Quote:


Wow there must be like 10 scholars from the islamic world mentioned in that timeline. Apparently the development of algebra has been quite a long evolution. And according to that timeline, the islamic world did the lions share of developing it. Seems pretty clear that there would be no "algebra" as we know it today without the work of all those islamic scholars.

What does that timeline say?
That the islamic world - at least in the field of mathematics - was even better than I thought 

Quote:


You mean not being the same thing?

Quote:


It's a simple question gandalf. It would be a lot easier to say say who they were than carry on like a drama queen about it.

Quote:


Gandalf, there are plenty of things I have actually said that you could respond to. There is no need to resort to making stuff up.

Quote:


That's a pretty stupid thing to say Gandalf.

I think now is a good time to summarise. I opened the argument that Islam stifles basic science with the following observations:

1) Not a single Muslim on the list of the 100 greatest scientists, despite the superficially fertile grounds for scientific advance (eg the houses of knowledge that Gandalf keeps going on about).

2) Abu and Falah trying to 'prop up midgets', for example in Abu's ironically titled "setting the record straight" thread.

Gandalf responded with the following counter-arguments:

1) Islam does in fact stifle science but this was not always the case (and "we will get to" discussing why). He never did get around to discussing how Islam stifles science or why this was not always the case.

2) Ibn Firns, who is the first example in Abu's "setting the record straight" thread. Gandalf insisted that he invented the hang glider and was the first human to fly, hundreds of years before anyone else, and that all his knowledge mysteriously vanished. The only evidence that remained was a one line reference in a poem from a guy who used to mock Firnas. The line goes "He flew faster than the phoenix in his flight when he dressed his body in the feathers of a vulture." Gandalf claimed that such evidence is actually a very high standard compared to what historians usually accept as proof, usually focusing on the fact that the evidence existed and ignoring the fact that it is just a vague one line reference in a piece of fiction. Gandalf later changed his mind and insisted he had fabricated the hang glider story, and that Firnas had instead attached wings to each arm and flew that way. As evidence for this, he gave the example of an equally obscure European who supposedly did the same. His logic appears to be that being a European, we automatically believe he managed to fly (projection, anyone?) and thus we must be hypocrites if we don't believe Firnas also flew. When it was pointed out that it is not actually possible to fly like this, even using modern technology and materials, Gandalf demanded that others prove the negative, rather than expecting him to simply show an example of someone doing it. Gandalf appears to have abandoned this argument, but still insists that he is right and I am wrong, even though he cannot even keep to the same story.

3) Insisting that maths and science are the same thing (apparently there are a few famous mathematicians Gandalf would like to use, seeing as he can't find any good examples of scientists.)

4) Next came a list of scientists topped by Jabir ibn Hayyan. As the next few on the list were translators of apparently little note to science, I followed that one up. Hayyan spend most of his life trying to stifle basic science. This was a challenge for him, given that he was a scientist himself. We honour this man every time we use the word gibberish, which comes from one of the names he was known by (Gerber). One of Hayyan's works includes a recipe book for making humans, snakes and scorpions in the lab. He cloaked most of his work in gibberish to prevent non-Muslims from getting their hands on it. It worked. Today, we still have no idea what a lot of his writings are about. Muslims have attributed the work of many other people to this man. Hayyan was placed under house arrest by the Caliph. His father was executed for getting involved in islamic politics while he was still young, forcing him to flee the country with his mother.

5) Unable to suggest who the greatest Muslim scientist might be, Gandalf produced a list of 3, topped by ibn al-Haytham. The other two did not make any fundamental contribution to our understanding of the nature of the universe. Haytham was also placed under house arrest by the Caliph for not achieving an impossible feat that was demanded of him. Gandalf insisted for long time that Haytham had promised and committed to doing this, and that the actions of a Caliph have nothing to do with Islam. Ironically, the house arrest is credited with much of his scientific work. He also felt compelled to feign madness to avoid the Caliph's wrath.

6) Gandalf really dislikes the lists and doesn't think we should be able to use them. He can't explain why. He appears to think we must assess the contributions from the Islamic world in a vacuum, ignoring the vastly more significant contributions from other societies. We also cannot consider them one at a time either, and Gandalf still refuses to suggest the greatest Muslim scientist of all time. When Gandalf produces a list of Muslim scientists, we must consider the whole list at once and not worry to much about the details.

7) The rest of Gandalfs arguments revolve around inventing alternative versions of my arguments, or silly claims like "the only evidence you have presented all this time is ..." (insert whatever point we were discussing at the time, usually Gandalf's own evidence and examples that backfired on him).

