Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 21
Send Topic Print
Islam stifles basic science (Read 53558 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #195 - Apr 12th, 2013 at 9:02pm
 
Quote:
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.


Does the fact that you are unable to find a single example of someone achieving this not make you suspect otherwise?

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


Like I already popinted out, you cannot prove a negative.

Quote:
Just take the wiki list I referenced. Why do you constantly focus on Mr Gibberish and not the other 17?


Because he is the one I looked into.

Quote:
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).


It is a pattern of mediocrity, broken only by irrelevance and absurdity.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #196 - Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:00pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 9:02pm:
Does the fact that you are unable to find a single example of someone achieving this not make you suspect otherwise?


Eilmer of Malmesbury is the other example I've mentioned probably about 50 times already. And its basically exactly the same principle as Otto Lilenthal's early experiments - simply jumping off a hill with attached wings, and gliding down to the ground. Its really not that unbelievable. While we know that humans don't have the muscle strength in our arms and chest to sustain flight with attached wings, thats very different to merely achieving a gliding fall back to earth.

freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 9:02pm:
Because he is the one I looked into.


Tongue

freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 9:02pm:
It is a pattern of mediocrity, broken only by irrelevance and absurdity.


Roll Eyes one may ask how you could possibly draw this conclusion when you admit to have "looked into" only two of the 18 listed.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #197 - Apr 13th, 2013 at 8:48am
 
Quote:
Eilmer of Malmesbury is the other example I've mentioned probably about 50 times already.


Gandalf, we are talking about whether this is possible, not whether it happened 800 years ago. I realise you have some funny ideas about standards of evidence when it comes to historical accounts, but this is not a question of history. Think about what you are saying. You are claiming it is possible to do something that is obviously rather extraordinary to anyone with a basic understanding of the human body and flight, and you think it is reasonable to hold this position in the absence of a single example of anyone actually doing it, on the grounds that you have some vague centuries-old descriptions that could be (and are) interpreted 100 different ways. You simply do not make sense.

Quote:
And its basically exactly the same principle as Otto Lilenthal's early experiments


Oh, you mean one of the guys who showed that this is not actually possible?

Quote:
While we know that humans don't have the muscle strength in our arms and chest to sustain flight with attached wings, thats very different to merely achieving a gliding fall back to earth.


So you won't have any trouble producing an example then? It goes beyond the inability to flap the wings. We do not have the strength to hold two wings in place. Any successful glide on two separate wings would need a structure to support the two wings with the pilot suspended. In fact there have been examples of human powered wing flapping flying machines that take advantage of modern lightweight materials, but the idea that you attach the wings to your arms is just stupid.

Quote:
one may ask how you could possibly draw this conclusion when you admit to have "looked into" only two of the 18 listed.


I have now read the list. None of them stand out to me as being any more impressive. And you are unwilling to nominate any one scientist as the best example. The closest you came was a list of 3, one of whom we had been discussing. The other two made contributions to maths, not science. We seem to be in agreement on this. You just won't admit it. If I am wrong, you won't have any trouble suggesting who you think is a the best example of a scientist who breaks the pattern of mediocrity with something other than absurdity or irrelevance. And you have no need to fret, as I am not going to criticise your inevitably subjective judgement of who you choose as the best example.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #198 - Apr 13th, 2013 at 8:17pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 8:48am:
Gandalf, we are talking about whether this is possible, not whether it happened 800 years ago.


lol what? The two are the same. If it happened 800 years ago, then its possible right? You demand I produce an example of someone doing this - I give you two - Eilmer and Ibn Firnas.

freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 8:48am:
You simply do not make sense.


Thats because in order to sustain your desperate and completely untenable position, you must twist an argument that is so ridiculously simple, into something that is unfathomable and unnecessarily complex.

Let me explain: my position has only ever been that the claim that Ibn Firnas made a contraption that glided some distance after he jumped off a building - is really not that unbelievable.  And in the absense of any evidence that disputes the central claim - there is no reason not to believe it. Thats a reasonable and objective position to take. Your position on the other hand, by saying the claim is "obviously fabricated" is completely unreasonable, and really you lost the argument the moment you adopted that position. Thats really all there is to this argument - and its a very small and simple one. But most of this debate has been a series of elaborate red herrings, designed (quite successfully I should point out) to muddy the waters and detract from the core argument. But I think its necessary to remind you the thing we're actually debating which is:

- historical evidence exists for a known scientist and inventor attempting a rather simple gliding maneuver using attached wings to the body - with some success. It is a very believable feat, which we know an Englishmen succeeded in doing independently of Firnas some 100 years later. Put simply, there is no real reason to assume that it wasn't true.

