I think it's time this got its own thread:


freediver wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 8:27pm:

Quote: Evidence that it happened. We have a poem whose authenticity is not disputed, referring to an inventor who's existence and engineering feats are not disputed, claiming that he did something that was right up his alley. Put simply, there is no good reason to assume that it wasn't true. What happened exactly? The descriptions I have seen from you and others about his wondrous flying machine bear little resemblance to the reference in the poem about him breaking his neck. [quote]The poem was very specific about what he did, so I don't know why you would call it "filling in the blanks".

This is what the poem says, according to your own link:

"He flew faster than the phoenix in his flight when he dressed his body in the feathers of a vulture."

That is the extent of it. As far as I can tell, this could just as easily be making fun of a doddery 60 year old man plummeting to the ground with a few feathers glued to his arms and snapping his neck on impact. This verse bears no resemblance at all to the dubious claims you have made about him, for example that he made some kind of hang glider. Hence, you are using the mere existence of an old document as justification for creating an elaborate fantasy, then insisting there is some kind of intellectual rigour to your fantasy because it has a vague resemblance to academic referencing standards. If I had known this is all you expected I wouldn't have been so reluctant to bother when you spent days criticising me for not living up to these 'standards'.


Quote:

You cannot escape the fact that it is a primary document, which is a hell of a lot more than many other historical "facts" that were merely relayed to us second hand.

It is a primary document that refers to an imaginary creature in the same line as the reference to him, is not intended to be an historical account, and does not actually say anything about any sort of flying machine, just vulture feathers. You might as well be holding up a fairy tale as evidence.


Quote:

Historians would generally agree that that would meet the minimum criteria for describing this as an historical fact.

If it wasn't a fairy tale and didn't fail to mention what you try to attribute to it.


Quote:

The sensible way to describe the claim would be somewhere along these lines: Evidence from a contemporary poem suggests that the well known muslim polymath Abbas Ibn Firnas made an attempt at flying . Note that it doesn't state that it definitely did or didn't happen - merely that there is historical documented evidence that it did. That approach is eminently more sensible than your claim that it was "obviously fabricated".

Your claim that he actually flew is obviously fabricated. I also see no reason to doubt that he made the attempt. I just see no relevance of some fool jumping off a building with feathers glued to his arms.


Quote:

no he wasn't. And comparing the preeminent mathematicians and scientists of their day with illiterate farmers who have no interest in advancing knowledge and science shouldn't even be dignified with a response.

It is called an analogy Gandalf. I even explained this to you in the vain hope that you wouldn't respond with something stupid like this.


Quote:

right, and you realise discovering subatomic particles is done mathematically?

Maths is one of the tools scientists use. This does not mean maths and science are the same thing. Your insistence that these discoveries are done mathematically is ludicrous. It completely ignores the fundamental processes of scientific research.


Quote:

where?

Here is an example, from the immediately preceding post:


freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2013 at 9:19pm:

Karnal: Gandalf: Quote: Muslims don't "cling" to this - as if its the only thing muslims can point to. Muslims "cling" to things a bit more concrete - like their contribution to maths, physics, medicine and the development of the scientific method as we know it today. Actually, I'd only heard about this interesting bit of trivia when you mentioned it - but I'd certainly heard of all the other things I mentioned - and its invariably these things that you'll hear mentioned when people (muslims as well as non-muslims) talk about islam's contribution to science. Could you give a few examples that you think should be added to this list? http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/christian-foundation-science.html

Quote:

even though it makes no sense to isolate maths as not having anything to do with basic science

How many times do I have to explain this Gandalf? What I am saying is that maths and science are not the same thing. Please stick to what I actually say.[/quote]

Ah - the camel urine thread. The one where FD spends a couple of months sifting through the evidence on this supposedly health-giving elixior - and disproves it once and for all.

I hope I’m not giving away the plot, but I think we know who the main protagonists will be.

Abu will be conspicuous in his absence.

Yadda will fill so many pages with Bible quotes and the advice to, "Google Malaysia’s prime minister on homosexuality", , FD may wonder why he bothers.

But it will all be worth it in the end. This thread will add to human knowledge - in one way or another.

Watch.

Poem= historical fact ( better phrase historical evidence )
WTF
Please someone educate away. :-/

'basic science'?

Should be 'islam doesn't stifle islam and -  what else?'

soooo FD, what exactly are we supposed to discuss in this thread? The claim in the subject, or the completely unrelated quote you posted in the OP?

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 9:41pm:

Ah - the camel urine thread. The one where FD spends a couple of months sifting through the evidence on this supposedly health-giving elixior - and disproves it once and for all. I hope I’m not giving away the plot, but I think we know who the main protagonists will be. Abu will be conspicuous in his absence. Yadda will fill so many pages with Bible quotes and the advice to, "Google Malaysia’s prime minister on homosexuality", , FD may wonder why he bothers. But it will all be worth it in the end. This thread will add to human knowledge - in one way or another. Watch.

Love a pre-emptive surrender, don't you? However unusual from Musulmans like you. Can it be?? Nooo! You no apostate, shurly?
Nuuuurse! Get that vial of camel urine.  NOOOWWWW!!!

Been out on the tiles again, old chap. Cheese dealer’s convention, was it?

One too many ouzos, eh?

Marvellous stuff. Now you go off to bed and Nurse will be up to tuck you in.

I’ll make sure he’s wearing gloves.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 7^th, 2013 at 10:05pm:

soooo FD, what exactly are we supposed to discuss in this thread? The claim in the subject, or the completely unrelated quote you posted in the OP?

If you are happy to concede that the maths tangent and the Muslim guy who jumped off a building with vulture feathers glued to his arms are irrelevant, I think you'll find the topic gets back to the main issue pretty quickly. You can start by suggesting names to add to the list of scientists that is in the link provided in the OP.

FD, I suggest all the Muslims are pretending to hate science so that, under the cover of darkness as it were, they can invent all these terrible inventions that the West will take up and -  like a Trojan Horse - destroy themselves with.

Cunning, no?

Fire, nuclear bombs, carbon dioxide, botox, television, the Holy Bible, Pandora’s Box, pokies, live sex on stage, alcopops, religion, the Beatles, hommersexuality, gunpowder, yoghurt and quantum physics.

All despicable Moslem inventions that have been cunningly designed to put the white man back in his place.

And this is the evil people try to excuse in the name of Islam. How thoroughly contemptible and vile.

Gandalf, you have no course but to rebuke your false moon god and become a Christian.

You have 24 hours to reply.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:

If you are happy to concede that the maths tangent and the Muslim guy who jumped off a building with vulture feathers glued to his arms are irrelevant, I think you'll find the topic gets back to the main issue pretty quickly. You can start by suggesting names to add to the list of scientists that is in the link provided in the OP.

advances in maths are not irrelevant to advances in science - is really that simple FD. As for the flying story, you were the one who brought it up remember? I was only ever refuting your claim that it was, in your words, "obviously fabricated".

But surely you'll agree that its a bit odd to start a thread titled "islam stifles basic science" - and then write an OP that has absolutely nothing to do with that thread title no?

If you have something to say about how islam stifles basic science, why don't you just come out and say it?

Quote:

advances in maths are not irrelevant to advances in science - is really that simple FD

Are they the same thing?


Quote:

As for the flying story, you were the one who brought it up remember? I was only ever refuting your claim that it was, in your words, "obviously fabricated".

It is obvious. The only reference over 700 years is one sinlge line in a poem that talks about a phoenix and the guy gluing feathers to his arms. We have better documentation about the guy who flew too close to the sun. Does that mean we should challenge the idea that Yuri Gagarin was the first man in outer space? Why is the bar set so absurdly low for any contribution from a Muslim?


Quote:

But surely you'll agree that its a bit odd to start a thread titled "islam stifles basic science" - and then write an OP that has absolutely nothing to do with that thread title no?

It was copied from the other thread. It talks about your attempt to use maths as some kind of defence against the claim that Islam stifles basic science. It also contains one of my many requests for you to give some examples of Muslim scientists who you think should be on that list of the top 100. To be honest, I don't really care if you also want to keep talking about camel urine and the guy who glued feathers to his arms and beat the wright brothers into the air. Like I said, it is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants when you are so busy propping up midgets.


Quote:

If you have something to say about how islam stifles basic science, why don't you just come out and say it?

There are plenty of ways it stifles basic science. This thread is an example of one of them. I would like to discuss whether it does actually stifle basic science, for which there should be plenty of evidence, before we go into the mechanisms. It is hard enough to get you to address the basics.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 11:21am:

The only reference over 700 years is one sinlge line in a poem that talks about a phoenix and the guy gluing feathers to his arms.

or in other words - a primary source. These actually hold some weight in history - even "light" literature like poems and plays. One example off the top of my head is the contemporary comedic plays of Aristophanes - satiring several key political figures of ancient Athens. While obviously biased and satirical, these are still considered valuable primary sources by classical historians, and accepted as containing much truth. There are countless poems throughout history that are primary evidence for much of history.


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 11:21am:

Why is the bar set so absurdly low for any contribution from a Muslim?

its not - as can be seen with the history of Ancient Greece (for example) - where much of the "facts" don't contain any primary sources. In fact the best source we have for the Persian wars is a guy (writing decades after the event) we know specialised in simply making sh*t up. Is that therefore an "obvious fabrication"? It would be using your logic.


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 11:21am:

It was copied from the other thread. It talks about your attempt to use maths as some kind of defence against the claim that Islam stifles basic science.

No, it was an "attempt to use maths as some kind of defence" against the claim that islam made no contribution to modern science. Thats very different. Even if islam made no significant contribution to science, that in no way means that islam stifles science. That is what we call a non sequitur.

Quote:

or in other words - a primary source. These actually hold some weight in history - even "light" literature like poems and plays. One example off the top of my head is the contemporary comedic plays of Aristophanes - satiring several key political figures of ancient Athens. While obviously biased and satirical, these are still considered valuable primary sources by classical historians, and accepted as containing much truth. There are countless poems throughout history that are primary evidence for much of history.

Sure. The trick is to figure out which bits are true. Assuming that such a vague reference can be interpreted as evidence in favour of something so unlikely and extraordinary is not the same thing as what you attribute to historians here. For example, if those satires had claimed that a certain leader inserted his head in his anus, they may take this as evidence that the leader existed, but not that he was in fact the greatest gymnast of all time. Can you see the difference?


Quote:

its not - as can be seen with the history of Ancient Greece (for example) - where much of the "facts" don't contain any primary sources. In fact the best source we have for the Persian wars is a guy (writing decades after the event) we know specialised in simply making sh*t up. Is that therefore an "obvious fabrication"? It would be using your logic.

No it wouldn't. People fought wars all the time. It is not an especially unlikely claim. Furthermore you appear to imply that this is not the only source over a period of 700 years. I will also go out on a limb and claim that this source is not a single line in a poem.


Quote:

Even if islam made no significant contribution to science, that in no way means that islam stifles science. That is what we call a non sequitur.

Can you elaborate on this please?

(continued from my previous post)


Quote:

It also contains one of my many requests for you to give some examples of Muslim scientists who you think should be on that list of the top 100.

arguing about completely random and subjective "top 100" lists (which I have always despised) says nothing about whether or not islam "stifles" science either.

That there were giants in islamic science is not seriously disputed by people who actually know what they are talking about, and anyone can include one or more of the many preeminent islamic scientists of the day into a random list. I don't much care for that sort of thing.


Quote:

To be honest, I don't really care if you also want to keep talking about camel urine and the guy who glued feathers to his arms and beat the wright brothers into the air.

no thats you - remember? Goodness you have a short memory FD. I never wanted to talk about them - but I will refute bullshit statements that you always seem to come up with.


Quote:

There are plenty of ways it stifles basic science. This thread is an example of one of them.

no its not. Nowhere does it come remotely close to explaining the mechanisms and/or processes inherent in islam that necessarily stifles debate. At best you have argued that islam hasn't made significant contributions, but thats obviously not the same.


Quote:

I would like to discuss whether it does actually stifle basic science, for which there should be plenty of evidence, before we go into the mechanisms. It is hard enough to get you to address the basics.

LOL! address what basics? The OP is just a hotch-potch of random quotes from a previous thread. All of which is completely unrelated to the thread title. How on earth am I supposed to make sense of that?? For God's sake man - if you want a discussion, then lets have a discussion - not create a threat topic, then a completely nonsensical OP in which you (presumably) want to showcase the arguments you think you refuted from a previous, unrelated discussion.

Quote:

That there were giants in islamic science is not seriously disputed by people who actually know what they are talking about, and anyone can include one or more of the many preeminent islamic scientists of the day into a random list. I don't much care for that sort of thing.

So you will argue ad nauseum that a contribution to maths is relevant to whether Islam stifles basic science. You will argue that a vague one line reference about a guy glueing feathers to his arms is 'primary' historical evidence that he built the wrold's first hang glider. But you cannot suggest a single Muslim scientist you think was unjustly left off the top 100 list?


