups, like ISIS, dream of re-establishing a religious empire of old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Caliphate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Caliphate) Its not very hard to imagine a "cut up Japan", a hypothetical disarmed Japan where the USA would split between Britain / France / Russia / other members of the allies. In fact, we can look to the (eastern part) of the Soviet Union to see how well splitting up countries went during WW2. The East / West Germany thing almost surely stunted Germany's growth back into its world standing. -------- With that being said: the Ottomans were certainly in a decline by the late 1800s, before WWI broke out. But I can't imagine that WWI did those countries any favors.
- tooltalk 6y ago>> the USA treated it with much more respect ... the looming threat of communism from Russia and China played an important role in US's post-war policy in Japan and Japan's immediate post war recovery. While Japan was allowed to stay united as one, the Korean peninsula was divided, though the territory was never part of the WW2 theater. The Korean civil war led by the communist North likewise boosted Japan's quick recovery.
- ruricolist 6y agoMongols.
- amai 6y agoRussia was under Mongol rule for centuries. It didn't prevent them from sending the first man into space. I highly doubt Mongols have anything to do with that.
- konjin 6y agoA civilization stops scientific activity when you kill its scientists and burn its libraries. Who would have thought? How much science would get done in the US if everyone in the 50 largest cities is killed or enslaved and the cities are razed?
- inglor_cz 6y agoWell, it is not as if other regions of the world, including Europe, did not have their own massive disasters. Vikings, Mongol attacks, Turkish attacks, the 30 Year War... An interesting question why was Baghdad so unique that its loss led to disaster. Could it be that the rest of the Muslim world was, by this point in time, not very interested in science? European science survived such events probably because of its polycentricity. There was no single point of failure.
- konjin 6y agoBecause Egypt was conquered by the Mamluks and Andalusia by the Spanish at the same time. There was no area under Muslim control that was not ruled by barbarians whose idea of hygiene was washing their posterior every time they crossed a river. The Mongol invasion was a unique event in Eurasian history. They make every other invasion and conquest seem tame by comparison. If you have a choice of facing Macedon, Rome, Napoleon, Nazi Germany, the USSR or the Mongols never choose the Mongols. It was the first and only time a single power could have destroyed all other civilizations and came very close to it. To the point where they managed to destroy both the Polish, Hungarian and Romanian crusader armies within days of each other, with minimum casualties and would have continued depopulating Europe to the English Channel if the Khan had not died and the majority of the army returned home for a civil war. The reason Europeans aren't riding horses fighting a rear-guard action against the Aztec conquistadors is because the Mongol court liked silks and perfumes enough to not raze every city they conquered.
- xvilka 6y ago> There's always the risk that the West might internally reject the scientific revolution This risk is real. Just see how many American citizens rejecting medical science in times of pandemic.
- dang 6y agoPlease don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24729209 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24729209.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Yetanfou 6y agoOr the sudden appearance of a multitude of 'genders', the statement than there is no such thing as biological sex, the denial of the existence of facts which are now to be seen as interpretations and many more of these results of the introduction of 'critical theory' [1,2] in academia. [1] https://newdiscourses.com/ https://newdiscourses.com/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory#In_academia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory#In_academia
- simonklitj 6y agoI think the common lingo is that gender is what you identify as, and sex is what you biologically are (subject to change through sex-change operations).
- Out_of_Characte 6y agoExect that "Gender" in relationship to any animal or conversation is used interchangeably with sex. While Gender-identity is the new age belief that your "Gender-identity" or gender for short, is a preference you can change (With or without sex change operations depending on your political view). The obfuscation of the word itself is a problem in discussions. I find it distastefull how people can 'identify as' male/female black/white. they are immutable characteristics that no one chose for. If you believe that humans can be tribal and racist but should rise above superficial judgement and look at the content of their character then wether or not you personally identify as certain characteristics should be a moot point.
- mda 6y agoWhy does the article focus on "Arabic"? I think "Islamic" or "Muslim" would be a better term as large percentage of scientists and philosophers of the time were not Arabs but of Persian, Moore, Turkic origin.