OK Gandalf I will add it to the list. Happy now?

I think now is a good time to summarise. I opened the argument that Islam stifles basic science with the following observations:

1) Not a single Muslim on the list of the 100 greatest scientists, despite the superficially fertile grounds for scientific advance (eg the houses of knowledge that Gandalf keeps going on about).

2) Abu and Falah trying to 'prop up midgets', for example in Abu's ironically titled "setting the record straight" thread.

Gandalf responded with the following counter-arguments:

1) Islam does in fact stifle science but this was not always the case (and "we will get to" discussing why). He never did get around to discussing how Islam stifles science or why this was not always the case.

2) Attempts by modern Muslim scientists to build a research effort around Koranic recommendations to consume camel urine are not the pinnacle of Islamic science. This is the end of the discussion. Period.

3) Ibn Firns, who is the first example in Abu's "setting the record straight" thread. Gandalf insisted that he invented the hang glider and was the first human to fly, hundreds of years before anyone else, and that all his knowledge mysteriously vanished. The only evidence that remained was a one line reference in a poem from a guy who used to mock Firnas. The line goes "He flew faster than the phoenix in his flight when he dressed his body in the feathers of a vulture." Gandalf claimed that such evidence is actually a very high standard compared to what historians usually accept as proof, usually focusing on the fact that the evidence existed and ignoring the fact that it is just a vague one line reference in a piece of fiction. Gandalf later changed his mind and insisted he had fabricated the hang glider story, and that Firnas had instead attached wings to each arm and flew that way. As evidence for this, he gave the example of an equally obscure European who supposedly did the same. His logic appears to be that being a European, we automatically believe he managed to fly (projection, anyone?) and thus we must be hypocrites if we don't believe Firnas also flew. When it was pointed out that it is not actually possible to fly like this, even using modern technology and materials, Gandalf demanded that others prove the negative, rather than expecting him to simply show an example of someone doing it. Gandalf appears to have abandoned this argument, but still insists that he is right and I am wrong, even though he cannot even keep to the same story.

4) Insisting that maths and science are the same thing (apparently there are a few famous mathematicians Gandalf would like to use, seeing as he can't find any good examples of scientists.)

5) Next came a list of scientists topped by Jabir ibn Hayyan. As the next few on the list were translators of apparently little note to science, I followed that one up. Hayyan spend most of his life trying to stifle basic science. This was a challenge for him, given that he was a scientist himself. We honour this man every time we use the word gibberish, which comes from one of the names he was known by (Gerber). One of Hayyan's works includes a recipe book for making humans, snakes and scorpions in the lab. He cloaked most of his work in gibberish to prevent non-Muslims from getting their hands on it. It worked. Today, we still have no idea what a lot of his writings are about. Muslims have attributed the work of many other people to this man. Hayyan was placed under house arrest by the Caliph. His father was executed for getting involved in islamic politics while he was still young, forcing him to flee the country with his mother.

6) Unable to suggest who the greatest Muslim scientist might be, Gandalf produced a list of 3, topped by ibn al-Haytham. The other two did not make any fundamental contribution to our understanding of the nature of the universe. Haytham was also placed under house arrest by the Caliph for not achieving an impossible feat that was demanded of him. Gandalf insisted for long time that Haytham had promised and committed to doing this, and that the actions of a Caliph have nothing to do with Islam. Ironically, the house arrest is credited with much of his scientific work. He also felt compelled to feign madness to avoid the Caliph's wrath.

7) Gandalf really dislikes the lists and doesn't think we should be able to use them. He can't explain why. He appears to think we must assess the contributions from the Islamic world in a vacuum, ignoring the vastly more significant contributions from other societies. We also cannot consider them one at a time either, and Gandalf still refuses to suggest the greatest Muslim scientist of all time. When Gandalf produces a list of Muslim scientists, we must consider the whole list at once and not worry to much about the details.

8) The rest of Gandalfs arguments revolve around inventing alternative versions of my arguments, or silly claims like "the only evidence you have presented all this time is ..." (insert whatever point we were discussing at the time, usually Gandalf's own evidence and examples that backfired on him).

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:18pm:


Quote:


So historical Islam had no similar concept of dividing the world?

Quote:


This is also something new in Islam?

Quote:


Can you explain how this differs from the past, other than the fact that the muslim world is divided into smaller autocracies?

Quote:


As opposed to the past, where the Caliph imprisoned scientists for not being able to perform an impossible feat that formed part of his agenda? Or where their family is killed and banished?