Quote:

At best you have argued that islam hasn't made significant contributions, but thats obviously not the same.

Can you elaborate on this please?


Quote:

All of which is completely unrelated to the thread title.

Can you explain why the absence of any Muslims on the top 100 scientists list is completely unrelated to Islam and science?


Quote:

For God's sake man - if you want a discussion, then lets have a discussion - not create a threat topic, then a completely nonsensical OP in which you (presumably) want to showcase the arguments you think you refuted from a previous, unrelated discussion.

It was a continuation of a previous discussion in a thread with a few other unrelated (even more so) topics going on. You know this. If you can think of a more appropriate title, feel free to suggest it.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

Assuming that such a vague reference can be interpreted as evidence in favour of something so unlikely and extraordinary

For God's sake! What is so unlikely or extraordinary about it?? We know this guy existed, and that he made many engineering innovations. That a scientifically minded guy who is obviously very curious about engineering would make an attempt at flying is nothing unlikely or extraordinary. Thats part of what makes it so likely that it happened. We have a contemporary of his saying that he did something that would have been right up his alley - that at the very least is enough to reject the claim that it was "obviously fabricated". You simply don't have a leg to stand on FD.


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

Sure. The trick is to figure out which bits are true.

yes, and which bits are "obviously fabricated". Just look at this objectively, if you can: on the one hand I am saying we have documented evidence that it happened, there is no real reason to assume that it didn't (certainly nothing "extraordinary" or "unbelievable" about it) - given that it was a known innovator and experimentor - therefore, there is no reason to assume it was "obviously fabricated". You on the other hand are an emphatic "it was obviously fabricated, end of story". Just pretend to look at this objectively, and tell me which position is the more tenable


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

Furthermore you appear to imply that this is not the only source over a period of 700 years. I will also go out on a limb and claim that this source is not a single line in a poem.

oh you want to talk about secondary sources? Well let me assure you there are other secondary sources to the flight story than just al Maqqari's account:


Quote:

‘Abbas Ibn Firnas' precedence in flying is documented in more than a poem. We have a relatively detailed narrative in Al-Muqtabis min anba' ahl al-Andalus by Abū Marwān Hayyān ibn Khalaf Ibn Ḥayyān al-Qurtubi (987–1075). The book was lost for a long time and was found only a few decades ago.[4] However, even before it was found, the account of Ibn Hayyan was quoted by other ancient Arabic historians, such as the Andalusian historian Ibn Sa'id al-Maghribi (d. 1286 CE) and the 17th-century Moroccan historian Al-Maqarri.

http://www.muslimheritage.com/features/default.cfm?ArticleID=1297

So please don't think we are only talking about one source in total.


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

Can you elaborate on this please?

a non-sequitur? A logical fallacy: in your case assuming that because islam didn't contribute significantly to modern science, it necessarily means that islam actively "stifles" science.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

So you will argue ad nauseum that a contribution to maths is relevant to whether Islam stifles basic science.

Its relevant to the fact that islam contributed positively to science - obviously.


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

Can you explain why the absence of any Muslims on the top 100 scientists list is completely unrelated to Islam and science?

The list itself is irrelevant - since its an entirely subjective lists comparing scientists and their contributions that can never be compared. As I said, I despise such lists. I don't care if its a list of 100 muslim scientists - its just as meaningless to me.


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

It was a continuation of a previous discussion in a thread with a few other unrelated (even more so) topics going on. You know this. If you can think of a more appropriate title, feel free to suggest it.

Dear me, is it really so hard to understand? You start a thread called "islam stifles basic science" - so one would reasonably expect the OP to, I don't know, maybe expand on that claim?

Here's a starter for you:

islam stifles basic science because of x y and z... is that so difficult??

Quote:

For God's sake! What is so unlikely or extraordinary about it??

There are many extraordinary things about this claim:

1) That he managed to build a working hang glider out of the materials available to him at the time (vulture feathers apparently).

2) That he managed to get it all figured out by himself, when later developers with better materials had to build on a long timeline of incremental improvements and knowledge.

3) That he managed to fly at all the first time, without a series of trials in suitable 'near-flight' conditions.

4) That all the knowledge he gained vanished without a trace, despite the attention that being able to fly would have attracted, leaving only a single record in a poem mentioning the vultures feathers he stuck to himself.

5) That he bothered with the vulture feathers at all. I am not aware of anyone ever successfully flying with a machine reliant on bird feathers.

6) That you take any of the claims seriously.


Quote:

That a scientifically minded guy who is obviously very curious about engineering would make an attempt at flying is nothing unlikely or extraordinary.

Plenty of people attempted to fly throughout history. Gluing bird feathers to yourself is probably one of the most obvious ideas. If this is all you are attributing to him, I have no quarrel. However, you previously argued that he flew successfully with some kind of hang glider.


Quote:

yes, and which bits are "obviously fabricated"

The bit where he succeeded in flying. Perhaps you are mixing up falling at high speed with flying.


Quote:

oh you want to talk about secondary sources? Well let me assure you there are other secondary sources to the flight story than just al Maqqari's account:

What do you mean by a secondary source? All of the accounts in that link seem to contradict each other, and none of them actually quote what the original source actually says. It just looks like more Muslims making up crap.


Quote:

a non-sequitur? A logical fallacy: in your case assuming that because islam didn't contribute significantly to modern science, it necessarily means that islam actively "stifles" science.

No gandalf, this is what I want to you elaborate on:


Quote:

Even if islam made no significant contribution to science, that in no way means that islam stifles science.

Quote:

At best you have argued that islam hasn't made significant contributions, but thats obviously not the same.

Quote:

The list itself is irrelevant - since its an entirely subjective lists comparing scientists and their contributions that can never be compared.

Do you mean that Islamic contributions could never compare?


Quote:

As I said, I despise such lists. I don't care if its a list of 100 muslim scientists - its just as meaningless to me.

All I am asking is that you provide a few examples of Islamic scientists who you think ought to be on the list. Pick the best examples. I am not asking for a thesis. It is strange that you go to such lengths to contradict me and argue over contributions that most likely never even happened, when all it would take for you to show that I am wrong is to give a few examples.


Quote:

Dear me, is it really so hard to understand? You start a thread called "islam stifles basic science" - so one would reasonably expect the OP to, I don't know, maybe expand on that claim? Here's a starter for you: islam stifles basic science because of x y and z... is that so difficult??

Because it is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants whilst propping up midgets.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

Plenty of people attempted to fly throughout history. Gluing bird feathers to yourself is probably one of the most obvious ideas. If this is all you are attributing to him, I have no quarrel.

You have changed your story. here you rejected the entire story:


Quote:

in Islam a made up story about a guy jumping off a building and plunging to his death counts as a scientific contribution, regardless of the complete absence of any actual contribution.

You reject not just the claim he succeeded, but the claim he attempted it in the first place.


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

The bit where he succeeded in flying. Perhaps you are mixing up falling at high speed with flying.

He did the same as what Eilmer of Malmesbury attempted over a century later in England. He is reported to have flown 200 metres. The primary source on Firnas's attempt was a poet who was apparently a strong critic of his - yet he states that he "flew" successfully.

I stated at the outset that its possible that he failed, but I am also open to the possibility that he succeeded too - just like what the sources say. I don't know why you would paint yourself in a corner so badly by stating so dogmatically it was an "obvious fabrication". 


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

What do you mean by a secondary source?

A secondary source is someone writing about an event that they did not personally experience, usually some time after the event happened. Like Herodotus writing on the Persian wars some 40-50 years after the event - which we rely so heavilly on. In fact a primary source like this poem is actually relatively rare in history as far back as this.


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

It just looks like more Muslims making up crap.

Well thats your agenda to attribute evil conspiracies to muslims. But to any objective observer, the weight of evidence is pointing heavilly towards an attempted flight which had at least limited success. You said yourself, its the art of deciding which evidence is true. The fact is, we have multiple sources *ALL* of which say an attempt was made, and all say he flew for at least some distance. Funny how there is no evidence suggesting that it is a case of "muslims making up crap".


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

No gandalf, this is what I want to you elaborate on: Quote: Even if islam made no significant contribution to science, that in no way means that islam stifles science. Quote: At best you have argued that islam hasn't made significant contributions, but thats obviously not the same.

The absense of any significant achievement in a field of knowledge is not any sort of proof for an active program of suppression of that field. Surely you can see that?

But of course as we all know, the question is moot - since that absense of achievement is simply a figment of your imagination.


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

All I am asking is that you provide a few examples of Islamic scientists who you think ought to be on the list.

At first I was confused why you would be asking about something that is so freely available on the most simple google search for anyone trully interested. But then I realised you are not interested at all. But anyway, here you go. Oops - better avert your eyes from those mathematicians in that list listed under "notable scientists"  ;D


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

Because it is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants whilst propping up midgets.

Ah the camel urine argument again. By the way, any luck yet with the Abu/"some muslims" quotes "propping up" the camel-urine drinking midgets? I think its fair enough that if you insist on persisting with this line you fess up and show us who has been propping up these "midgets".

Of course, back on planet earth, muslims are not propping up midgets to promote islam's scientific achievements at all - but are propping up all the great mathematicians, physicists, physicians, astronomers etc etc - who everyone accept freediver *KNOWS* made significant contributions to the advancement of science.

Quote:

You have changed your story. here you rejected the entire story:

I reject every story I hear about him that involves him flying. What exactly do you think you have proven Gandalf? That I was wrong about exactly how full of crap you are?


Quote:

I stated at the outset that its possible that he failed, but I am also open to the possibility that he succeeded too

LOL, and you accuse me of changing my mind. Here is an example of the claims you have been making:


polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:17pm:

you must be referring to Abbas ibn Firnas, who invented the first known flying machine. Yeah lets make a mockery of the guy who invented the first hang glider, and achieved what the Europeans were still attempting to do... about 10 centuries later.  :P Never mind the fact that his invention actually worked.

You fell for the Islamic propaganda machine hook, line and sinker, didn't you Gandalf? Now, consider the impact this might have on a later Muslim vs a later non-Muslim trying to invent a flying machine. The Muslim would be mislead by his fellow Muslims into believing there was something of value in what this guy did. Just like you. Without the benefit of non-Muslims to point the obvious out to them, there is no limit to the extent of the collective self delusion.


Quote:

Well thats your agenda to attribute evil conspiracies to muslims.

This one is more absurd than evil. Stupid even. I mean, if you are going to make stuff up, why make it so obvious that you are full of crap? It is Muslims deluding themselves. They harm themselves more than anyone else. Like I said, it is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants when you are propping up midgets.


Quote:

Funny how there is no evidence suggesting that it is a case of "muslims making up crap".

What would such evidence look like? People mocking Muslims for believing this crap? You, a Muslim, making up crap about Firnas, or swallowing the crap made up by other Muslims about him?


Quote:

The absense of any significant achievement in a field of knowledge is not any sort of proof for an active program of suppression of that field. Surely you can see that?

It is if it occurs over many centuries, during a 'golden age' of relative wealth, the accumulation of knowldge, the establishment of learning centres, developments in other areas like warfare and agriculture etc etc. Plus it continues to this day. Your own interest in perpetuating myths about this guy inventing the first hang glider is just another example of the mental blocks that Islam puts on people's minds.


Quote:

At first I was confused why you would be asking about something that is so freely available on the most simple google search for anyone trully interested. But then I realised you are not interested at all. But anyway, here you go. Oops - better avert your eyes from those mathematicians in that list listed under "notable scientists"

Funny thing is, the guy at the top of that list had this written about him: There is considerable uncertainty as to the actual provenance of many works that are ascribed to him.

Ironic hey?

Are there any that you think deserve to be on the list of the top 100? I got some of the way down it, but it looks like most of them are noted at least partly for translating the works of others.


Quote:

Ah the camel urine argument again.

And the hang glider argument.

Abu - check.

Camel urine - check.

Malaysian Prime Minister on homosexuality - pending.

Stay reading friends.

For all your healthy needs, come to Fatima Pharmacy, 1039 Karl Marx Avenue, Kabul.. Medicines, vitamins, surgical saws. Health-giving urines of camel. Everything you can buy.

Muslim overlords allowed some Christian and Jewish converts to translate some Greek text 800 years ago because they thought these texts supported Islam.

What else has Islam ever done for us?


Come on Reggie, tell us.

Well. It would seem they invented some sort of flying stick. You know, been here 800 years or so...

That sounds positively aboriginal - 800 years and only a stick to show for it. (Not up you, shurely?)


Anything else?

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:

LOL, and you accuse me of changing my mind. Here is an example of the claims you have been making:

Hearing about it for the first time, this was my initial impression after a quick google. Note though in my very next post I conceded:


Quote:

Sure, his machine and test might not have even existed

Even so, the weight of evidence still points to the likelihood that my original claim is probably correct.

Contrasting with you, who has been maintaining that everything about the story was made up - that is until today. Your sudden turn-around is presumably because the idea of a muslim embarassing himself by dressing up in feathers - with some added embelishments of your own like the claim that he broke his neck and the baseless assumption he dropped straight to the ground - obviously suits your agenda.


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:

You fell for the Islamic propaganda machine hook, line and sinker, didn't you Gandalf?

If you call wikipedia islamic propaganda - then yeah I guess  :P


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:

This one is more absurd than evil. Stupid even. I mean, if you are going to make stuff up, why make it so obvious that you are full of crap?

Indeed. Its almost as if there's no reason to believe it was made up in the first place.


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:

What would such evidence look like? People mocking Muslims for believing this crap?

Was Firnas the historical person made up? No. Was the fact that he was a brilliant scientist and inventor made up? No. Does any evidence exist that contradicts the core facts of the event (and no difference estimates of how far he flew doesn't count)? No. In short, is there any reason at all to assume the story isn't true? No.


freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:

It is if it occurs over many centuries, during a 'golden age' of relative wealth, the accumulation of knowldge, the establishment of learning centres, developments in other areas like warfare and agriculture etc etc. Plus it continues to this day.

why don't we stop desperately grasping at straws using association fallacies and just cut to the chase? I think you owe it to this thread to actually start making a case for how islam actively works to stifle science.

Soren wrote on Mar 9^th, 2013 at 11:16pm:

What else has Islam ever done for us? Come on Reggie, tell us.

gave us the numeric system we use today, algebra, the scientific method, hospitals, understanding of fever, understanding of human anatomy, disinfecting wounds... etc etc

...now here's your line soren:
"but *APART* from the numeric system, algebra, the scientific method..."

Yes,  all that 800 years ago.

What has Islam ever done for us since then?

Quite right. Apart from the flying stick, algebra, the minaret, the toothbrush, coffee drinking, etc, etc, etc, your Muselmen pioneered the marvellous health-giving properties of camel urine.

Which is really quite a coincidence, given we have in this very thread, the world’s foremost advocate for the dietary qualities of the human stool.

Yes indeed, the old boy has one with every meal - sometimes two if he has an apetite. Put simply, he just can’t get enough of them.

You’ll often seem him on these pages offering his own up, generously sharing them with anyone who chooses to partake in his succulent delicasies - quite a treat!

I usually have a polite nibble, you know, so as not to be rude. The old boy can be quite persistant.

FD refuses to impose health regulations - I imagine he’s waiting until all the research is in. The old boy insists it’s all above board, but one does wonder at times, particularly when the old boy grins at you with his mouth full.

Still, I’ve been assured it’s completely scientific. Who am I to question?

You stupid poof.

Thanks, old chap. I’ve eaten.

Quote:

Hearing about it for the first time, this was my initial impression after a quick google.

I spent about 30 seconds reading the link you provided to wikipedia. Once it pointed out that the only reference over a period of 700 years was the one line reference to vulture feathers in the poem I knew something was up. How much Muslim propaganda did you have to read to convince yourself otherwise?


Quote:

Even so, the weight of evidence still points to the likelihood that my original claim is probably correct.

Which one is that? That he built a glider? You are getting vaguer by the minute.


Quote:

Contrasting with you, who has been maintaining that everything about the story was made up - that is until today.

Gandalf, the best lies are 90% truth. But they are still lies.


Quote:

Your sudden turn-around

There is no sudden turnaround, except from you.


Quote:

is presumably because the idea of a muslim embarassing himself by dressing up in feathers - with some added embelishments of your own like the claim that he broke his neck

Actually that was another story I read about him, probably something you or Abu posted. Every time I come across another Muslim 'reference' it is a new story.


Quote:

If you call wikipedia islamic propaganda - then yeah I guess

Actually if you had read your own link it should have been obvious to you also.


Quote:

Does any evidence exist that contradicts the core facts of the event (and no difference estimates of how far he flew doesn't count)?

What 'core facts'? That he flew faster than a phoenix? That he glued some vulture feathers to his arms? That the poet liked to make fun of him?


Quote:

why don't we stop desperately grasping at straws using association fallacies and just cut to the chase? I think you owe it to this thread to actually start making a case for how islam actively works to stifle science.

This is my case, right here. It is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants when you are propping up midgets.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 9:19am:

This is my case, right here. It is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants when you are propping up midgets.

why don't you enlighten me and explain exactly how this equates to a religion working to stifle science? All you are saying is that islam's claim to scientific contribution cannot be taken seriously. Thats not even close to the same thing.

Haven't really given much thought to this have you FD?

Quote:

why don't you enlighten me and explain exactly how this equates to a religion working to stifle science? All you are saying is that islam's claim to scientific contribution cannot be taken seriously. Thats not even close to the same thing.

Yes, these are slightly different concepts.

Can you offer an alternative explanation for the lack of significant contributions from the Islamic world to basic science, either during the 'golden years' or modern times? I had a closer look at that list you gave and it does not look like any one of them deserve to be in the top 100 list.

sorry for the double post.

i'm a turkey.......Innit.

Yadda wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

It was a moslem who invented the computer. It was a moslem who invented manned flight [....with the 'inspired' use of turkey feathers, innit]. It was a moslem who invented the micro-chip. And it was a moslem who invented space travel. And anyone who says; It ain't so!, is an ISLAM-o-PHOBE and full of hatred for moslems and ISLAM [  <--- Allah's perfect religion]. Innit.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 6:06pm:

I had a closer look at that list you gave and it does not look like any one of them deserve to be in the top 100 list.

Wow FD - I mean totally *WOW!!* I just never saw that coming

http://cdn.hotstockmarket.com/7/70/450x268px-LL-700ac23d_tumblr_m0wb2xz9Yh1r08e3p.jpeg

whoever would have even imagined in a million years that you would *EVER* come to such a conclusion????


freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 6:06pm:

Can you offer an alternative explanation for the lack of significant contributions from the Islamic world to basic science, either during the 'golden years' or modern times?

Please tell me that you've got something other than an association fallacy? I was looking forward to hearing about the mechanisms inherent in islam that work to stifle basic science. I've got the popcorn all ready FD, please don't dissapoint me.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

Please tell me that you've got something other than an association fallacy? I was looking forward to hearing about the mechanisms inherent in islam that work to stifle basic science. I've got the popcorn all ready FD, please don't dissapoint me.

gandalf,

As a moslem, i am sure that you are already aware that the Koran [in fact Allah] commands believers to NOT enquire for themselves, about truth, OR, about the source of ISLAM's moral authority,
.....because for a moslem, faith is entirely dependent upon, obedience [submission] to Allah, AND, obedience [submission] to the clerics.

"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble.....
Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith."
Koran 5.101, 102



AND;

The Koran [in fact Allah] instructs believers to follow the instruction and guidance of their clerics, implicitly,

"We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed..........they ['believers'] can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction."
Koran 4.64, 65

And today, obviously, moslem clerics stand in Mohammed's 'place'.



AND;

Moslems are COMMANDED BY ALLAH, NOT TO SEEK, OR TO ACKNOWLEDGE ANY TRUTH, outside of ISLAM....

" "And believe no one unless he follows your religion." Say: "True guidance is the Guidance of Allah:....."   "
Koran 3.73





+++



Quote:

And who may enter into debate about what Allah's will is, when every moslem is taught from childhood that they must obey their moslem clerics, without question.

Theodore Roosevelt [1858-1919] on the prospects of Muslim liberalization
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356182206/0#0




Allah does not want you [moslems] to 'reason out' things about your faith, or, to 'reason out' anything else - just to obey, Mohammed!

And this does not encourage within an individual, an attitude to enquiry, which is conducive to [even personal] scientific enquiry.




What ISLAM is saying to the individual moslem is;
What you may learn through scientific method [and reasoning], may take you away from your obedience to me, so do not enquire or try to reason, about anything out side of your religion, JUST GIVE ME, UNTHINKING OBEDIENCE!

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 1:27am:

Thanks, old chap. I’ve eaten.

Yes, and now you are full of it.

What's it like to be an old pederast with a dodgy sphincter, a misplaced life to look back on and a taste for man-sh!t??

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 6:06pm: I had a closer look at that list you gave and it does not look like any one of them deserve to be in the top 100 list. Wow FD - I mean totally *WOW!!* I just never saw that coming http://cdn.hotstockmarket.com/7/70/450x268px-LL-700ac23d_tumblr_m0wb2xz9Yh1r08e3p.jpeg whoever would have even imagined in a million years that you would *EVER* come to such a conclusion???? freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 6:06pm: Can you offer an alternative explanation for the lack of significant contributions from the Islamic world to basic science, either during the 'golden years' or modern times? Please tell me that you've got something other than an association fallacy? I was looking forward to hearing about the mechanisms inherent in islam that work to stifle basic science. I've got the popcorn all ready FD, please don't dissapoint me.

Can you suggest one of them who you think deserves to be on the list? Perhaps the first guy? After all, there is considerable uncertainty as to the actual provenance of many works that are ascribed to him, so it is right up your alley. Maybe you can find an islamic propaganda site ascribing the invention of the motor car to him. I notice Firnas is also there, so you could reintroduce the claim that he invented the world's first hang glider by gluing feathers to his arms. This is what it takes to prop up midgets, eh? There are also lots of translators for you to choose from.

I have already suggested one of the mechanisms.

Soren wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 1:27am: Thanks, old chap. I’ve eaten. Yes, and now you are full of it. What's it like to be an old pederast with a dodgy sphincter, a misplaced life to look back on and a taste for man-sh!t??

Annie, the patient seems to be errupting again.. Can we do something with the rectum?

I do think it’s time we consulted a surgeon on this one.

Oh, the pre-frontal lobes were done years ago, it’s the bowel I’m concerned with now.

Book it in for a full colostomy, dear. We’ll have it out.

You’ll be better in no time, old chap. We’ll book you in for next week.

I said, WE’LL BOOK YOU IN...

Oh, never mind.

If he’s not better by the end of the week, Amnie, let me know. Is there’s anything left to remove, we’ll have that out too. It’s all for the best, dear.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:

I have already suggested one of the mechanisms.

You did? Sorry FD, can you run us by that again for the slow witted amongst us please? That is after all what the thread is supposed to be about.

Ah - I can answer that one. It’s about standing on the shoulders of giants. Your Muselman, you see, just won’t do it - something about blasphemy laws or Malaysia’s prime minister on hommersexuality.

Thanks Karnal. Gandalf, the inability to rationally assess the contributions of your peers would be a roadblock to success. As you are demonstrating for us, this seems to be part and parcel of Islam. According to Abu, this is not just natural human parochialism, but actually commanded by Islam. It is just one of the many ways in which Islam stifles basic science.

If you can come up with an alternative explanation for the clear historical pattern please enlighten us. When you described it as correlation, were you suggesting there is no causal link? Is it the west's fault that the Muslim world always has been and continues to be so backwards in this regard?

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

Thanks Karnal. Gandalf, the inability to rationally assess the contributions of your peers would be a roadblock to success.

So there are no Muslim scientists, doctors, researchers, academics, or editors of scientific publications?

Sinister.

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

If you can come up with an alternative explanation for the clear historical pattern please enlighten us. When you described it as correlation, were you suggesting there is no causal link? Is it the west's fault that the Muslim world always has been and continues to be so backwards in this regard?

How about this FD: does it make sense for me to try and explain a phenomenon that I don't believe exists in the first place? The no-contribution fairy tale is simply a figment of your imagination. Western scientists themselves have no problem acknowledging the enormous contribution islamic science has made - for example:


Quote:

But 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. The public in the West is generally unaware of this important contribution to modern science and to the culture of the Middle Ages. Islamic civilization is part of our own heritage, and the great Islamic scientists whose works were translated into Latin, such as Jabir ibn Hayan (Geber), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Razi (Rhazes), Ibn al-Haytham (Adhazin) and al-Khuwarizmi, are as important as any great European scientist.

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

the inability to rationally assess the contributions of your peers would be a roadblock to success. As you are demonstrating for us, this seems to be part and parcel of Islam.

Lets talk about an "inability to rationally assess" shall we? How about repeatedly ignoring examples of the many scientific contributions in the fields of physics, astronomy and medicine and others? How about dismissing undisputed mathematical contributions to science on the bizarre logic that "maths is not science" - and the simply comical notion that physics can get along just fine without mathematics?

This is the very embodiment of irrational assessment FD.


freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

According to Abu

Yes, and according to Abu or "some muslims", camel-urine drinking is held as the pinnacle of scientific achievement remember? I've asked you about 5 times now to provide the relevant quotes and not a word. Whats trully pathetic about this is its not just a "by the way" sort of comment, it is front and centre to your bullshit claim that islam props up midgets.

Look, I understand that you most likely made this statement in error (like the claim that deaths in Iraq have been increasing), and thats fine - but at least have the dignity to acknowledge it was just a baseless smeer on muslims. This would be a good first step if you are going to ever hope to rationally assess these topics.