- Juliate 6y agoIt's discussed in the article. Look for "A preliminary caution must be noted about both parts of the term “Arabic science.”" (and read the 2 paragraphs after it)
- bonoboTP 6y agoExplained in the article. > A preliminary caution must be noted about both parts of the term “Arabic science.” This is, first, because the scientists discussed here were not all Arab Muslims. Indeed, most of the greatest thinkers of the era were not ethnically Arab. This is not surprising considering that, for several centuries throughout the Middle East, Muslims were a minority (a trend that only began to change at the end of the tenth century). The second caution about “Arabic science” is that it was not science as we are familiar with it today. Pre-modern science, while not blind to utility, sought knowledge primarily in order to understand philosophical questions concerned with meaning, being, the good, and so on. Modern science, by contrast, grew out of a revolution in thought that reoriented politics around individual comfort through the mastery of nature. Modern science dismisses ancient metaphysical questions as (to borrow Francis Bacon’s words) the pursuit of pleasure and vanity. Whatever modern science owes to Arabic science, the intellectual activity of the medieval Islamic world was not of the same kind as the European scientific revolution, which came after a radical break from ancient natural philosophy. Indeed, even though we use the term “science” for convenience, it is important to remember that this word was not coined until the nineteenth century; the closest word in Arabic — ilm — means “knowledge,” and not necessarily that of the natural world. > Still, there are two reasons why it makes sense to refer to scientific activity of the Golden Age as Arabic. The first is that most of the philosophical and scientific work at the time was eventually translated into Arabic, which became the language of most scholars in the region, regardless of ethnicity or religious background. And second, the alternatives — “Middle Eastern science” or “Islamic science” — are even less accurate. This is in part because very little is known about the personal backgrounds of these thinkers. But it is also because of another caution we must keep in mind about this subject, which ought to be footnoted to every broad assertion made about the Golden Age: surprisingly little is known for certain even about the social and historical context of this era. Abdelhamid I. Sabra, a now-retired professor of the history of Arabic science who taught at Harvard, described his field to the New York Times in 2001 as one that “hasn’t even begun yet.”
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- netcan 6y agoThe problem with theorizing about such things is that, being untestable, it's very hard to distinguish between our own narrative biases and objectivity. Maybe the golden age was a byproduct of imperialism. Not many naked imperialists out there anymore, but the arguments are easy enough to make. The US, The USSR... both with some stunning scientific achievements (eg nuclear physics, space travel, physics) achievements during their most imperial, post-war years. The British. The Dutch. The Chinese. The Mongol empire(s) were pretty intellectually advanced. Maybe it was multiculturalism. Circa 8-13th centuries, most muslim countries were pretty diverse. They had muslim leadership, but the plurality was still Christian, Zoroastrian and such. Maybe it was capitalism. Muslims were traders, especially relative to medieval Christendom. Maybe it was societal youth. Ibn Khaldun^, IMO greatest of the arab (and ethnically arab) golden age scholars, had a theories parsimonious with this. Maybe it was "the flame of western civilization." As the article states, they did inherit the post Byzantine world of Greek culture which passed through roman hands from the Greeks. The Greeks themselves inherited it from the Persians, so maybe it's the flame of Persian civilization, or even back to Sumerians if you like your narratives grand. Maybe religion. Quranic culture requires literacy, and a theological education was common to nearly all of those great scholars. Maybe it was conquest. The national confidence of a conquering nation. I don't see a way to pick one idea from another. History is not deterministic. We can reflect though, that Ibn Khaldun is the most noteworthy originator of the (now very western) idea that history does have a logic of this kind. ^Genuinely a forerunner to Smith, Marx & such. A lot of Scottish enlightenment may have been catalyzed by the translation of his "Muqdima."
- Juliate 6y agoThe good thing with theorizing with it are the conversations that this triggers. :)
- Gravityloss 6y agoThe West German Wirtschaftswunder? The rise of South Korea? Finland? None needed war or imperialism, actually it was the opposite - peace and stability. There were these nations and people - and once the barriers like external or internal suppression or conflict were removed, they could make large strides.
- bonoboTP 6y agoHaving read the article, the suggested root of it seems to be the non-distinction between politics and religion in Islam. Muhammad was a powerful ruler and prophet. In Christian terms, he was both Christ and Constantine in one.
- hef19898 6y agoWhich did not prevent the islamic world to influence mathematics and medicine, among other things, in Europe until they were driven out of Spain.