Karnal wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:59am:



Blondes, don'tcha love 'em:

Quote:


Gandalf, we have been over this. No point changing your story. I can quote you. You have changed your story plenty of times and held plenty of positions. One of these positions was the vague, non-comittal waffle above. The other was you clearly claiming that he invented the hang glider and was the first human to fly.

BTW, are you talking about yourself in third person, or are you wearing odd socks today?

Quote:


We have been over this too Gandalf. Are you even remotely aware of the difference between a primary historical account and a vague one-line reference in a poem that also references fictitious creatures? I am not sure how many times I have to point
this out to you. The 'account' is not in any way a description of what the guy invented. Surely you could at least respond to this rather than parroting the absurd propaganda about historical evidence.

Quote:


Do these sources exist? What do they say? This is what the wikipedia article currently states. For some reason the one line reference in the poem has been removed:

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

Quote:


Do you believe in phoenix's?

Quote:


Sure I did. I will tell you again, seeing as you have conveniently forgotten. It is not possible for a human to fly by attaching a wing to each arm. Is this what you think Firnas did, or are you back to the hang glider story that you stuck with for a while, then claimed to have personally fabricated?

Quote:


So is the invention of language, paper, ink, computers, glass etc. Surely you can tell see the distinction I am trying to make  without me having to explain it a hundred different ways?

Quote:


Are they the same thing Gandalf? Can you tell them apart? Do you know what you speak of when you use those words? Why is it nonsensical to try to make a point about basic science without you insisting maths is the same thing? The only reason you are doing this is because there are bugger all Muslim scientists of any historical signifcance so you end up citing contributions to maths instead.

Quote:


No Gandalf. It is because they have claimed the work of other non-Muslims also.

Quote:


Says who?

Quote:


What is the contradiction?

Quote:


It is your example Gandalf. Why is it bizarre for me to point out that your own example contradicts your claims? BTW, the reason I have to keep pointing that out is because you keep lying about it being my evidence, or even my only evidence, or that I pick and choose the evidence.

Quote:


OK. Let's do it subjectively then. Problem solved.

Quote:


Why did you pick Darwin and Newton rather than people like Alfred Wegener? Are you making a subjective judgement about the significance of their contributions?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:


I'm responding - as I have been for 13 pages - by pointing out that the primary account is compelling not because of what it says when taken in isolation, but because it corroborates several secondary sources. I completely agree that if thats the only source we had, then it wouldn't be very convincing.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:


I already quoted a description of the secondary sources on page 2. The account is fully referenced. You should note also that the wiki article is sourced entirely by a single book about Eilmer of Malmesbury written in 1961. 

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:


do you believe in metaphors and poetic license?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:


I call bullsh*t. I have not seen one of the many references to the flight stating it cannot have happened because it is an engineering impossibility. I'm not taking your word for it, I'm sorry. As far as I know attaching wings to your arms and gliding for a distance is entirely possible - I have no reason to suspect otherwise. We certainly don't doubt that Eilmer of Malmesbury did it.

Can you at least give me a single scientific source explaining how such a mechanism is impossible scientifically?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:


It is nonsensical to say that advancing mathematics is not advancing science. Its very simple FD, thats literally all there is to this point.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:


you don't pick and choose the evidence? 

Just take the wiki list I referenced. Why do you constantly focus on Mr Gibberish and not the other 17? And don't say its my example - I never singled out Mr Gibberish as somehow outstanding in that list - in fact I singled out 3 others. You singled him out because he was first in the list (not in order of importance as you originally believed). That is fair enough - if you are going to analyse  a list, it makes sense to start from the top. But he is not the only person in the list - nor is Al Haytham. Yet they are the only ones you want to talk about. If you are going to take a list and rubbish it as being a sample of great contributors to science, you need to take it as a whole - which means looking at all of them and seeing what the trends are. And if you did it would be quite obvious that the "trend" in that list is NOT a pattern of arrests and intimidation by the authorities, it is NOT a pattern of hiding their discoveries from the world, and it is NOT a pattern of being mere 'dumb' translators with no scientific contributions of their own (as you originally claimed).

Thats what I mean by "your" examples. Yes, I produced the list, and yes I used it as my example of islamic contributions of science - but as soon as you start talking about people in that list that support your argument - they become your examples. Do you understand that one piece of evidence can be used by *BOTH* of us as each of our *OWN* examples?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:


It is a waste of time me repeating the same point over and over, so I'll just quote an earlier relevant response:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:25am: