Quote:


The death penalty for a thought crime counts as blocking areas of human knowledge and philosophy. Even today many wealthy westerners have their minds blocked by Islam to the extent that they support the death penalty for even trivial deviation from the correct version of Islam. We have seen enough examples right here.

Quote:


You are kind of missing the point here gandalf. Like the guy jumping off the building with feathers glued to his arms, it may contribute to knowledge in a narrow sense, but the fact that it is even mentioned as an example of Muslims contributing to knowledge is yet another symptom of Islam as a barrier to the acquisition of new knowledge. The fact that it is also directly related to Muhammed extolling the virtues of drinking camel piss just adds to the irony. It's like the guy who left the cheese sandwich out overnight and discovered mould on it claiming to be an equal to the guy who invented penicillan. You just have to find a religious reference to the benefits of eating mouldy food to complete the example.

Quote:


It is also a bizarre example of how Islam contributes.

Quote:


I would concede that there was enlightenment, especially in comparison to pre-Islamic Arabia, but genuine contributions to basic science were few and far between. The real contributions were mare more useful in an immediate sense. Warfare and agriculture come to mind as examples.

Quote:


Who do you think this Islamic dark age continues today, even when so many other cultures around the world are jumping ahead? BTW, it is only a dark age compared to the advances made by other cultures. Compared to Islam's history, the modern condition in even the most backwards of Muslim countries is still a great leap forward. They cannot help but be dragged along with the rest of the world, even if it is kicking and screaming.

Quote:


So long as you do it Muhammed's way. Otherwise you get your head chopped off.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 4:11pm:

If people are exploring any kind of knowledge and philosophy outside the bounds of islam, then its not really relevant to our discussion is it? Since we're talking about Islam's contribution to knowledge and philosophy - once you start talking about non-islamic contributions (ie people who have renounced islam), then it becomes entirely irrelevant.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 4:11pm:


I'm not aware of it ever being mentioned in that context. Seems like you are the only person holding camel urine drinking as the pinnacle of islamic science. I'm certainly not, and judging from this thread of islamic scientific achievements, Abu doesn't either - since it is not even mentioned. If you asked me (or any other muslim) what the greatest islamic scientific achievements were, you wouldn't hear 'drinking camel urine' at the top of the list - I would point to things like astronomy, mathematics and medicine. The camel urine might come under the "interesting trivia" section.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 4:11pm:


history disagrees with you. Ever heard of algebra? mathematical induction? Or even the numbering system we use today?

Islamic physicians made invaluable contributions to the knowledge of human anatomy - and advanced surgical techniques as well as the use of medicinal drugs. The first person to discover that fever was a defense mechanism of the body was a muslim. The first dedicated hospitals came from the islamic world - and inspired the creation of European hospitals.

What we now understand as the modern scientific method was first developed in the islamic world.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 4:11pm:


excuse me? What other cultures are "jumping ahead"? - China is about the only significant power and culture that is "jumping ahead" in this world - economically speaking at least. But don't talk about the mighty western world - they are crashing and burning (relatively) in just about every sense.

Mistie is confusing Medieval Europe with the Enlightenment.

It’s a common mistake.

Quote:


Fair enough. Islam's contribution to knowledge was to chop people's heads off if they disagree. It must be coincidence that it stifles every other type of thought.

Quote:


Like I said when I first brought it up, some Muslims did. I think it was Abu. He also gave the example of the guy who jumped off a tall building with feathers glued to his arms in his Islam and science thread.

Quote:


And jumping off tall buildings with feathers glued to your arms.

Quote:


Ever heard of science?

Quote:


Yet you don't even seem aware of what it is. I guess that shouldn't surprise me.

Quote:


Just about everyone is, even without the help of vast wealth from enourmous oil reserves.

Quote:


You mean a peculiar stain on the pavement below?

Quote:


LOL, from your own link that you provided as 'evidence':

He is also said to have made an attempt at flight using a set of wings. The only evidence for this is an account by the Moroccan historian Ahmed Mohammed al-Maqqari (d. 1632), composed seven centuries later

It looks like you have swallowed the Islamic propaganda hook line and sinker, yet again. I guess the truth does not matter when promoting Islam? Can you give any example of great historical European scientists whose contributions were unkown to the world until they appeared in a poem many centuries later? If Muslims put as much effort into actual science as they put into rewriting the history of science (and everything else) they might not be so backwards.

If what you say about this guy is actually true, it would in fact be further evidence of how Islam crushes innovation, for they actually did invent something useful, then promptly forgot about it. But it looks now like this one was entirely fabricated.

Quote:


Except unlike Muslims, they actually achieved it.

Quote:


No it isn't.

Quote:


You seem to be making a distinction between the two here. How is this possible if maths is science?

Quote:


Physics is a basic science.

Quote:


Can you explain how this method applies to maths? What experiments would you do to test a mathematical theory?

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:39pm:


Sure, his machine and test might not have even existed, but I was responding to you mocking the idea of someone trying something new for the purpose of scientific advancement - presumably only because that person was a muslim.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:39pm:


Thats a fair point. We just don't know what happened after that, and whether or not the islamic world went on and pursued flying any further than that. But of course the point is the islamic world didn't end up creating flying machines - the west did.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:39pm:


Are you serious? How do different fields of science help each other? Really FD?  How about physics and astronomy? or chemistry and biology - or virtually any two different fields of science?

Think about it FD, whether you call maths a science or not, it doesn't matter - science uses maths - fact - including (and especially) the tools invented by the islamic world such as algebra and arabic numerals.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:39pm:


you misunderstand - science doesn't necessarily always use what we now term the "scientific method". Says wikipedia:

Quote:


brumbie wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:41pm:


and?

The use of hypothesise does not equal scientific method. Basically the scientific method requires three components: hypothesis, test hypothesis through observation, and draw conclusions. If you actually knew anything about Greek philosophy, you would know that their "method" to arrive at scientific theories went in the exact opposite way to the modern scientific method. They first made specific observations, then derived abstract conclusions (hypothesise) from these observations. The scientific method runs the exact opposite way: hypothesise are formed, and then they are tested through experimentation and observation. Thats the key difference - the Greeks didn't test their hypothesise, thus they weren't "scientific" in the way we understand it today.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:16pm:


At least get the story straight. He did not die from the attempt - in fact he flew for quite some time, and landed relatively softly - only hurting his back slightly. Or so the story goes. The "contribution" of this is obviously that it was the first known successful man-made flight.

Painting muslims as mere liars is apparently not good enough for you - they have to be idiotic liars 

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:16pm:


yes, because we'll ignore the 500 years in which basic science flourished under islam.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:16pm:


I was never confused - maths is a formal science, I knew that - you didn't apparently. The only debate is whether that should be considered "science" given that it is not empirical science.

But it is you who has missed the point entirely. Is "science" - as in "empirical science" the only worthwhile contribution to scientific knowledge? Of course not. Mathematics is central to science - obviously. Quite simply without mathematics there would be no science. Who cares what you call it - that fundamental fact remains - regardless of whether you call maths a science, or santa clause.

Also still waiting for the quote from Abu, or other muslim on this forum stating that drinking camel urine was the pinnacle of scientific achievement. Or shall I put that into the overflowing "FD-being-called-on-his-bullshit-claims" basket - along with the "no one considers maths a science" claim, or the as yet unsubstantiated increase in Iraqi deaths during the last year claim? 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 10:04am:


The church got out of the Dark Ages through a Renaissance - a rebirth of Western Civilization. This involved reading non-Christian Greek philosophy for the first time, and discovering Greek and Roman history - pagan history, not Christian.

Without this, there would have been no Renaissance, no Enlightenment, no Scientific Revolution, and no Reformation.

During the Dark Ages, Islam was the center of Western civilization. Before the Renaissance, the only people reading Plato and Aristotle were the Muselmen. The only people trading were the Muselmen - they controlled the main global trade routes, and they housed the main libraries and centers of learning at the time.

China was equally focused on learning, but it was an insular civilization. The Muslim world at the time was extroverted and expansionist. It collected taxes and levies from the main trade routes and ports. While the West was stuck with feudalism, the Muslim world mediated global trade and cultural cross-fertilization. The Islamic world was the centre of global civilization. During the Dark Ages, Western Europe was the antithesis of civilization.

Western Europe only came good in the 15th century - after it got its hands during the Crusades on all the Greek and Roman texts held in Ottoman-ruled Constantinople, the old Eastern centre of the Roman Empire. We're talking about a period just over 500 years old, from the spice trade and the "Age of Expansion" on. For a millennium prior to this, Europe was mired in corruption, war and feudal slavery. The church during this time was not a beacon of Enlightenment - far from it. It kept order through the Rack and the Stake.

Somewhere along this historical journey, Islam and the West swapped places - probably around the time of the Scientific Revolution. Like many cultural phenomena, it was shaped by war. In a sense, Mao's statement about power rings true. All power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Ottomans were kept out of Vienna by superior planning and firepower. Islam's power declined.

But it wasn't through any inherently superior mindset or Western supremacy. It was global influence and the control of trade. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the Dutch invented capitalism by selling shares in the Dutch East India Company. The British navy became a world power. The Prussians mobilized and defeated the Ottomans, creating the Austro-Hungarian empire. Power shifted to the protestant countries, countries where the power of the church was usurped and held in check by the emerging nation state.

There was no "clash of civilizations" between the West and Islam, merely the long decline of one civilization (Islam) and the rise of another - capitalism. The new capitalist states were continuously squabbling with each other. War was ever-present. There were no epochal battles for the control of Western Europe. As soon as the Ottomans were turned back from Vienna, there were successions of expanding empires battling for European control - the Russians, Prussians and French. The British played them all off against each other from the sidelines, and settled on supremacy in the colonies.

All Christianity gave humanity was Feudalism. The reason the protestants came to the fore was their willingness to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's and leave the newly devised nation state to get on with business. I.e, it was indeed the separation of church and state that saw Europe develop, prosper and achieve military supremacy.

There was no real clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, only one empire slowly crumbling and another taking its place. This is how history seems to work, and only Gud knows if there's an art or science to it. If you believe Rousseau, Machiavelli's the Prince was intended as satire, not a cynical instruction manual for rulers. Western Europe may well be in a similar period of decline today, and no one can agree on how to reverse things. More state cooperation or less? More economic integration or less? More regulation of the economy or less?

What can we learn from history? No one knows. As Weber said, the owl of Minerva flies only at the dusk.

We can only judge history when all is said and done. We can only know what has worked - or not worked - after it happens.