- feralimal 6y agoHa ha - primitive Islamic religionists!! Only we are exactly the same, but are blind to our failings. This narrative plays on our conceited, flabby, unreasoned thinking. But its nice to laugh to others, eh? Science to me, is the application of the scientific method. This is to say that whatever is being looked at should be repeatable, and consistently provide the same results. Strictly speaking, when we say we know, we should be saying that because we have applied the scientific method personally. The reality is that science in 'the West' does not provide us the knowledge we think it does. The use of the pronoun 'we' cuts to the chase of the problem - WE assume that our scientists have this. But step back and think about what it is to know - it can't be a case of trusting scientists. I should be able to take whatever is being proposed or claimed and verify it personally. But no one - NO ONE - is verifying anything personally. No one is testing the claims. We all live in our silos, trusting that others are working in good faith. Trusting that the stories we are told are not just hearsay. We trust the results we are provided, without any verification. We trust that what we are provided are not stories, but are actual verifiable science. My point is that no one is personally verifying science. On an individual level we cannot be sure that these are not stories and hearsay. With the virus, has anyone here ever used an electron microscope? Did you see a virus with it? Why do you think it is a virus? Etc etc. The truth is our reason is actually faith too! Science, as we do it, ie based on trust and without personal verification, is absolutely equivalent to religion. A comforting, explanatory story is provided and we believe we 'know' what is happening. Scientists are our priests and we take their pronouncements as gospel, without questioning them.
- Shorel 6y agoExcept science is not static like religion, it changes with new discoveries and explanations. And, at high school level, basic science is tested and experiments are repeated. So at the very least, some people learn proper scientific thinking, while others just learn to repeat "facts". In contrast, everything that religion is, is just memorization of some old ideas, and treating personal anecdotes and made up stories like they are statistically significant data.
- pvaldes 6y ago> But no one - NO ONE - is verifying anything personally. No one is testing the claims. My point is that no one is personally verifying science Each science article is extensively reviewed. First when you need to force yourself to read previous articles in the same field. Second by your boss and other members in the team. Third time by a peers system, and is not easy at all to pass. Sometimes must be corrected two or three times more. Often is rejected and sent to other journal, that will require the same process. Journals can ask for your laboratory notes and raw data and repeat the calculus by themselves. Is not unusual. After an article is published anybody can point to something found incorrect on it. So the truth is that science, the real science, is extensively reviewed. There are groups specially prone to fraud, and many articles are garbage, but are most the exception than the norm.
- afrcnc 6y agotl;dr: Muslim religious leaders realized that if they keep their followers dumb, they're easier to manipulate.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bonoboTP 6y agoSome interesting excerpts: > [...] this view sees natural things that appear to be permanent as merely following habit. Heat follows fire and hunger follows lack of food as a matter of habit, not necessity, “just as the king generally rides on horseback through the streets of the city, and is never found departing from this habit; but reason does not find it impossible that he should walk on foot through the place.” [...] tomorrow coldness might follow fire, and satiety might follow lack of food. God wills every single atomic event and God’s will is not bound up with reason. [...] “Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.” [...] “Nothing in nature can act spontaneously and apart from God.” [...] Mohammed Yusuf, the late leader of a group called the Nigerian Taliban, explained why “Western education is a sin” by explaining its view on rain: “We believe it is a creation of God rather than an evaporation caused by the sun that condenses and becomes rain.” [...] the 2010 eruption of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano was the result of God’s anger at immodestly dressed women in Europe. We often overlook in hindsight how unclear it was how the world works at its basics in earlier times. In other words, it could have turned out that way. It was partially luck that the West got it right. For all they knew, it could have been really God micromanaging everything with no humanly discernible consistency or laws to it. Certainly not ones that are as simple as Newton's laws for example. It was not at all inevitable that, say, the intricate dance of celestial bodies can be reduced to 3 laws of motion plus the inverse square law for gravity.
- mrwnmonm 6y agoI am an Arab and I am pretty sure the article is full of misinformation before even reading it, but will read it anyway. Take the first paragraph > Contemporary Islam is not known for its engagement in the modern scientific project. But it is heir to a legendary “Golden Age” of Arabic science frequently invoked by commentators hoping to make Muslims and Westerners more respectful and understanding of each other. President Obama, for instance, in his June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, praised Muslims for their historical scientific and intellectual contributions to civilization. So first it says Contemporary "Islam" is not known for its engagement in the modern scientific project. Then it says Golden Age of "Arabic" science. Funny distinction. If you gonna use 'Arabic', use it everywhere. Also another funny thing that the "Idealistic" president, Obama, who they say praised muslims for their historical scientific and intellectual contributions to civilization, had no problem working with dictators who are the main reason for the decline of scientific study in the region. And also had no problem supporting Al Sisi coup after the Egyptian revolution. Edit: Adding that the Obama administration didn't want to admit it is a coup to be able to keep giving aid to the Egyptian military, which is prevented by the American constitution in case of a coup. Professor Chomsky always said that the US won't allow true democracy in the middle east. He even had a lecture in 2011 just after the revolution started predicting exactly what happened. So the US uses its power to keep the situation as it is, then the very much honest westerners come and say that we are backward in scientific study. Thanks guys. You are very wise and honest.
- pvaldes 6y agoYou don't need to have a democracy to do science. Many great scientists in Europe or Asia were able to work in the context of absolute monarchies, terrible dictators or a context of patronage. None of those were "democratic" at all. Having a true democracy would be a bless for sure, but don't think that will magically produce scientists, or revolutionary new points of view. You need to seed, nurture, care for and harvest decades later. And this is one of the causes of decline of science. Everybody is now planned, arranged and forced to fit in chunks of 4 years, so the people now in power can take all the credit. As bad as dictators are, a stable dictatorship could ironically lead to a much more comfortable environment for scientists than a democracy. The first thing that many politicians do after stepping in power is to fire the scientists identified with the previous government (or discredit their work, or remove their funds...).
- 29athrowaway 6y agoThe Islamic Golden Age is the true cause behind the European Reinassance. 1) Introduction of paper. 2) Latin translations of the 12th century from Toledo and Sicily, former Islamic territories. 3) Higher education (Madrasas -> Universities) 4) Philosophical reforms of the church that made science legal (Averroism -> Scholasticism), paving the way to Secularism.
- grahoho 6y agoI'd say the invention of the printing press had a far more profound influence.
- 29athrowaway 6y agoThe printing press becomes a practical invention only once: 1) You have something to print on 2) You have content worth printing The introduction of paper to Europe and the Latin translations in Toledo and Sicily (cities in former Islamic territories) are the answer to 1 and 2. Paper is cheap, scalable, durable and portable. Pre-paper technology such as papyrus, parchments, tablets and carvings have issues in those regards. Greek literature from Archimedes, Aristotle, Apollonius, Euclid, Diocles, Galen, Hippocrates, Ptolomy, and many others, was reintroduced to the West through those translations.
- filterbubble 6y agoI've been saying this for years. At the risk of hyperbole, it's not an accepted explanation bc teaching such in school would be tantamount to saying something other than Western culture has value. Can down voters please explain why you disagree? (Unless hn is just overrun with deluded brainwashed lunatics.)
- 29athrowaway 6y agoMy guess is: 1) Because it is not a widely accepted POV, although there is overwhelming evidence for it. 2) Because Classic Islamic philosophy is often seen as mistaken by Scholastic philosophers (even if Scholastic philosophy would not exist without Averroism) and those philosophers are the precursors of modern philosophers. 3) Because Ancient Greeks are considered Western but Islamic caliphates are not. 4) Because the Crusades were associated with significant revisionism, including book burning of Arabic books, which makes it harder but not impossible to susbstantiate this POV. 5) Because some people (usually the far right people that listen to historically inaccurate podcasts and radio shows) believe that the West civilized the world and a POV that sounds opposite to that and credits their religious/ideological adversaries cause them to become very, very upset.
- bobdupneu 6y agoWhat an elaborate piece of nonsense ! Modern science needs money, human capital and democracy. Some Arab countries have money but have to use it to buy western consumer goods rather than invest it in knowledge or their own production capacity -- otherwise a coup might happen. Autocratic Arab rulers are also understandably reluctant to invest in human capital. Knowledge and critical thinking are the basis of any scientific endeavor, but will also undermine their rule. Finally sustained progress in science needs democracy to ensure technology is used in the interest of the many and not against them by the few. To get things right, the Arab street needs "only" to get rid of their inept ruling class and cut the influence of their Western overlords. Islam is not the problem and will adapt to the new political rule, much better than Christianity could ever do.
- hannofcart 6y agoThe Islamic world has no exclusive monopoly on inept, corrupt, undemocratic overlords. Notable examples of regions afflicted by the same problem are the entire Soviet bloc. And China. And yet these are typically at the vanguard of scientific and technological development. The Soviets beat the Americans to space under exactly that class of autocratic ruling elite.
- Sporktacular 6y agoHard to put my finger on why this feels off. The title 'Arabic World' is strange, it's usually the "Arab world" unless they're referring to the regions where Arabic is spoken. It then gives statistics for Iran and Turkey, neither of which are significantly Arabic speaking countries, by which point you realise they're conflating ethnic-linguistic groups with the most region's most popular religion. So by the time it's quoting Bernard Lewis this feels like the old Zionist reductionist talking points you periodically hear from right wing conservatives bashing Islam. A quick search of the publication shows why this isn't an accident. "Islam has no tradition of separating politics and religion", well neither did Christianity, until it did. This is not to say the state of education there is fine, nor can it be said people there are happy about it either. Every one of those countries have had nascent democracy movements crushed by their governments with the help of foreign backed interests and companies. We're supposed to buy that it's just Islam, please don't look at NSO Group and Finfisher cashing in on the strangulation of reform - reform led by, yes, students, academics and other such terrorist armies of the night.
- hannofcart 6y agoThe article elaborates on that choice of words.
- Sporktacular 6y agoIt did. Just not well enough for the sweeping generalisations that followed.
- g8oz 6y agoIndeed the article starts off okay, but by the time it gets to the "Why Inquiry Failed in the Islamic World" section it rapidly turns into a dumpster fire. The usual Western triumphalist brain farts in discussing the Islamic world are present: * exaggerating the extent of separation of Church and State in Christianity. * exaggerating the marginalization of non-Muslim minorities in medieval Muslim societies and framing it as unique while completely ignoring the treatment of non-Christian minorities in Christian societies in the same period (hint: not that great) * implying that Muslim success are a fluke and it's failures reflect the true nature of Islam You know in 1980 some blowhard could have surveyed the world's Catholic countries and noted how many of them were under authoritarian regimes. Said blowhard could have then wrote a long essay detailing the authoritarian history and nature of the Catholic Church, linking it to present political conditions. He could then contrast it with the nature of Protestantism and success of Protestant nations, explain away France as an outlier to due to lingering Huguenot influence. "From Latin America to Spain & Portugal to the Philippines the unquestioning obedience to an unaccountable organization in spiritual matters has primed the Catholic world for predisposition to dictatorship" he would solemnly declare. "Contrast this with the marketplace of ideas that exists in the Protestant sphere and the idea of the worshiper having a direct relationship to God rather than an intermediating hierarchy". You get my point. From Wikipedia: "In science and philosophy, a just-so story is an untestable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals."
- simonh 6y agoThe reason for this is that historically most civilizations, or phases of civilizations have lacked two things. One is the strong, persistent social institutions needed to maintain the momentum of scientific progress. The other is a solid socialised understanding of scientific methods. To maintain consistent scientific and engineering development you need both, and possibly a third in the from of the printing press, otherwise advances are at the whim of individual people, their influence and attitude to methods. Solid rational investigative techniques go back a very long way. Even the Romans had a good understanding of how to prove a theory. Galen's work on the renal system for example involving public demonstrations on live pigs. The Antikethyra mechanism shows how advanced engineering could be in the Greek world at the time. The problem was there was no institutionalisation and formalisation of these methods to enable their systematic and sustained application, so they melted away when the thinkers and artisans, or small groups of them that made these advances died or disbanded. In the Arab world yes there were universities and medical schools, but these were the personal projects of particular rulers and their favourites that lasted a while and then melted away. There was nothing wrong with the Arab world, or ancient China, or India. It's just that the several necessary ingredients for sustained progress in science happened to come together in Europe first.
- bg117 6y agoThere were more than one university in India thousand years back and hosted thousands of students. Islamic Invasions destroyed the culture.
- webmobdev 6y agoAnd the Mongols destroyed the Islamic empire. All that's in the past, and it feels good to live in the imagined glory of the past - but what's the excuse today for us indians when our idiot Prime Minister Narendra Modi claims that ancient India had nuclear weapons, aeroplanes and spacecraft and did inter-species head transplant by citing religious mythology as the proof for it? Or when his government wants to promote Astrology as Science today??
- 6y ago
- 082349872349872 6y agoHeterodox explanation: > ”Nothing in Europe,” notes Jamil Ragep, a professor of the history of science at the University of Oklahoma, “could hold a candle to what was going on in the Islamic world until about 1600.” Before the portuguese (1498-1974?) and the spanish (1492-1976?) overseas empires, the arab world was in the middle of the prime trade routes between asia and europe. Afterwards, their status as middleman was increasingly cut out (especially once the dutch and then british got into the maritime empire game). Science happens where there are rich people; rich people happen where there are bottlenecks in trade. As they say in the asteroid belt: na desh walowda walowda peyeting; imim na xunyam sasating?
- galfarragem 6y ago> Science happens where there are rich people; rich people happen where there are bottlenecks in trade. It can't be that simple. How do you fit there, for example, russian space exploration?