- you blunder in and categorically declare it was "obviously fabricated"

The debate ended there, and I was foolish to be lured in to your silly games of obfuscation.

freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 8:48am:
I have now read the list. None of them stand out to me as being any more impressive.


You have now read the list - good, so presumably then you can now desist with your games of insinuating the list is reflective of a culture of mad scientists deliberately concealing science from the world, and state oppression of scientists. Its actually a real step-up for you to describe the list as a "pattern of mediocrity". Though I do wonder why it took you so long to actually read the list when all this time you have been making the most ridiculous claims about it - from your belief that it was listed in order of importance to your belief that it was dominated by translators. Not to mention the obvious insinuation that it was dominated by madmen and prisoners. All utterly absurd.

freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 8:48am:
The other two made contributions to maths, not science. We seem to be in agreement on this. You just won't admit it.


Try as you may, you will never detract from the sheer idiocy of you refusing to acknowledge that advancement in maths is a contribution to science - in very direct ways.This is just such an obvious point that most people grasp in primary school - and I'm almost embarrassed to keep reminding you.

freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 8:48am:
If I am wrong, you won't have any trouble suggesting who you think is a the best example of a scientist who breaks the pattern of mediocrity with something other than absurdity or irrelevance. And you have no need to fret, as I am not going to criticise your inevitably subjective judgement of who you choose as the best example.


Oh you are wrong - but its not within the deliberately obscure parameters you are pathetically trying to define here - you are wrong on the very topic of this debate, as specified in the thread title, but which you continually forget about.

Acknowledging the existence of "mediocre" scientists that you claim made no significant contribution to modern science has nothing to do with islam "stifling" science - if you cannot effectively demonstrate that that "mediocrity" is directly due to some set of tangible aspects of islam that worked against these scientists from achieving greatness.

No FD, not even close. Embarrassingly not even close. In your attempts to obfuscate my very simple arguments, you have (probably inadvertently) turned the case for islam stifling science, into a case for islam actually giving science a go, but not actually achieving very much. In the whole 14 agonising pages of this innane debate, you have dedicated about one or two lines actually dealing with the subject of the thread. And it was some rather bigoted passing comment about muslims spending too much time praying and walking around a rock to actually have enough time to dedicate to science. Really mature stuff. Thats basically the contribution from FD we can take away from this whole thread. The rest has (as usual) been about point scoring and obfuscation in a desperate attempt to make the indefensible defensible.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #199 - Apr 13th, 2013 at 8:46pm
 
Quote:
lol what? The two are the same. If it happened 800 years ago, then its possible right? You demand I produce an example of someone doing this - I give you two - Eilmer and Ibn Firnas.


I see. I thought you were back to the hang glider theory of Firnas - the one you started with, then said you personally fabricated. Have you now gone back to the theory that Firnas attached wings to each arm? This is understandable, given the complete absence of detail regarding what he supposedly invented. Perhaps he flew too close to the sun and melted the glue he used to stick the vulture feathers to his arms (the only detail we actually have), and he only actually achieved a speed faster than a phoenix as he fell back to earth?

Just to humour me, can you give an example of someone doing this with modern, lightweight materials? Or was the technology lost forever?

Quote:
Let me explain: my position has only ever been that the claim that Ibn Firnas made a contraption that glided some distance after he jumped off a building - is really not that unbelievable.


You have claimed many things about Firnas and held many contradictory positions. It is too late now to pretend there is anything resembling consistency in your story.

Quote:
And in the absense of any evidence that disputes the central claim - there is no reason not to believe it.


Grin

Quote:
historical evidence exists


That you have never presented. I was the one who quoted the vague reference from the poem.

Quote:
You have now read the list - good, so presumably then you can now desist with your games of insinuating the list is reflective of a culture of mad scientists deliberately concealing science from the world, and state oppression of scientists.


I encourage you to respond to what I actually said rather than making stuff up.

Quote:
Try as you may, you will never detract from the sheer idiocy of you refusing to acknowledge that advancement in maths is a contribution to science


It is odd that you claim they are the same thing while acknowledging that you understand the difference. Am I wrong to assume that you understand the difference?

Quote:
In your attempts to obfuscate my very simple arguments, you have (probably inadvertently) turned the case for islam stifling science, into a case for islam actually giving science a go, but not actually achieving very much.


Grin

Fail.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #200 - Apr 13th, 2013 at 9:18pm
 
Well done FD, yet another post in which you completely avoid the topic of this thread - even after I specifically point it out in the very last post.

Can you at least make an effort to link muslim scientists supposedly failing at science during the golden age with islam "stifling" science? Or would you rather continue with creating obscure tangents that bring us no closer to understanding the claim in the thread title?
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #201 - Apr 13th, 2013 at 9:24pm
 
Can you explain the difference between failing and "not actually achieving very much"?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #202 - Apr 13th, 2013 at 9:36pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 9:24pm:
Can you explain the difference between failing and "not actually achieving very much"?


Well gee FD I don't really know - see because I don't believe that either term applies to islamic science during the golden age. You apparently do. So its really a question for you - 1. what is your assessment of the value of science in the islamic golden age and 2. how does that assessment support your claim in the thread title? and 3. If this little topic neither supports or refutes the claim in the thread title - what does?

Desperately trying to get this thread on topic (bit hard to say "back on topic" - since it never has been on topic going back to the OP).
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #203 - Apr 13th, 2013 at 9:38pm
 
I would be happy to go with either.

Have you found an example yet of someone flying or 'gliding' by attaching wings to their arms? Perhaps you should check the Koran.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #204 - Apr 13th, 2013 at 9:45pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 9:38pm:
I would be happy to go with either.

Have you found an example yet of someone flying or 'gliding' by attaching wings to their arms? Perhaps you should check the Koran.


Gandalf just 10 minutes ago wrote:
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 9:18pm:
Can you at least make an effort to link muslim scientists supposedly failing at science during the golden age with islam "stifling" science? Or would you rather continue with creating obscure tangents that bring us no closer to understanding the claim in the thread title?


So I guess we'll just go with the latter shall we?

Sad to see how petty minded you actually are. 14 pages of petty point scoring, not one moment of actually dealing with the claim posed in the title.

Maybe you could at least explain how understanding what ibn Firnas actually did relates to the issue of how islam stifles science? Maybe thats more achievable?
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #205 - Apr 13th, 2013 at 9:51pm
 
It is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants whilst propping up midgets.

Have you found an example yet of someone flying or 'gliding' by attaching wings to their arms? I mean a real example, not an 800 year old one with no evidence where you change you story every week.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #206 - Apr 13th, 2013 at 10:17pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 9:51pm:
It is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants whilst propping up midgets.


Grin Ah yes, I almost forgot about that one - camel urine and all that.

Of course it has nothing to do with islamic science during the golden age. Pretending for a moment that you actually gave some thought to that silly statement, what do you think it actually means in relation to the act of "stifling" science? Presumably people like Abu and your imaginary "some muslims" holding midgets to great esteem at the expense of getting any actual worthwhile scientific achievements? See if you can somehow relate that to the scientific community during the islamic golden age. This should be interesting.

freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 9:51pm:
Have you found an example yet of someone flying or 'gliding' by attaching wings to their arms? I mean a real example, not an 800 year old one with no evidence where you change you story every week.


I'll tell you what, I'll agree to continue discussing this if you can make a convincing case for how finding such an example helps us understand how islam stifles science. Deal?
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #207 - Apr 13th, 2013 at 11:20pm
 
While FD ponders over that vexing challenge, its worthwhile to take a look at some of these midgets, and specifically their contribution to modern science:

1. Physician and pioneering surgeon Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi:
Quote:
He is considered the greatest medieval surgeon to have appeared from the Islamic World, and has been described by many as the father of modern surgery.


Quote:
Donald Campbell, a historian of Arabic medicine, described Al-Zahrawi's influence on Europe as follows:[14]

    The chief influence of Albucasis on the medical system of Europe was that his lucidity and method of presentation awakened a prepossession in favour of Arabic literature among the scholars of the West: the methods of Albucasis eclipsed those of Galen and maintained a dominant position in medical Europe for five hundred years, i.e long after it had passed its usefulness. He, however, helped to raise the status of surgery in Christian Europe; in his book on fractures and luxations, he states that ‘this part of surgery has passed into the hands of vulgar and uncultivated minds, for which reason it has fallen into contempt.’ The surgery of Albucasis became firmly grafted on Europe after the time of Guy de Chauliac (d.1368).

In the 14th century, the French surgeon Guy de Chauliac quoted al-Tasrif over 200 times. Pietro Argallata (d. 1453) described Abū al-Qāsim as "without doubt the chief of all surgeons". Abū al-Qāsim's influence continued for at least five centuries, extending into the Renaissance, evidenced by al-Tasrif's frequent reference by French surgeon Jacques Delechamps (1513–1588).[15]

The street in Córdoba where he lived is named in his honor as "Calle Albucasis". On this street he lived in house no. 6, which is preserved today by the Spanish Tourist Board with a bronze plaque (awarded in January 1977) which reads: "This was the house where Abul-Qasim lived."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Zahrawi#Legacy

2. Muḥammad ibn Jābir al-Ḥarrānī al-Battānī
Quote:
Al-Battānī's work is considered instrumental in the development of science and astronomy.[2] Copernicus mentioned his indebtedness to al-Battānī and quoted him in the book that initiated the Copernican Revolution, the De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium. Al-Battānī was frequently quoted by Tycho Brahe, Riccioli, among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%E1%B8%A5ammad_ibn_J%C4%81bir_al-%E1%B8%A4arr%C4%...

3. Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī
Quote:
Al-Khwārizmī's contributions to mathematics, geography, astronomy, and cartography established the basis for innovation in algebra and trigonometry. His systematic approach to solving linear and quadratic equations led to algebra, a word derived from the title of his 830 book on the subject, "The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing" (al-Kitab al-mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa'l-muqabalaالكتاب المختصر في حساب الجبر والمقابلة).

On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals written about 825, was principally responsible for spreading the Indian system of numeration throughout the Middle East and Europe. It was translated into Latin as Algoritmi de numero Indorum. Al-Khwārizmī, rendered as (Latin) Algoritmi, led to the term "algorithm".


Quote:
When, in the 12th century, his works spread to Europe through Latin translations, it had a profound impact on the advance of mathematics in Europe. He introduced Arabic numerals into the Latin West, based on a place-value decimal system developed from Indian sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī

Much as we would all love to trust FDs undoubted authority on the subject, unfortunately his assessment of islamic science as not contributing anything worthwhile to modern science is directly contradicted by the people who are actually expert in the scientific/scientific history fields:

Quote:
A number of modern scholars such as Fielding H. Garrison,[13] Abdus Salam and Hossein Nasr consider modern science and the scientific method to have been greatly inspired by Muslim scientists who introduced a modern empirical, experimental and quantitative approach to scientific inquiry. Some scholars, notably Donald Routledge Hill, Ahmad Y Hassan,[14] Abdus Salam,[15] and George Saliba,[16] have referred to their achievements as a Muslim scientific revolution

(see wiki article for full list of references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_science#Classical_science_in_the_muslim_w...)

Quote:
the foundations of modern science were laid long before this time, and were particularly influenced by Islamic civilization. The Muslims were the leading scholars between the seventh and fifteenth centuries, and were the heirs of the scientific traditions of Greece, India and Persia. After appropriation and assimilation, they built on these discoveries, and developed a truly Islamic science that led worldwide knowledge in all scientific fields, including medicine. These activities were cosmopolitan, in that the participants were Arabs, Persians, Central Asians, Christians and Jews, and later included Indians and Turks. The transfer of the knowledge of Islamic science to the West through various channels paved the way for the Renaissance, and for the scientific revolution in Europe.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1315909/
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #208 - Apr 14th, 2013 at 8:21am
 
Quote:
Presumably people like Abu and your imaginary "some muslims" holding midgets to great esteem


You are a great demonstration of this.

Quote:
I'll tell you what, I'll agree to continue discussing this if you can make a convincing case for how finding such an example helps us understand how islam stifles science. Deal?


It is an example of you propping up midgets.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #209 - Apr 14th, 2013 at 9:31am
 
freediver wrote on Apr 14th, 2013 at 8:21am:
You are a great demonstration of this.


Quote:
It is an example of you propping up midgets.


Good answer FD - intelligent, detailed, and well thought out.

Unfortunately, I wasn't alive during the time of (say) Al-Zahrawi, who's methods were dominant in Europe for centuries, and has been widely described as the father of surgery. Who was propping him up? Christian Europe apparently - described by one prominent surgeon as "without doubt the chief of all surgeons".

If your ludicrous argument actually made sense, you would be demonstrating to me how 1. Al-Zahrawi - the "father of modern surgery" was a "midget" in the scientific world and 2. The process by which the islamic world during his time "propped" him up at the expense of the advancement of more significant scientific achievement. It is of course laughable.

Your midget propping argument refers only to modern day muslims (like me) - it doesn't even make sense when talking about how science supposedly suffered during the golden age. I'll grant you, the argument actually makes sense and is worth expanding on in relation to how the modern islamic world behaves. You obviously never intended it to apply to my repeated query of how science suffered in the golden age. Unfortunately for you, you've spent the best part of 14 pages hopelessly trying to maintain the line that islam stifled science in the golden age - and then absurdly attempting to somehow link it back to the midget propping argument.

We could have saved ourselves a hell of a lot of nonsense if you just acknowledged from the beginning that yes - science suffers today in the islamic world, but during the golden age it flourished. But for some bizarre prejudice you have, that apparently is too much. Islam must be 100% evil and negative to the world throughout all of history.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 21
Send Topic Print