- 082349872349872 6y agoEasy: the КПСС was the bottleneck between the oil and natural gas fields of the Union and the fuel importers of the West. They were the funders of the Космическая программа СССР from the 1930s on. Two things happened in 1985: KSA opened the taps to full production, tanking oil prices, and the Plaza Accord weakened the dollar. Since oil is denominated in USD, this further kneecapped soviet hard currency income. While they were simultaneously attempting to fight a war in afghanistan, the real price of oil had dropped by a factor of 3. Elsewhere, as a result of the Plaza Accord, west germany used its stronger marks to buy out east germany as a fire sale from the Warsaw Pact, but I still have no idea what japan (or perhaps just the LDP selectorate?) got from its stronger yen, other than (averaged across the whole country) stagnation. TIL Polan can into space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirosław_Hermaszewski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirosław_Hermaszewski (double checking received opinions never hurts, compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737221 ) ==== Conspiracy theory: Compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24736853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24736853 and consider that anyone outside who for whatever reason had been modelling the soviet economy might have been able to show to the actors within it (especially after Gorbi's transparency reforms) that it was worth more in pieces than as a going conglomerate, in which case the implosion of the soviet union would have been the ultimate stakeholder activism geopolitical LBO. If Mark Felt had been a Belter, he would have said du chesh peyeting instead of "follow the money."
- magwa101 6y agoWhen god has all the answers you lose agency.
- eternalban 6y agoMuslim science is not Arab science. Muslim world is not Arab world. In general, Muslim =/= Arab, and Arab =/= Muslim. However, Arabs do spend quite a lot of money in various quarters and apparently are deep into a cultural appropriation program of denuding all other Muslim nations of their substantial claims (more than actual Arab scientists) to “Islam’s Golden Age”. > Indeed, most of the greatest thinkers of the era were not ethnically Arab. Yet the author perversely chooses to call it Arab science, and Arab Golden Age. He then puts forward a completely unsupported theory that this is because “for several centuries throughout the Middle East, Muslims were a minority”. Let’s follow Hillel’s tortured logic here: - Most of Muslim thinkers of Muslim Golden Age were not Arabs. - This is because Muslims were a minority in Middle East. - Thus we need “caution” before we go ahead and call them Arab Scientists. It is also necessary to correct Hillel’s implicit that most “Arab Scientists” were non-Muslim non-Arabs. The fact remains that most of these non-Arabs were Muslims. Hillel is invited to offer a list of non-Muslim “great thinkers” of the era. Arab money is making a mess in all sort of places. But it will not be permitted to mess with the history and heritage of the Muslim nations.
- naringas 6y ago"Why was Arab science so good during their golden age? because they copied the greeks"
- pknerd 6y agoEvery nation copied others work. It's called wisdom of crowd or knowledge transfer. The West then had copied the work of Arabs.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- WorkLobster 6y agoSomething to remark on: Abdus Salam (the Pakistani Nobel Physics laureate mentioned near the top) and Steven Weinberg (quoted two sentences later as saying he hasn't read anything worthwhile from a physicist working in a Muslim country) collaborated together on the work that won them that same nobel prize (Glashow-Weinberg-Salam model of electroweak interaction).
- amai 6y agoUnfortunately the following happened according to Wikipedia: "The epitaph on his tomb initially read "First Muslim Nobel Laureate". The Pakistani government removed "Muslim" and left only his name on the headstone. They are the only nation to officially declare that Ahmadis are non-Muslim." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam
- jchb 6y agoAbdus Salam belonged to a school/sect of Islam that encourages open debate and promotes a scientific interpretation of the Quran. "Salam was an Ahmadi Muslim, who saw his religion as a fundamental part of his scientific work. ... In 1974, the Pakistan parliament made the Second Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan that declared Ahmadi to be non-Muslim. In protest, Salam left Pakistan for London." [0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam#Religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam#Religion
- WorkLobster 6y agoThanks for that extra info. I'm wondering if Weinberg's comment may in fact have been in support of Salam and his (possibly frustrated) experiences in Pakistan, rather than in contradiction of it. I think it would have been a fruitful avenue for the article to pursue.
- jchb 6y agoIt seems so, a key part of that quote is "working in". https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=d2tF-L00-X8C&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=%22My+late+friend,+the+distinguished+Pakistani+physicist+Abdus+Salam%22&source=bl&ots=CgizFKnGgL&sig=ACfU3U2MOqTvCbPAoxMln1wyvk7IOBYRCw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi2_ebo66fsAhWOyosBHVqZBAQQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22My%20late%20friend%2C%20the%20distinguished%20Pakistani%20physicist%20Abdus%20Salam%22&f=false https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=d2tF-L00-X8C&pg=PA216&lp... "My late friend, the distinguished Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam, tried to convince the rulers of the oil-rich states of the Persian Gulf to invest in scientific education and research, but he found that though they were enthusiastic about technology, they felt that pure science presented too great a challenge to faith. In 1981, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt called for an end to scientific education. In the areas of science I know best, though there are talented scientists of Muslim origin working productively in the West, for forty years I have not seen a single paper by a physicist or astronomer working in a Muslim country that was worth reading"
- wrnr 6y agoI just love facts like this: Although Spain is hardly an intellectual superpower, it translates more books in a single year than the entire Arab world has in the past thousand years. The links to the UN report seems to check out, but on the other hand I've heart that publishing is not a very lucrative business in Arabia and most translations are fan translations
- Mediterraneo10 6y agoIt also has to do with translations in the Arab world being made into Modern Standard Arabic, a somewhat artificial language that is totally different from the local dialect people actually speak. Arabs don't want to read books in MSA just like younger generations of Greeks don't want to read books in katharevousa. And in the Maghreb, French has become established as the language of literature and magazines, so those peoples are doubly aloof from MSA.
- tgflynn 6y agoThis article makes for an interesting read. I'm not qualified to evaluate its historical claims but its claims about the current state of science in the Muslim world don't agree with what little knowledge I have in that area. That knowledge comes from having been acquainted with a number of Muslim students and scientists both in the US and in France. I did not at all get the impression that they came from a culture that does not value open rational inquiry, despite several, at least, being devout Muslims. I'm sure Fundamentalists are deeply opposed to anything resembling science but as far as I know they are a minority in most of the Muslim world. I should qualify these statements by noting that most of the Muslims I knew came from the Maghreb rather than say the Persian Gulf area so maybe things are very different there. There are also some other possible explanations for the relative lack of success of scientific research in Muslim countries today that the article does not consider. First many of these countries are relatively poor and under-developed so if you are born there and have the opportunity to study science you are likely to be encouraged to go into more practical fields, like engineering, rather than pure research, which is very under-funded in these countries, again mostly due to overall lack of resources. Secondly if you really want to go into research your best bet is to emigrate to the west if that is at all possible. Again some of this doesn't apply to the oil rich states of the Persian Gulf, but I think the brain drain effect is at work even there.
- xiaolingxiao 6y agoSame. In college some of the smartest people I know come from Iran Syria Lebanon and such. Tehran university is good at producing scholars. Not sure about the average person, but I do get a sense that scholarship is valued.
- nashashmi 6y ago> your best bet is to emigrate to the west if that is at all possible And THAT is the problem in any non-western country. The extent of brain drain by more flourishing economies are the prime reasons why certain countries are plagued by lack of education, lack of opportunity, spread of corruption, and spread of gang-like entities.
- 6y ago
- pknerd 6y ago> Sunnis embraced al-Ghazali as the winner of the debate with the Hellenistic rationalists Let's assume it is true and Sunnis followed Ghazali and stopped thinking, pondering and doing research work but what about Shias and other factions of it? Why did not they produce something amazing in science? One can't blame Ghazali for all the mess, especially when he was not followed by all Islamic sects. I will not blame Islam or Quran either. It is something else, probably some kind of excuse or laziness. I wanted to say that the "Hunger for Heaven" might have made them not to use brains but then I see non practising and liberal/modernist Muslims, they did not do anything remarkable either. I guess it is a culture, some kind of viral disease like thought that propagated in entire Muslim world and it affected regardless of someone is practising Muslim or not. Being a Pakistani muslim I observe that people have no interest of asking questions, they never ask questions. They accept things as it is which is quite irritating. They just accept things as a "gift of God" and prefer to move on rather than finding out WHY is it around.
- captain_price7 6y agoNot disputing you, just wanted to note that Shia Iran is doing far, far better than it's Sunni neighbors, which is even more impressive when you consider the kind of government they have and all those sanctions. And while we Muslims undoubtedly carry the biggest blame for our demise- lets' not forget the west has real interest in keeping the status quo- a free thinking, rational government is fundamentally at odds with the fundamentalist dictators west has been supporting (e.g. in Saudi arabia) for past few centuries.
- pknerd 6y agoTell me some recent Iranian inventions/discoveries. We are not talking about working in some existing field. I am clear about R&D.
- PeterStuer 6y agoDiving straight to the core: "With the rise of the Ash’arites, the ethos in the Islamic world was increasingly opposed to original scholarship and any scientific inquiry that did not directly aid in religious regulation of private and public life. While the Mu’tazilites had contended that the Koran was created and so God’s purpose for man must be interpreted through reason, the Ash’arites believed the Koran to be coeval with God — and therefore unchallengeable. At the heart of Ash’ari metaphysics is the idea of occasionalism, a doctrine that denies natural causality." "According to the occasionalist view, tomorrow coldness might follow fire, and satiety might follow lack of food. God wills every single atomic event and God’s will is not bound up with reason. This amounts to a denial of the coherence and comprehensibility of the natural world." Pretty sure the article was posted to HN to draw parallels to today's rise of constructivism and the decline of positivism as a philosophical reference frame in the West.
- HenriTEL 6y agoAnd also "Mohammed was not only a prophet but also a chief magistrate, a political leader who conquered and governed a religious community he founded. Because Islam was born outside of the Roman Empire, it was never subordinate to politics." "Islam needs a state to enforce its laws, and the state needs a basis in Islam to be legitimate."
- ffhhj 6y agoPhilosophy is mind hunger, an ambition of knowing that takes individuals to risky results like being depressed, isolated and poor. People content with religion, entertainment (social media, consumerism, etc.), or being pressured by their families/relatives to follow non-phylosophical behaviours of hard-workers and breadwinners won't feel the hunger, or will find a replacement for it.
- eternalban 6y agoScience flourished in Muslim lands until the devastating invasion of Mongols effectively destroyed the social and political networks that supported the “Golden Age”. Many families dedicated to learning migrated ahead of the Golden Horde to western parts of Muslim lands. The mystic poet Rumi is a famous example, and even got his name “Rumi” because his family migrated from Khurasan to Anatolia. Based on that background, we know that the cause of the famous decline has little to do with religious doctrine. The Golden Horde of Mongols destroyed the Golden Age of Muslims. Simple enough. West should count its lucky stars that Muslims took the brunt of the Mongol destruction.
- sasaf5 6y agoUndoing the clickbait: After many paragraphs telling that the reason is not simple, it finally centers in occasionalism. > At the heart of Ash’ari metaphysics is the idea of occasionalism, a doctrine that denies natural causality. Put simply, it suggests natural necessity cannot exist because God’s will is completely free. Ash’arites believed that God is the only cause, so that the world is a series of discrete physical events each willed by God.
- disease 6y agoI'll admit to not having read the full article, but would a belief like this make the assumption that God's will could even overrule logic itself. Could God will 2 + 2 = 5? How would you rationalize this? Or perhaps the point is to irradiate rationality.
- sasaf5 6y agoThe point is not to rationalize. God could 2 + 2 = 5 and stop trying to understand His will as it is arbitrary. And then of course use this narrative to legitimize some autocrat.
- mmmmmk 6y agoYes, Al-Ghazali made that point. I don't remember the specific passage but he made the comment that if he left a book in his library, he has no way to know that god did not turn it into a donkey, which was at that moment pissing on all his other books. I'll search for that quote, because it was pretty exciting for a medieval philosophy class.
- bg117 6y agoIf not for the invasion by outside forces like (Turks/Mongols) from around 11th century in present day India, the scientific culture would not have been broken. Invaders destroyed Nalanda university in present day Bihar during one such invasion. Destroying knowledge is the goto activity by invaders and this continues to this day under ISIS also.
- Mediterraneo10 6y agoIndia's learning tradition destroyed at that point in history is more the destruction of philosophy and philology, not so much the hard sciences as in the case of the Arab world which had made considerable strides in these centuries. Unfortunately, many people on this STEM-focused forum probably are not greatly concerned with e.g. the destruction of fora for debating Mahayana Buddhist metaphysics.
- shekharshan 6y agoThe more strong your faith the more likely you are to suppress reason with violence, particularly when reason challenges strongly held beliefs.
- Stierlitz 6y agoI recall reading somewhere, the reason the Arab world turned away from science was when a particular Caliph came to power and gave the order to destroy any material that wasn't mentioned in the Quran.
- rootsudo 6y agoThis is a great post, alongside the fall of Roman, this is something I never looked into it and should be covered in any normal education. Thanks :)
- bayesian_horse 6y agoIn my opinion such developments have less to do with turning to or turning away from "science" and such, but more with the general economy. Western Europe developed into an economic powerhouse during that time, both through population growth and later and concurrent the industrial revolution. That didn't happen in the islamic world (and many third world countries), or only "under the boot" of the Europeans. So now the lesser developed countries are catching up in terms of population numbers but lagging in terms of wealth. And with that, in their investments in science.
- jackcosgrove 6y ago> At the heart of Ash’ari metaphysics is the idea of occasionalism, a doctrine that denies natural causality. Put simply, it suggests natural necessity cannot exist because God’s will is completely free. Ash’arites believed that God is the only cause, so that the world is a series of discrete physical events each willed by God. Oof, that's a handicap. I never knew of this strain of thought until now. It's not unreasonable until you accept the failure of theodicy (or observe the long-term consequences). Being a people of the book can get you far, but at some point you need to stop being a people of the book, and become a people of all books.