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 12:46pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2013 at 12:26pm: Thanks Karnal. Gandalf, the inability to rationally assess the contributions of your peers would be a roadblock to success. So there are no Muslim scientists, doctors, researchers, academics, or editors of scientific publications? Sinister.

Karnal, have a look at the list of the top 100 scientists from the opening post. There are atheists, Jews, Catholics, various other Christian denominations, Quakers, ancient Greeks, and various other philosophies and religions, some of which I have never even heard of. Surpisingly (?), there is not a single Muslim on the list, either from the lengthy 'golden age' when Islam was at the centre of knowledge and learning, or from modern times. Contrast this with the much shorter Muslim-only list that Gandalf gave in response, which is dominated by people who translated other works, includes the bird feather guy, and another guy whose authenticity is also questioned (at the top of the list). Not one of them seem to measure up to the impressive contributions to our understanding of the fundamentals of the universe from the top 100 list:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/christian-foundation-science.html

Strangely enough, Gandalf seemed to consider this list some kind of crsuhing blow to my argument:

http://www.muslimheritage.com/features/default.cfm?ArticleID=1297

This is not to say that Muslims did not contribute in areas like warfare or agriculture, but the relative contributions to basic science are too divergent to be mere coincidence, given the ample and superficially fertile opportunities throughout Islam's history. Even more interesting than the stark differences between the lists is Gandalf's presentation of the Muslim list as some kind of crushing blow to my argument, as if I would be afraid to even look at it. Combine this with his attempt to pass off the bird feather guy as the inventor of the hang glider (some 1000 years earlier than the real thing), and you have to question what is going on here. Gandalf is probably the most sane Muslim we have had on this forum, and until this debate has come across as fairly normal, especially given the broad range of normal you get on internet forums. But the absurdity of this debate makes him look a lot like Abu. He even reminds me of Falah a bit. You may not have noticed, but before Falah left he was telling us how Muslims taught Australian aborigines to be violent and hostile towards Europeans and that they had glorious military victories, and how they all would have been better off if this hostility was more widepsread. He even started telling us about Aboriginal universities, embassies, and strict quarantine standards that kept foreign agriculture out of Australia. Seeing history as a propoaganda tool rather than an opportunity for learning is going to stifle learning. It is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants whilst propping up midgets.

freediver:

let me present my case for why this debate shouldn't dislodge me from the status of "probably one of the most sane muslims" on this forum - and by the way thank you for that.

1. you start a thread supposedly for the purpose of discussing how islam stifles basic science - but refuse to even mention any arguments related to that. Instead its clearly just a petty point scoring exercise from a previously unrelated debate.

2. When pressed, you say its all about "propping up midgets" - which means that all islam can do is promote trivial and meaningless scientists and scientific achievements - with the camel urine claim and the ibn Firnas flight story as the only two examples provided. There are so many problems with this line:
         [list bull-blackarrow]

we know now that your claim that muslims promote camel urine drinking as the pinnacle of scientific achievement was just a straight out lie. There goes 50% of your evidence  - not to mention your credibility is in tatters

as argued at length, there is no objectively good reason to assume the ibn Firnas flight story was not true - since a) it was perfectly consistent and understandable with the historical character we know and b) we have documented evidence - both primary and secondary - that support the claim. Worth mentioning is the fact that I have not heard a single historian make the same claim you are making that it was almost certainly a "fabrication".

Your 'props up midgets' argument relies on the assumption that muslims rely on promoting trivial and/or historically dubious claims to scientific contribution. They don't. Muslims - as well as informed non-muslim analysts - focus on undisputed contributions - especially in the fields of mathematics, physics astronomy and medicine

Even if you were correct in your 'propping up midgets' claim, how on earth is that in any way evidence for "stifling" basic science?

3. Why do you hinge everything on a superficial and entirely subjective "top 100" list? Who defines "most influential"? Its an endless and ultimately meaningless debate that goes nowhere.

4. Don't misrepresent me and say I "responded" to your list with my own "muslim-only" list. I made it perfectly clear the post before that I despise such lists - and that I didn't care if they were all muslim - it would be just as meaningless. You asked what muslims should be added to the list (missing entirely my point about the inherent futility of such lists - but anyway...), and I responded by providing you with a sample of preeminent muslim scientsts - *NOT* as some counter to your random list, but to refute your persistent inference that no great muslim scientsts existed. And the sample is not my selection, but generally agreed upon universally. Also, please don't insult my intelligence by claiming I believed it was "some crushing blow" to your list.

5. One of the many flaws you have in your argument is that you think that because muslim scientists in the 7th to 12th century didn't invent the computer or space rocket, they didn't contribute. Only western scientists developed these modern innovations - therefore western scientists are the only worthwhile contributors.

Wrong. the advancement of science has been a staged process  - with the baton passing from one civilization to the next, with each proceeding civilization building on the advancements of the previous. Thus you have philosophers in ancient times, such as the Greeks, building the foundations. The mantle was then handed to the muslims who adopted these foundations and developed them further. From there the mantle was handed to the west, who built on the islamic advancements. The point is, the space rocket was not built from scratch, but was the end of a very long and staged process, with equal credit going to the ancients, then the muslims, then the west - with significant contributions from others.

The question you need to ask yourself is would the great modern innovations we have today have been possible without western scientists building on the important contributions of islamic scientists? The best answer for that lies in the fact that western science only kicked off after the islamic scientific texts started arriving in western Europe.

Look FD, I'm all for having a healthy debate on this, but I resent being painted as the unreasonable, tunnel visioned person here. Especially when you straight out lie about a key piece of evidence (one of only two) to support your case, and can't even summon the balls to admit it.

Quote:

Sorry Karnal, I gave the wrong link to the Muslim list before. Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world#Notable_scientists

Gandalf:


Quote:

How about this FD: does it make sense for me to try and explain a phenomenon that I don't believe exists in the first place?

When I previously tried to engage you on whether the phenomenon exists you insisted we can only discuss the possible causes of it.


Quote:

The no-contribution fairy tale is simply a figment of your imagination. Western scientists themselves have no problem acknowledging the enormous contribution islamic science has made - for example:

Have you given up on attempting to prove something with your wikipedia list? Is this because the list is topped by a very questionable contributor? Just out of interest, I googled the first guy listed in your current example. This is what wikipedia had to say about him:

Jābir's alchemical investigations ostensibly revolved around the ultimate goal of takwin — the artificial creation of life. The Book of Stones includes several recipes for creating creatures such as scorpions, snakes, and even humans in a laboratory environment, which are subject to the control of their creator. What Jābir meant by these recipes is unknown.

...

Because his works rarely made overt sense, the term gibberish is believed to have originally referred to his writings

Do you think that guy belongs on the list of the top 100 scientists of all time?


Quote:

Lets talk about an "inability to rationally assess" shall we? How about repeatedly ignoring examples of the many scientific contributions in the fields of physics, astronomy and medicine and others?

I am not ignoring them. I am mocking them. Like the bird feather guy, and your latest example of the great Muslim scientist whose name literally came to mean gibberish.


Quote:

How about dismissing undisputed mathematical contributions to science on the bizarre logic that "maths is not science"

Maths and science are not the same thing. A contribution to maths is hardly relevant to a debate about whether Islam stifles basic science. I am not sure why this seems so bizarre to you.


Quote:

Lets talk about an "inability to rationally assess" shall we?

Sure, your inability to comprehend that maths and science is not the same thing is a good example.


Quote:

Whats trully pathetic about this is its not just a "by the way" sort of comment, it is front and centre to your bullshit claim that islam props up midgets.

No Gandalf. You are front and centre of my claim, because you are propping up midgets.


Quote:

let me present my case for why this debate shouldn't dislodge me from the status of "probably one of the most sane muslims" on this forum - and by the way thank you for that.

Never fear Gandalf, it would take a sane Muslim to do that. You are still far ahead of Abu, Falah, Malik etc in my opinion.


Quote:

1. you start a thread supposedly for the purpose of discussing how islam stifles basic science - but refuse to even mention any arguments related to that.

You keep claiming this. I keep pointing out the relevant arguments that were copied into the opening post. How many times do we have to go over this?


Quote:

2. When pressed, you say its all about "propping up midgets"

That is one of the mechanisms. I am sure it is not the only one. It's just the easiest one to demonstrate at the moment (thanks).


Quote:

which means that all islam can do is promote trivial and meaningless scientists and scientific achievements - with the camel urine claim and the ibn Firnas flight story as the only two examples provided.

Wrong Gandalf, you have provided many more examples. Thanks again.


Quote:

as argued at length, there is no objectively good reason to assume the ibn Firnas flight story was not true

I notice you now refuse to state clearly what that story is, beyond the fact that the guy existed. Have you changed your mind about him inventing the hang glider?


Quote:

Your 'props up midgets' argument relies on the assumption that muslims rely on promoting trivial and/or historically dubious claims to scientific contribution. They don't. Muslims - as well as informed non-muslim analysts - focus on undisputed contributions - especially in the fields of mathematics, physics astronomy and medicine

You posted a wikipedia article as one example. The first guy on the list had this said about him:

There is considerable uncertainty as to the actual provenance of many works that are ascribed to him.

Does that sound like it is 'undisputed' to you? And the works weren't that special anyway. In your second example the first guy listed is the one who invented people and who came to be the definition of the term gibberish.


Quote:

Even if you were correct in your 'propping up midgets' claim, how on earth is that in any way evidence for "stifling" basic science?

I thought I had explained this previously. It is hard to stand on the shoulders of giants when you are propping up midgets.


Quote:

3. Why do you hinge everything on a superficial and entirely subjective "top 100" list?

Because there are no Muslims on it, and even you are too honest to suggest there should be.

Quote:

4. Don't misrepresent me and say I "responded" to your list with my own "muslim-only" list.

But you did. You even suggested I might refuse to look at it.


Quote:

I made it perfectly clear the post before that I despise such lists

Of course they do. They are an embarrassment to Islam and undermine your attempt at counterargument.


Quote:

5. One of the many flaws you have in your argument is that you think that because muslim scientists in the 7th to 12th century didn't invent the computer or space rocket, they didn't contribute.

What makes you think that? There are ancient greeks on the top 100 list. There are no Muslims because none deserve to be on the list.


Quote:

Only western scientists developed these modern innovations - therefore western scientists are the only worthwhile contributors.

If you have a look at the top 100 list, you will see that they are scientists, not inventors, with the possible exception of Ed Hubble. The inventor of the space rocket and the computer are not on the list. Neither is the inventor of the car, plane, phone etc. This should give you a hint as to what science is.


Quote:

The question you need to ask yourself is would the great modern innovations we have today have been possible without western scientists building on the important contributions of islamic scientists?

We'd probably be about 6 months behind.


Quote:

Look FD, I'm all for having a healthy debate on this, but I resent being painted as the unreasonable, tunnel visioned person here.

It is you who is doing that, not me.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

Quote: But 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 ...... The public in the West is generally unaware of this important contribution to modern science and to the culture of the Middle Ages. Islamic civilization is part of our own heritage, and the great Islamic scientists whose works were translated into Latin, such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Razi (Rhazes), Ibn al-Haytham (Adhazin) and al-Khuwarizmi, are as important as any great European scientist. Lets talk about an "inability to rationally assess" shall we? Yes, and according to Abu or "some muslims", camel-urine drinking is held as the pinnacle of scientific achievement remember .

Ibn Sina was an atheist there are many muslim scholars such as Al Ghazali who declared he was an atheist and apostate.

Al Razi was also an atheist he wrote many books critical of Islam.

The public in the west is unaware of the level of bullshit spruiked off by muslims in claiming atheists were muslims.

Gandalf what are your thoughts on Al Ghazali's book the incoherance of the philosophers where he gives it to Ibn Sina can you rationally asses that in this thread?
www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1312088017

There have been many studies on camel urine try google,do those websites ending in ksa come from the kingdom of saudi arabia?

The saudis have been researching the health benefits from drinking camel urine so have many other muslims, western medicine might call that quackery.

Thats quite a comprehensive reply FD, and you covered most of my points.

Except one, and I think you know what it is.

I would like to respond to all the points you covered, but I really would like to settle this nagging issue. So I will just use this post to remind you yet again - 6th time by my count- and hopefully we can clear the air to get back to the other points.

Just to recap, you first brought up camel urine drinking here as an example of what muslims refer to when its suggested that science "suffers" under islam. You then elaborated on this point after I questioned it 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.

Thus we are starting to develop our thesis on how science "suffers" or is "stifled" by islam - by using exactly two examples of what you would later term "propping up midgets".

As is perfectly reasonable, I tried to pin you down on the camel urine claim - since it is one of only two pieces of evidence to support your entire "propping up midgets" case - and thus quite important.

So I asked you directly whether muslims actually make the claim that camel urine drinking is the pinnacle of islamic scientific achievement. You replied here, saying:


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.

I replied with this:


Quote:

so they actually said "amongst the greatest islamic scientific discoveries is drinking camel urine"? Please humour me FD and show me where. In fact after a quick search, the only threads that contain the words "camel urine" were this and this. On both occasions you were the one who brought it up, and no muslim on either thread came remotely close to saying the discovery of the benefits of camel urine was at the pinnacle of islamic scientific discovery.

You ignore this request - and the 5 or so others that I made after. Yet, within a few posts you are running with the phrase "propping up midgets". No other evidence to support this claim was presented - literally just the camel urine and Ibn Firnas's flight claim.

So FD, can we please just clear the air now? The camel urine drinking = pinnacle of islamic scientific achievement claim does not exist - it was made up by you. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but it needs to be acknowledged. Once that is done, we can move on, and understand that the "propping up midgets" claim - so central to your overall "islam stifles science" theme - hinges on exactly one example - one extremely dubious example. I think this is important to put this whole discussion into context.

Once we can get past this, then I would love to address your other points.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 9:02pm:

Ibn Sina was an atheist there are many muslim scholars such as Al Ghazali who declared he was an atheist and apostate. Al Razi was also an atheist he wrote many books critical of Islam.

;D ;D - quoted for the lolz..

I didn't want to distract FD from his task of justifying his blatant lies, but really, I just could not let this pass.

Here we have the same guy thats been telling us ad infinitum that islam is the most intolerant of alternative views, and that the fate that awaits apostates and people who blaspheme is instant death. Shall I refer you to the thread on that very topic you yourself created Baron?

Now just take al-Razi - a man who criticised the prophet - indeed the very idea of prophets, and then openly questioned the authenticity of the quran.

Was he hunted down and killed? Was he forced into hiding? No and no. But how could that be Baron?? A philosopher whose work can only be described as blasphemy against islam is not only tolerated in the islamic world, he is able to thrive!

And yet you clowns insist that islam stifles knowledge - FD by making up blatant lies about what muslims say, and you with arguments like this. What a joke. Here's your argument Baron - "islam stifles knowledge - because islam tolerated philosophers that perpetuated ideas that openly challenged islam's core tenets" - does that make sense to you? You are simply hillarious.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 9:02pm: Ibn Sina was an atheist there are many muslim scholars such as Al Ghazali who declared he was an atheist and apostate. Al Razi was also an atheist he wrote many books critical of Islam. ;D ;D - quoted for the lolz.. I didn't want to distract FD from his task of justifying his blatant lies, but really, I just could not let this pass. Here we have the same guy thats been telling us ad infinitum that islam is the most intolerant of alternative views, and that the fate that awaits apostates and people who blaspheme is instant death. Shall I refer you to the thread on that very topic you yourself created Baron? Now just take al-Razi - a man who criticised the prophet - indeed the very idea of prophets, and then openly questioned the authenticity of the quran. Was he hunted down and killed? Was he forced into hiding? No and no. But how could that be Baron?? A philosopher whose work can only be described as blasphemy against islam is not only tolerated in the islamic world, he is able to thrive! And yet you clowns insist that islam stifles knowledge - FD by making up blatant lies about what muslims say, and you with arguments like this. What a joke. Here's your argument Baron - "islam stifles knowledge - because islam tolerated philosophers that perpetuated ideas that openly challenged islam's core tenets" - does that make sense to you? You are simply hillarious.

They have to be of sound mind before they can be executed for apostasy, it is not my rule it comes from your religion.

Quote:

If a muslim apostatizes and meets the conditions of apostasy- ie he is of sound mind, an adult and does that of his own free will- then his blood may be shed with impunity. Islamic source-www.islamqa.com/en/ref/20327/apostate

Were these guys considered to be not of sound mind?Did they pretend to be crazy to avoid the death penalty for apostasy?

Razi was pretty good-

Quote:

If people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up and get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question.They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries, this is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed. (It sounds like Muhammad al Razi understood what Islam was all about) You claim that the evidentary miracle is present and available, namely the Quran.You say whoever denies it let him produce a similar one. Indeed we shall produce a thousand similar from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets,which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly.They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter,By god what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say produce something like it! www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakariya_al-Razi

Razi said the Quran is full of contradictions which is something a muslim will deny.


Quote:

Allah speaking- Then do they not reflect upon the Quran?,If it had been from any other than Allah they would have found within much contradiction. www.quran.com/4/82

You claimed Al Razi was a muslim when blind freddy can see he did not care for your Quran.

Good lord Baron - even I could have come up with a better response than that.

He must have been considered insane - thats your explanation of why he wasn't persecuted when everything you've ever said on the subject says that he should have.

Even though there is not a shred of evidence, or any reason whatsoever, to believe that might have been the case. This is what we call grasping at straws Baron. Its no more sensible than if I said that Al Razi wasn't persecuted because he was protected by a layer of kryptonite.


Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

You claimed Al Razi was a muslim

I'm afraid not my friend.

I'm really sad to see you adopting FDs tactic of "winning" an argument by simply making sh*t up about what muslims say.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

Good lord Baron - even I could have come up with a better response than that. He must have been considered insane - thats your explanation of why he wasn't persecuted when everything you've ever said on the subject says that he should have. Even though there is not a shred of evidence, or any reason whatsoever, to believe that might have been the case. This is what we call grasping at straws Baron. Its no more sensible than if I said that Al Razi wasn't persecuted because he was protected by a layer of kryptonite. Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:27am: You claimed Al Razi was a muslim I'm afraid not my friend. I'm really sad to see you adopting FDs tactic of "winning" an argument by simply making sh*t up about what muslims say.

Death for apostasy shows Islam is not compatible with the Universal declaration of human rights, article 18, defend your belief that is not compatible with human rights any way you like.
The Saudis give you 3 days to repent before they chop your head off,Saudi Arabia is the homeland of Islam and where do you go for Hajj which is one of the 5 pillars of Islam?
Muslims even face Mecca when they pray, they tap their heads on the ground 5 times a day with their asses in the air while facing Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

There are many reasons why al Razi and Ibn Sina were not persecuted for being freethinkers who thrived in spite of Islam and not because of Islam,being considered insane is one possible reason.

There are many Islamic websites today which claim al Razi and Ibn Sina were muslim so if muslims cannot figure out they were  apostate today then i wonder how many thought they were apostates back then, he was smart enough to know you do not question Islam in public yet what he wrote in his books was great in my opinion.

What has come from anyone in the Islamic world since al ghazali ended rational thought to favour religious dogma?zip?zilch?nothing?


Quote:

Al Ghazali has sometimes been referred to by historians as the single most influential muslim after prophet Mo. Others have cited his movement from science to faith as a detriment to Islamic scientific progress (perhaps FD is in that list..lol) www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

Yes, Baron, but they did invent camel urine, you have to concede that.

Your posts on Islam might be farcical, but you’d drink it if you had warts, boils, some tumours, ,infected circumcision,  or any of the myriad of diseases this marvellous medicine cures.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

There are many reasons why al Razi and Ibn Sina were not persecuted for being freethinkers who thrived in spite of Islam and not because of Islam,being considered insane is one possible reason.

Yes, I agree you have absolutely no idea - so normally that would mean you haven't really got any right to blindly assume that the al-Razi's were the exception and not the rule during the golden age period - especially when that blind assumption has no basis whatsoever.

Far more likely:


Quote:

It may therefore come as a surprise to many people that there is a long and vibrant intellectual tradition of dissidence and freethinking going back to the Middle Ages. The Islamic thinkers of the early medieval period expressed ideas and engaged in debates that would appear strangely enlightened in comparison with the attitudes and views adopted by modern Islamic scholarship. This is the basic argument presented by From the History of Atheism in Islam by the renowned Egyptian thinker Abdel-Rahman Badawi. Published in Arabic in 1945, the book was reprinted only once in 1993

[...]


Quote:

Most prominent among those scholars was Abu Bakr al-Razi (865-925 CE) who believed in the supreme importance of reason. He argued that the mind had an innate capacity to distinguish between good and evil, and between what was useful and what was harmful. According to him, the mind did not need any guidance from outside it, and for this reason the presence of prophets was redundant and superfluous. Al-Razi directed his most vehement attack against the holy books in general, including the Qur'an, because he saw them as illogical and self-contradictory.

[...]


Quote:

In examining this chapter of Islamic history, regardless of the validity or otherwise of the views expressed, one cannot help feel amazed at the fact that the Islamic thinkers of the 10th century had the freedom to discuss and publish their "unorthodox" ideas, while the Islamic world now cannot, or will not, deal with any form of intellectual dissent. It might be reasonable to suggest then that the problem of Islam does not lie in inherited texts and traditions, but in interpretation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/10/islam-freedom-expression

Quote:

Except one, and I think you know what it is.

You mean this?

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/images/smilies/camel.gif

You are fond of talking about camel urine, but would you drink it? Does Islam command you to? Should Muhammed be on the list of the top 100 scientists for this contribution to medicine?


Quote:

Thus we are starting to develop our thesis on how science "suffers" or is "stifled" by islam - by using exactly two examples of what you would later term "propping up midgets".

Like I keep pointing out, you have provided plenty more examples, and they are far better than mine. Thanks.


Quote:

You ignore this request - and the 5 or so others that I made after. Yet, within a few posts you are running with the phrase "propping up midgets". No other evidence to support this claim was presented - literally just the camel urine and Ibn Firnas's flight claim.

Do you still think he invented the hang glider?


Quote:

So FD, can we please just clear the air now? The camel urine drinking = pinnacle of islamic scientific achievement claim does not exist - it was made up by you.

Are you suggesting Islam has contributed something more significant?


Quote:

Once that is done, we can move on, and understand that the "propping up midgets" claim - so central to your overall "islam stifles science" theme - hinges on exactly one example - one extremely dubious example.

It is the dubiousness of the claim (like your claim that he invented the hang glider) that makes it such a good example of Muslims propping up midgets at the expense of genuine science. However, I would like to add your further examples of the guy who came to define gibberish (first in the list from your second example) and the guy whose claims were described by your own link as dubious (top of the list in your first example). I am sure your lists contain plenty more examples of Muslims propping up midgets, but I think these will do for now. After all, the absence of any great scientists from the Muslim list says a lot more than the translaters, hacks and madmen that you have offered up instead.


Quote:

Here we have the same guy thats been telling us ad infinitum that islam is the most intolerant of alternative views, and that the fate that awaits apostates and people who blaspheme is instant death.

You have to do all the paperwork first. Abu got very hot under the collar about such misrepesentations. You should be careful about what you say around him, as he believes the the death penalty for apostasy, with a very broad definition of apostasy. I put it to you that he would kill you before he killed me.

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

You are fond of talking about camel urine

Well you did first bring it up - remember all that time ago? Back then it must have seemed like a good idea, but I can understand how you would rather not discuss it now.


freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

Do you still think he invented the hang glider?

ah I see. My incorrect description (and yes, I will admit my mistake), is equivalent to lying about what muslims have said about the importance of camel urine - with the sole purpose of smeering islam. Right on  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Ibn Firnas's invention may not have been a "hang glider" as we know it - but it was a glider. It seems like it was pretty much identical to Eilmer of Malmesbury's innovation. And interestingly enough Eilmer's feat is only known to us through a single secondary source written over 100 years after the event:


Quote:

All that is known of him is told in the Gesta regum Anglorum (Deeds of the English Kings), written by the eminent medieval historian William of Malmesbury in about 1125.

Contrast this to Ibn Firnas's feat, which has a primary source, plus several secondary sources - including near-contemporaneous ones.

Yet funnily enough, I don't see anyone disputing the feat attributed to Eilmer of Malmesbury.


freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

Are you suggesting Islam has contributed something more significant?

algebra, the numerals we use today, hospitals, the scientific method, our understanding of human anatomy etc etc... all these things have been mentioned about 1000 times before.


Quote:

However, I would like to add your further examples of the guy who came to define gibberish (first in the list from your second example) and the guy whose claims were described by your own link as dubious (top of the list in your first example).

um no its the same person actually. So you need to make up your mind - was it a good case of "propping up midgets", or taking credit for something that never happened? You can't have both and claim it as two separate examples. Nice try though.

But to put the man in context, its worth noting:


Quote:

he historian of chemistry Erick John Holmyard gives credit to Jābir for developing alchemy into an experimental science and he writes that Jābir's importance to the history of chemistry is equal to that of Robert Boyle and Antoine Lavoisier. The historian Paul Kraus, who had studied most of Jābir's extant works in Arabic and Latin, summarized the importance of Jābir to the history of chemistry by comparing his experimental and systematic works in chemistry with that of the allegorical and unintelligible works of the ancient Greek alchemists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabir_ibn_Hayyan#Legacy


Quote:

However, I would like to add your further examples of the guy who came to define gibberish (first in the list from your second example) and the guy whose claims were described by your own link as dubious (top of the list in your first example). I am sure your lists contain plenty more examples of Muslims propping up midgets, but I think these will do for now.

Yup - two examples, which is actually the same person will suffice - and we'll just assume that the rest are all "midgets" without having any idea. As always - nice objective analysis there FD  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Sort of reminds me of your assumption that you had a conversation with "some muslims", who stated that camel urine drinking was the pinnacle of islamic science - when in fact it was you who came up with the bullshit claim all along, and falsely attributed it to muslims.

But if we are talking about the field of scientific "contribution", then it is full of scientists who came up with "gibberish" - in terms of ideas that are no longer accepted today - but who nontheless made incalculable contributions to the advancement of science overall. Aristotle, Lamarck, Freud leap to mind. The advancement of western science is full of scientific theories that are rejected - and ridiculed today: eg phrenology, eugenics phlogiston theory - even Einstein had a now debunked "static universe" theory. But all these were absolutely necessary to arrive at the knowledge we have of science today.

Its not about picking out which scientists were "right" and which were "gibberish" - its about what avenues of ideas and learning they opened up.

Gandalf wrote:

Quote:

Lets talk about an "inability to rationally assess" shall we? How about repeatedly ignoring examples of the many scientific contributions in the fields of physics, astronomy and medicine and others?

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:

I am not ignoring them. I am mocking them.

No you're not - you continually refuse to even address them despite my constant pleas. If only you would mock them - then we might actually be able to discuss something.

But since you make this claim, explain to me how you would "mock" ibn al-Haytham - the man who not only made groundbreaking advances in the field of optics, but is widely regarded as the pioneer of the scientific method - being the first to combine the three main components - observation, experiments, and rational arguments - to test his theories.

Quote:

Ibn Firnas's invention may not have been a "hang glider" as we know it - but it was a glider. It seems like it was pretty much identical to Eilmer of Malmesbury's innovation.

That's odd. I don't think anyone actually knows what Eilmer's innovation was either. It certainly does not appear to involve gluing vulture feathers to your arm. So we have two early accounts of people apparently flying, with almost no details, and you leap to the conclusion that their inventions were identical. The only explanation I have is that this was a leap of faith.


Quote:

Contrast this to Ibn Firnas's feat, which has a primary source

You mean the one line reference to bird feathers and a phoenix?


Quote:

Yet funnily enough, I don't see anyone disputing the feat attributed to Eilmer of Malmesbury.

You don't see a huge Christian propaganda machine making up stories about him inventing the hang glider and being a great Christian thinker either, or putting him top of a list called "Christianity and science, setting the record straight". He doesn;t even make the top 100 list, nor does he deserve to. I would feel no need to call bullshit on Firnas if it wasn't for you and Abu being so desperate to believe any BS claim you read about him online. Your own links put claims about him into sufficient perspective. It is your inability to comprehend that information that is the problem.


Quote:

um no its the same person actually

Oh thanks Gandalf I didn't pick up on that. So the guy who tops both your lists is a guy whose actual contributions are questioned by historians, who deliberately tried to prevent any knowledge he generated from falling into the hands of non-Muslims, who wrote a recipe book on creating humans and scorpions in a lab, and whose name became synonymous with gibberish. Perhaps Muslims like to write their lists backwards. None of the 'scientists' on your lists are familiar, like Einstein, Newton etc from the top 100 list. I don't think any deserve to be either. To save me the effort of going through your list and trying to find one who measures up, can you please suggest who you think is the greatest Muslim scientist of all time? I suspect you had your Islam tinted glasses on when you started posting lists of them. You didn't even read what was written about them in the links you provided did you?

Or, you could concede that there is a clear lack of contributions to science from the Muslim world and we can go back to what you wanted to discuss earlier - the reasons for this.


Quote:

So you need to make up your mind - was it a good case of "propping up midgets"

Yes, both Firnas and Hayyan were good examples of propping up midgets.


Quote:

or taking credit for something that never happened?

The hang glider invention never happened. The creation of scorpions and people in a lab never happened.


Quote:

Yup - two examples, which is actually the same person will suffice

Hayyan is your own example. Like I said, it is your lack of good examples that really proves my point. Your unwitting supply of really bad examples is just another nail in the coffin.


Quote:

and we'll just assume that the rest are all "midgets" without having any idea

Please suggest one who you think deserves to be in the top 100 list. I am not going to do your homework for you.


Quote:

But if we are talking about the field of scientific "contribution", then it is full of scientists who came up with "gibberish" - in terms of ideas that are no longer accepted today

Did Muslims accept at the time that Hayyan created humans and scorpions in his lab?


Quote:

The advancement of western science is full of scientific theories that are rejected

I think that is a bit different to a recipe book for creating humans and scorpions in the lab. You really should read your own evidence before you post it. It is a bit rude of you to post it without reading and expect everyone else to point out the absurdity of it to you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 8:53am:

Ibn Firnas's invention may not have been a "hang glider" as we know it - but it was a glider.

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

Are you suggesting Islam has contributed something more significant?

Quote:

algebra, the numerals we use today, hospitals, the scientific method, our understanding of human anatomy etc etc... all these things have been mentioned about 1000 times before.

What was the second flight from muslims gandalf, is there a second flight recorded or did they give up after the failure of the first one?

There were people doing algebra before Mo invented Islam like this guiy whose works were translated into arabic and passed off as islamic.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata

The funny thing is, Gandalf's list of great Islamic scientists is dominated by translators. The rest are people who claimed credit for the work of others.

Yes, FD. Islam: the Microsoft of great inventors.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

That's odd. I don't think anyone actually knows what Eilmer's innovation was either. It certainly does not appear to involve gluing vulture feathers to your arm.

wrong and wrong. We do know what it was (if we are going to believe the account of William of Malmesbury - which I don't see anyone disputing) - and it absolutely does appear to be the same mechanism - which according to the secondary sources for both men - was attaching wings to the arms and feet.

But why would we accept one story based on its secondary source, but not the other? Even more ridiculous - why would we accept one story based on a single secondary source, and reject another that is based on multiple secondary sources, plus a primary source? The answer is we don't - that is except you.


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

You mean the one line reference to bird feathers and a phoenix?

The very one. Combined with the corroboration of multiple secondary sources - some of which were near contemporaneous - we get a very believable story. As I said - so much of historical "fact" comes from secondary sources written many years, decades, even centuries after the event - often just a single source (such as Eilmer's flight which no one disputes). Its quite a luxury to get, in Firnas's case, both primary and multiple secondary sources corroborating the same story.


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

You don't see a huge Christian propaganda machine making up stories about him inventing the hang glider and being a great Christian thinker either

I don't see a huge islamic propaganda machine making up stories about Firnas either. The "hang glider" error came from me, and me alone. Not that thats the great "gotcha" you are making it out to be though - fact is it was a glider (by all accounts), and to all intents and purposes was basically the forerunner to the hang glider. But as for the "propaganda" muslims will correctly proclaim Ibn Firnas's flight story as the first documented evidence of a successful flight.

Muslims will also hail Ibn Firnas as a great thinker completely apart from the flight story. Something that you conveniently keep overlooking - ie mocking him for being in the islamic scientist list, as if its for his feats of flying, which it is not. His groundbreaking achievements in astronomy and glassworks (amongst others) have already been mentioned.


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

You don't see a huge Christian propaganda machine making up stories about him inventing the hang glider and being a great Christian thinker either, or putting him top of a list called "Christianity and science, setting the record straight". He doesn;t even make the top 100 list, nor does he deserve to.

Perfect case in point. Eilmer is not in any "great scientist" list because he didn't do anything scientific apart from his flight attempt. Ibn Firnas did. He is in "great scientist" lists not because of his flight attempt, but because of all his groundbreaking work in physics and astronomy amongst others


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

So the guy who tops both your lists is a guy whose actual contributions are questioned by historians

He "tops" the list, because it is in chronological order, not order of importance.

And you are selective. The historians I quoted in my last post aren't questioning his contributions.

Also, did you notice the source for the authenticity of his contributions claim? Its Ehsan Masood, who is a very prominent science writer, and who is most famous for his widely proclaimed book "Science and Islam: A History" - in which he presents a very convincing case for the huge contribution of islamic science.


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

can you please suggest who you think is the greatest Muslim scientist of all time?

ok - shall I go with a physicist?, astronomer? Chemist? Psychologist? And then you can explain to me how "greatest" in that field trumps the "greatest" in any of the other fields.

Thats how idiotic your idea of "who's the 'greatest' scientist" is. It is meaningless, because as I keep trying to say, great scientists in different fields are incomparable, and ultimately such a ranking will be purely subjective. How would you, for example, compare Einstein against Freud, or Newton against Darwin? You can't. The best you can do is say they were all great, and should be mentioned as such. As for islamic science, there are many obvious contenders to include amongst "the greatest": al Haytham (as previously mentioned) who pioneered the scientific method, al Battani, who first calculated the length of the solar year, and al-Khwarizmi who first developed algebra - are just three that spring to mind.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

Hayyan is your own example. Like I said, it is your lack of good examples that really proves my point.

The other 16 in that list are bad examples? Please humour me FD and try and smear them as well.

But of course "contributions" is not just about the individuals, its the institution, and the environment fostered that facilitated learning - such as in Baghdad and Corboda - cities that had no equal in the non-muslim world during their time. Not to mention the fact, as explained to Baron previously, that great thinkers who questioned and criticised core tenets of islam (blasphemy in anyone's language) were not only tolerated, but thrived. This reality alone is enough to make a complete mockery of your "islam stifles science" theme - a claim that you still haven't come close to clearly defining - let alone substantiating.


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:19am:

The funny thing is, Gandalf's list of great Islamic scientists is dominated by translators. The rest are people who claimed credit for the work of others.

In order to build on the pioneering work of the ancient Greeks and others, you first need to translate those works. Those great scientists were not merely translators, they translated, analysed and then improved upon the Greek works. For example, al Haytham (who as we know developed the scientific method), analysed Aristotle's pioneering work on induction, and criticised him for not developing it further - ultimately leading to his  development of the scientific method.

But I'd be interested to know FD, how do we get things like reading lenses, clocks, much of modern day medicine, dedicated hospitals, accurate calanders etc etc simply by translating old Greek texts?

Quote:

wrong and wrong. We do know what it was (if we are going to believe the account of William of Malmesbury - which I don't see anyone disputing) - and it absolutely does appear to be the same mechanism - which according to the secondary sources for both men - was attaching wings to the arms and feet.

Are you aware of anyone, ever, being able to fly with this method?


Quote:

But why would we accept one story based on its secondary source, but not the other?

I accept them for what they are. It was you who attempted to claim that Firnas invented a hang glider.


Quote:

Its quite a luxury to get, in Firnas's case, both primary and multiple secondary sources corroborating the same story.

Except that the primary source doesn't actually say anything. You harp on about primary and secondary sources, but completely ignore the elephant in the room. The only thing the 'primary' source proves is that the guy existed.


Quote:

I don't see a huge islamic propaganda machine making up stories about Firnas either. The "hang glider" error came from me, and me alone.

So you made the same error that swamps the google results when you google 'Firnas hang Glider'?


Quote:

Not that thats the great "gotcha" you are making it out to be though - fact is it was a glider (by all accounts)

Except of course the 'primary source' which only talks about vulture feathers and phoenixs.


Quote:

and to all intents and purposes was basically the forerunner to the hang glider

;D


Quote:

But as for the "propaganda" muslims will correctly proclaim Ibn Firnas's flight story as the first documented evidence of a successful flight.

So because it is written, it must be true?


Quote:

He "tops" the list, because it is in chronological order, not order of importance.

Can you suggest a Muslim scientist who you think deserves to be on the top 100 list?


Quote:

And you are selective. The historians I quoted in my last post aren't questioning his contributions.

So because someone else wrote it, it must be true?


Quote:

ok - shall I go with a physicist?, astronomer? Chemist? Psychologist? And then you can explain to me how "greatest" in that field trumps the "greatest" in any of the other fields.

I would go with a physicist or chemist.


Quote:

Thats how idiotic your idea of "who's the 'greatest' scientist" is. It is meaningless, because as I keep trying to say, great scientists in different fields are incomparable

It is easy to compare them. That is why Einstein and Newton for example are regarded as some of the greatest scientists in History, whereas we have never even heard of these Muslim scientists and would not have been talking about them if not for Muslims propping up midgets.


Quote:

and ultimately such a ranking will be purely subjective

I am not asking you for a quantitative measure.


Quote:

How would you, for example, compare Einstein against Freud, or Newton against Darwin? You can't.

They were all great scientists. I would put Einstein first. This is of course subjective. If you come up with who you think is the greatest Muslim scientist of all time, I will do another comparison for you.


Quote:

The best you can do is say they were all great, and should be mentioned as such

Why are you afraid to suggest who you think is the greatest Muslim scientist of all time? These scientists on the list you provide are rpetty much unkown, and deservedly so.


Quote:

As for islamic science, there are many obvious contenders to include amongst "the greatest": al Haytham (as previously mentioned)

A man who was kept under house arrest by the Caliph after he was summoned to complete a hairbrained scheme, and who then felt the need to pretend to be insane to protect himself from Muslims? Do you really think this is a good counterargument against Islam stifling basic science?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

Not to mention the fact, as explained to Baron previously, that great thinkers who questioned and criticised core tenets of islam (blasphemy in anyone's language) were not only tolerated, but thrived. In order to build on the pioneering work of the ancient Greeks and others, you first need to translate those works. Those great scientists were not merely translators, they translated, analysed and then improved upon the Greek works. For example, al Haytham (who as we know developed the scientific method), analysed Aristotle's pioneering work on induction, and criticised him for not developing it further - ultimately leading to his  development of the scientific method.

I did state muslims have to be considered as being of sound mind before they get their heads chopped off for apostasy, i even provided an Islamic source to back this up.


Quote:

If a muslim apostatizes and meets the conditions of apostasy, ie he is of sound mind and an adult- then his blood may be shed with impunity. www.islamqa.com/en/ref/20327/apostate

Glad you mentioned al Haytham.


Quote:

Fearing for his life he feigned madness and was placed under house arrest, during and after which he devoted himself to his scientific work. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen

Why would anyone feign madness if they feared for their life, please enlighten us on that one Gandalf.

Quote:

Why would anyone feign madness if they feared for their life, please enlighten us on that one Gandalf.

what Baron is talking about:


Quote:

After being ordered by Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, the sixth ruler of the Fatimid caliphate, to carry out this operation, he quickly perceived the impossibility of what he was attempting to do, and retired from engineering. Fearing for his life, he feigned madness

Now Baron, why would you mention the "fearing for his life" part in the context of apostasy - without mentioning the fact that his fear for his life had nothing to do with apostasy?

Could it be that you were leading us down the garden path - thinking that you could trick us into thinking that My Al Haytham's ordeal was all to do with him being critical of islam?

Good lord, the lengths you people go to...

Its just really... sad

Gandalf, can you explain why this man, who you appear to think was at least the greatest scientist of his time, would fear for his life after not being able to perform the impossible at the request of the Muslim ruler? Can you do this without supporting the argument that Islam stifles basic science? Also, why would he feign madness?

1. I never said I believed he is the greatest - how many times do I have to tell you, "great" scientists can't be ranked?

2. use your brain for once, and look at the entire quote:


Quote:

After being ordered by Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, the sixth ruler of the Fatimid caliphate, to carry out this operation, he quickly perceived the impossibility of what he was attempting to do, and retired from engineering. Fearing for his life, he feigned madness[1][16] and was placed under house arrest, during and after which he devoted himself to his scientific work until his death.[13] He is known as the "Father of modern optics and Scientific methodology"[17][18] and could be regarded as the first theoretical physicist.[18]

the idea that this episode hampered his scientific career is ridiculous - since this is what kicked off his career in the fields we know him for - optics and scientific methodology.

Finally, what the frying truck has this got anything to do with islam stifling science?? An over eager engineer promises something to the caliph that he cannot deliver. He dissapointed a civic minded caliph - not insulted the prophet or renounced his religion - as Baron tried to convince us. Its like saying something stupid like an engineer who couldn't build a bridge for King John of England - after promising that he could - then rightly fears for his life - and that is a perfect example of how christianity stifles science.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:52pm:

Quote: Why would anyone feign madness if they feared for their life, please enlighten us on that one Gandalf. what Baron is talking about: [quote] After being ordered by Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, the sixth ruler of the Fatimid caliphate, to carry out this operation, he quickly perceived the impossibility of what he was attempting to do, and retired from engineering. Fearing for his life, he feigned madness

Now Baron, why would you mention the "fearing for his life" part in the context of apostasy - without mentioning the fact that his fear for his life had nothing to do with apostasy?

Could it be that you were leading us down the garden path - thinking that you could trick us into thinking that My Al Haytham's ordeal was all to do with him being critical of islam?

Good lord, the lengths you people go to...

Its just really... sad[/quote]

Are you suggesting he feared for his life because he realised the impossibility of an engineering task and retired from engineering?
Are you saying  the 6th ruler of the fatimad caliphate was intolerant of engineers who realised they were wrong?


How does pretending to be crazy-mad-a nutjob help you if you are fearing for your life unless you were a muslim?

Why did he have to feign madness to continue his scientific work?

It is a fact one of the great scientists from the Islamic part of the world had to pretend to be mad in order to continue his scientific studies,It is also a fact that being mad can see you escape getting your head chopped off for apostasy.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:

Are you saying  the 6th ruler of the fatimad caliphate was intolerant of engineers who realised they were wrong?

Evidently the 6th ruler of the fatimad caliphate was intolerant of engineers who promised them a great gift, then had to admit that actually they couldn't give it.

Is this unique to islam? Apparently so.

Is the islamic regime the only regime to make bombastic servants of the ruler fearful for their lives if they back out of an agreement? Apparently so.

knock knock baron - anyone there??

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

Except that the primary source doesn't actually say anything. You harp on about primary and secondary sources, but completely ignore the elephant in the room. The only thing the 'primary' source proves is that the guy existed.

no, we know he existed anyway - that was never in dispute.

There is enough proof in the secondary sources alone to believe that he did what is claimed. This is the standard we set for most historical knowledge we have going that far back in time. Case in point is the Eilmer of malmesbury character who's feat no one disputes - despite coming from a single secondary source. The existence of the primary source - which states pretty clearly what he did - is just an added bonus.

Why don't we dispense with this infantile debate and accept that 1. there is no good reason to believe that it was an "obvious fabrication" as you originally claimed, and that no one except you seriously entertains this belief. and 2. it has never been, nor will it ever be, hailed by muslims as the be-all and end-all to islamic achievement in science.

Why don't you do some actual research and find out for yourself what muslims did during the golden age. Read "Science and Islam: a history" by Ehsan massood - as I have just started. Or at least give me a valid argument or source demonstrating how either 1. muslim scientists during the golden age made no meaningful contributions or 2. islam actively "stifles" science - which is what this thread is supposed to be about remember?


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

So because someone else wrote it, it must be true?

seems to be the approach you adopt. You come out saying "no way this guy contributed anything - because wiki told me he did jibberish and in any case nothing attributed to him was real". I merely point out that there is two sides to that debate. Am I saying one is defintely right? No. Thats the difference between you and me.


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

I would go with a physicist or chemist.

Good for you. One problem though is that in those days, there were so many polymaths (people who excelled in multiple fields) so more often than not a great physicist was also a great chemist. But I'm sure you can decide for yourself - this is after all a subjective exercise.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

That is why Einstein and Newton for example are regarded as some of the greatest scientists in History, whereas we have never even heard of these Muslim scientists and would not have been talking about them if not for Muslims propping up midgets.

Great muslim scientists like Al Haytham  - as well as the importance of islamic science in general - are actually well known amongst scientists and historians in the west. Of course closed minded people like yourself aren't going to be interested in people you have already decided are insignificant. I refer you back to the article that came from a western science institute I quoted earlier.

From The Tech Museum of Innovation in the US, who recently held an exhibition of islamic science:


Quote:

Did you know…     The first modern hospital was built in Baghdad over a thousand years ago?     Persian scholars developed the foundations for modern algebra and algorithms?     We get the word "camera" from the Arab word "qamara"?     Inoculation was written about in 8th century India, long before it gained popularity in Europe?     In the 10th century, a Persian surgeon invented many of the surgical tools we still use today?     An engineer from Mesopotamia developed the camshaft along with other commonly used machines?     By the year 644, Persians were using windmills to manage their water supply?     A man in Cordoba took flight over a millennium before the Wright brothers were born?     A 10th century Persian surgeon used catgut for internal stitches?     A 13th century Arab doctor described the circulatory system 300 years before William Harvey?

http://www.thetech.org/islamic_science_rediscovered/

Of course all this is common knowledge in scientific and historical circles. Much as I'd love to trust your undeniable intellectual prowess FD, I'm going to go with the experts on this one.


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

I am not asking you for a quantitative measure.

Top 100? Not quantitative? Interesting.


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

If you come up with who you think is the greatest Muslim scientist of all time, I will do another comparison for you.

Of course you will. And you'll say something profound like "hmm yeah, interesting suggestion Gandalf - but you know what? I'm going to go with 'they are scientific midgets, they probably didn't exist, and even if they did, nothing that is attributed to them can be believed'. I'm going to keep my eurocentric hat on, and remain ignorant of all the great islamic scientific achievements".


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

Why are you afraid to suggest who you think is the greatest Muslim scientist of all time?

lol why are you so afraid to understand the most simple english?


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

A man who was kept under house arrest by the Caliph after he was summoned to complete a hairbrained scheme, and who then felt the need to pretend to be insane to protect him

right, and that has everything to do with islam stifling science - as opposed to, I don't know, an autocrat getting pissed off that some upstart engineer promised him a great gift, then reneged on the agreement? No doubt nothing like that happened in non-scientific-stifling societies right?

Just so we're clear, this is the same caliph who built the famous "house of knowledge" - a place of learning and innovation renound all over the world:


Quote:

In the area of education and learning, one of Hakim’s most important contributions was the founding in 1005 of the Dar al-‘ilm (House of Knowledge), sometimes also called Dar al-hikma.[20] A wide range of subjects ranging from the Qur’an and hadith to philosophy and astronomy were taught at the Dar al-‘ilm, which was equipped with a vast library. Access to education was made available to the public and many Fatimid da‘is received at least part of their training in this major institution of learning which served the Ismaili da‘wa (mission) until the downfall of the Fatimid dynasty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah#House_of_Knowledge


Quote:

The Imam-Caliph al-Hakim was a great patron of learning and provided paper, pens, ink and inkstands without charge to all those who wished to study there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Knowledge

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 4:30pm:

1. muslim scientists during the golden age made no meaningful contributions or 2. islam actively "stifles" science - which is what this thread is supposed to be about remember?

1. they were interested only in science that supported the Koran
2. Muslim scientists have never and will never conduct research that may contradict the Koran.

Why?

3. for a scientist to put science above Islam in a Muslim country amounts to apostasy and so it is not done.
4 there is no freedom of thought under Islam. So there is no open inquiry, whether scientific, artistic or literary or theological or any other kind. Everything, absolutely everything is subservient to what's in the Koran.

Thanks, old chap. Never and never. Smart.

You’re saying that no scientific research has ever been done by a Muselman in a Muselman country because he might get stung for apostasy. Fascinating.

Does this include cultural studies?

Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 9:22pm:

1. they were interested only in science that supported the Koran 2. Muslim scientists have never and will never conduct research that may contradict the Koran. Why? 3. for a scientist to put science above Islam in a Muslim country amounts to apostasy and so it is not done. 4 there is no freedom of thought under Islam. So there is no open inquiry, whether scientific, artistic or literary or theological or any other kind. Everything, absolutely everything is subservient to what's in the Koran.

the evidence disagrees with you.


Quote:

It may therefore come as a surprise to many people that there is a long and vibrant intellectual tradition of dissidence and freethinking going back to the Middle Ages. The Islamic thinkers of the early medieval period expressed ideas and engaged in debates that would appear strangely enlightened in comparison with the attitudes and views adopted by modern Islamic scholarship.

Why do you guys insist on portraying the islamic golden age as some period of scientific stagnation? Its not called the golden age for nothing you know.

You'd be far better for criticising islam for its current period of stagnation - in just about all areas. That would be a legitimate discussion, and one that I would be endorsing. I would even extend this to criticising contemporary muslims for harking back too much to the "good ol' days" as some substitute for islam's current woes.

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 9:29pm:

Thanks, old chap. Never and never. Smart. You’re saying that no scientific research has ever been done by a Muselman in a Muselman country because he might get stung for apostasy. Fascinating. Does this include cultural studies?

Cultural studies?


You mean like a moslem researcher, asserting that Mohammed the Apostle of Allah, liked to drink camel urine ?

But to say such a thing, could be construed as being insulting to Mohammed, the Apostle of Allah.

So that, that moslem [who was foolish enough to utter such a cultural 'highlight'] would never have an 'opportunity' to repeat that gem of truth.

Yadda wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 9:29pm: Thanks, old chap. Never and never. Smart. You’re saying that no scientific research has ever been done by a Muselman in a Muselman country because he might get stung for apostasy. Fascinating. Does this include cultural studies? Cultural studies? You mean like a moslem researcher, asserting that Mohammed the Apostle of Allah, liked to drink camel urine?

Exactly. Take the Bradford School of Post-Colon Studies. There are some Muslim scholars there who’ve solved the problem of blocked bowels in the elderly and infirm. Can you imagine?

It’s all peer-reviewed and tested. Apparently it involves reading your posts to them out loud until they can’t take it anymore and....

It’s out in next month’s Lancet, Y. Groundbreaking stuff.

The old boy was cured in less than an hour. There’s only one small problem.

The patient can relapse. Well, perhaps the right term is reflux. The blocked stool, you see, passes upwards and - out of one’s mouth as it were.

We might observe the old boy uttering copious amounts of sh!t for quite some time - a definite improvement on his usual work as I’m sure you’ll agree.

If the ethical standard of moslem science is beyond reproach, then why do moslem achedemics refuse to confront the 'implications' of the Sana Koran parchments ???

The Sana Koran parchments were discovered in Sana, Yemen in 1972.
i.e.
revealing the evident editing and fabrication that took place, in the compiling of the 'inerrant' Koran.




Quote:

The Sana'a palimpsest is one of the oldest Qur'anic manuscripts in existence.[1] It was found, along with many other Qur'anic and non-Qur'anic fragments, in Yemen in 1972 during restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript






Quote:

Would the Earliest Quranic Manuscripts of Sana’a Spell the Downfall of Islam? Sunday, 28 June 2009 12:56 The earliest Quranic manuscripts discovered in the Sana'a mosque in Yemen not only differ from the standard version, but disagree amongst themselves. Since Muslims believe that the Quran contains the verses of Allah word for word, the new finds may unravel the 'Pandora's Box' for Islam...

http://www.islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46






Q.
Why is there almost always no apparent integrity, in almost anything which moslems undertake - in whatever field of endeavour ?
e.g.
Moslems have even been 'caught out' cheating at cricket!


A.
Because ISLAM is a false religion, for a false people.

Thanks, Y. The old boy’s bowels are loosening as we speak.

Keep up the good work.

Any chance you could put all this on an audio file?

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 9:29pm:

You’re saying that no scientific research has ever been done by a Muselman in a Muselman country because he might get stung for apostasy.

That contradicts the Koran and Islam.

but of course you are fully aware of your deliberate distortion. That's why you make it.

That's what cultural studies is, innit, deliberate distortions. That's the Paki Bvgger way. It's the culture. Inverting.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

Why do you guys insist on portraying the islamic golden age as some period of scientific stagnation? Its not called the golden age for nothing you know.

Nobody has ever said that it was a period of stagnation. It just wasn't as golden as you think.

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:14pm:

Thanks, Y. The old boy’s bowels are loosening as we speak. Keep up the good work. Any chance you could put all this on an audio file?

Don't believe a single word 'uttered' by this person, folks.

Over the period of his sojourn, here on OzPol, Karnal has revealed himself to be a person who has no sincere opinions of his own which he is willing to reveal in this public forum.




Why would that be ?

Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:20pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 9:29pm: You’re saying that no scientific research has ever been done by a Muselman in a Muselman country because he might get stung for apostasy.  That contradicts the Koran and Islam. but of course you are fully aware of your deliberate distortion. That's why you make it. That's what cultural studies is, innit, deliberate distortions. That's the Paki Bvgger way. It's the culture. Inverting.

I see. So what exactly does contradict the Koran, old chap?

Anything taught in any of the hundreds of universities and medical schools throughout the Muslim world?

Try not to speak with your mouth full, dear.

You go and fooking find out what contradict the Koran, PB. Go ahead, experiment.

But in reality, everyone in so called 'muslim lands', living under the dictatorship of mullahs, have an inbuilt censor. "If I write or say this, they will arrest me and try me for blasphemy."


You stoopid, dishonest poof.

I see. Architects, engineers, chemists, nuclear physicists, poets, mural artists, literary critics, psychoanalists. Never and never.

Thanks, old chap. You’ve solved that one - another case closed.

Lucky we have freedom of thought in our religion, eh?

I say, is that a stool.sample on your collar?

Ah - lunch. Jolly good. I trust the wife’s good with stains.

Quote:

I never said I believed he is the greatest

And I never said that you said you believed he is the greatest. Well done.


Quote:

use your brain for once, and look at the entire quote

You could try the same. You even quoted me saying what is obviously not what you attributed to me.


Quote:

the idea that this episode hampered his scientific career is ridiculous

Actually I thought it was kind of ironic that he got a lot of his work done because of his house arrest.


Quote:

Finally, what the frying truck has this got anything to do with islam stifling science??

That's why I am asking you to explain why this guy would feel the need to pretend to be crazy. You brought him up. He is your example. The house arrest thing, pretending to be crazy, impossible engineering feats... It's not a good look, but I don't claim to be able to make sense of it. All I know is that every counterexample you bring up seems to undermine your own case, and this looks like going the same way.


Quote:

He dissapointed a civic minded caliph - not insulted the prophet or renounced his religion - as Baron tried to convince us.

I am not talking about what Baron said. You brought him up. Check the wikipedia article about him. I see this time you were smart enough not to post a link to the information that undermines your argument. It is all in there. Can you explain why he feared for his life, and why pretending to be crazy was a way out?


Quote:

Its like saying something stupid like an engineer who couldn't build a bridge for King John of England - after promising that he could - then rightly fears for his life - and that is a perfect example of how christianity stifles science.

Except that kings are not mandated in the Bible. Caliphs are. Muhammed was one. We can add that to the list of mechanisms for when we get round to discussing that. In many ways the church shielded early scientists from this sort of BS.

Also, the article says nothing about him promising anything. He was ordered to do the impossible.


Quote:

There is enough proof in the secondary sources alone to believe that he did what is claimed.

Except that you can not even figure out what that claim is. You parroted the propaganda line that he built the first hang glider, then attempted to attribute that to your own personal error, even though 30 seconds on google will show you countless examples of Muslims spinning the same BS story. Then you said his invention was identical to some other guy, whose invention is also unknown. You keep insisting we have all this evidence to prove he invented what is attributed to him - the only problem is that you still don't even know what that is.


Quote:

This is the standard we set for most historical knowledge we have going that far back in time. Case in point is the Eilmer of malmesbury character who's feat no one disputes - despite coming from a single secondary source.

The internet is not full of Christians falsely attributing things to him. He is a mere footnote in history. He doesn't top lists like Abu's.


Quote:

Why don't we dispense with this infantile debate and accept that 1. there is no good reason to believe that it was an "obvious fabrication" as you originally claimed

Except that it was an obvious fabrication. You admitted this. The fabrication is widespread and accepted unquestioningly by Muslims. This is the sort of thing that should have been in Abu's "setting the record straight" thread. Maybe then you wouldn't have been caught up the in absurd Islamic propaganda.


Quote:

Why don't you do some actual research and find out for yourself what muslims did during the golden age.

That's why I am asking you who you think the greatest Muslim scientist was. Was it the guy who pretended to be crazy out of fear for his life? Was it Mr Gibberish? Was it the guy who outflew the phoenix? Can you refer to to any other poems making fun of great Muslim scientists?


Quote:

Read "Science and Islam: a history" by Ehsan massood - as I have just started.

Nice. I hope he does a better job than Abu of setting the record straight. Somehow I doubt it. Let us know what you figure out.


Quote:

Or at least give me a valid argument or source demonstrating how either 1. muslim scientists during the golden age made no meaningful contributions

How about this: not a single Muslim scientist deserves to be on the top 100 list.


Quote:

or 2. islam actively "stifles" science - which is what this thread is supposed to be about remember?

Your own arguments here are evidence of that. We even have you trying to take personal credit for the fabrications of other Muslims about the grand contributions from Muslim scientists. It is not enough for you people to falsely claim credit for the science, you also have to falsely claim credit for falsely claiming credit. It's like some kind of weird game.

Quote:

seems to be the approach you adopt. You come out saying "no way this guy contributed anything - because wiki told me he did jibberish and in any case nothing attributed to him was real"

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%81bir_ibn_Hayy%C4%81n

As early as the 10th century, the identity and exact corpus of works of Jābir was in dispute in Islamic circles.

Jābir states in his Book of Stones (4:12) that "The purpose is to baffle and lead into error everyone except those whom God loves and provides for". His works seem to have been deliberately written in highly esoteric code (see steganography), so that only those who had been initiated into his alchemical school could understand them. It is therefore difficult at best for the modern reader to discern which aspects of Jābir's work are to be read as symbols (and what those symbols mean), and what is to be taken literally. Because his works rarely made overt sense, the term gibberish is believed to have originally referred to his writings (Hauck, p. 19)

Jābir's alchemical investigations ostensibly revolved around the ultimate goal of takwin — the artificial creation of life. The Book of Stones includes several recipes for creating creatures such as scorpions, snakes, and even humans in a laboratory environment, which are subject to the control of their creator. What Jābir meant by these recipes is unknown.

In some sources, he is reported to have been the son of Hayyan al-Azdi, a pharmacist of the Arabian Azd tribe who emigrated from Yemen to Kufa (in present-day Iraq) during the Umayyad Caliphate.[14][15] while Henry Corbin believes Geber seems to have been a client of the 'Azd tribe.[16] Jābir became an alchemist at the court of Caliph Harun al-Rashid, for whom he wrote the Kitab al-Zuhra ("The Book of Venus", on "the noble art of alchemy").[citation needed] Hayyan had supported the Abbasid revolt against the Umayyads, and was sent by them to the province of Khorasan (present day Afghanistan and Iran) to gather support for their cause. He was eventually caught by the Umayyads and executed

After the Abbasids took power, Jābir went back to Kufa. He began his career practicing medicine, under the patronage of a Vizir (from the noble Persian family Barmakids) of Caliph Harun al-Rashid. His connections to the Barmakid cost him dearly in the end. When that family fell from grace in 803, Jābir was placed under house arrest in Kufa, where he remained until his death.

In total, nearly 3,000 treatises and articles are credited to Jabir ibn Hayyan.[19] Following the pioneering work of Paul Kraus, who demonstrated that a corpus of some several hundred works ascribed to Jābir were probably a medley from different hands,[10][20] mostly dating to the late 9th and early 10th centuries

A few more examples in there of how Islam stifles basic science. We even have another house arrest of a prominent scientist (but obviously not the greatest of all time - I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I hope prominent is OK). Or is this the same guy again?

If you think wikipedia is wrong, please enlighten us.


Quote:

I merely point out that there is two sides to that debate.

One being gibberish?


Quote:

Great muslim scientists like Al Haytham  - as well as the importance of islamic science in general - are actually well known amongst scientists and historians in the west.

Like the gibberish guy? He is hardly a househould name like Einstein or Newton (I don't think that having the term gibberish coined after yourself counts).


Quote:

Of course closed minded people like yourself aren't going to be interested in people you have already decided are insignificant.

I keep asking you for one that you think is most significant or who deserves to be on the top 100 list. You are going to great lengths to avoid passing such a judgement. You could always give it a try.


Quote:

Of course you will. And you'll say something profound like "hmm yeah, interesting suggestion Gandalf - but you know what? I'm going to go with 'they are scientific midgets, they probably didn't exist, and even if they did, nothing that is attributed to them can be believed'.

How about he didn't invent the hang glider, he just glued feathers to his arms and broke his neck? Or he deliberately wrote gibberish to confuse people? Or he was put under house arrest and had to pretend to be mad? I am still waiting for you to come up with an example that doesn't reinforce my argument.


Quote:

Just so we're clear, this is the same caliph who built the famous "house of knowledge" - a place of learning and innovation renound all over the world:

This is what makes the contrast so extraordinary. So much opportunity, so little result. It's not like I am having a go at the Aborigines for not contributing anything. These people squandered a golden opportunity, and the best that can be said about them is that they did not destroy too much knowledge.


Quote:

I would even extend this to criticising contemporary muslims for harking back too much to the "good ol' days" as some substitute for islam's current woes.

Like the golden age when Muslims invented the hang glider but then forgot how it works? Or scientists were placed under house arrest? Or they deliberately wrote gibberish to confuse people and prevent them gaining access to the precious knowledge?

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:56pm:

I see. Architects, engineers, chemists, nuclear physicists, poets, mural artists, literary critics, psychoanalists. Never and never. Thanks, old chap. You’ve solved that one - another case closed. Lucky we have freedom of thought in our religion, eh? I say, is that a stool.sample on your collar? Ah - lunch. Jolly good. I trust the wife’s good with stains.

You are rambling incoherently, PB.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

the evidence disagrees with you.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


LOVE IT, LOVE IT, LOVE IT!!!

The Granuiad as the authority mustered by Islam!!  Abso-fooking-priceless!!!! (how do you say that in classical Arabic? Translatable?)

I say, FD, there’s a top 100 scientist list?

The old boy must be pretty close to the top of that. His development of the scientific method will no doubt influence generations of open and inquiring minds.

Never and never. I think we can all learn from that, eh?

Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:20pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 9:40pm: the evidence disagrees with you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D LOVE IT, LOVE IT, LOVE IT!!! The Granuiad as the authority mustered by Islam!!  Abso-fooking-priceless!!!! (how do you say that in classical Arabic? Translatable?)

Same as in Biblical Greek, innit.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

That's why I am asking you to explain why this guy would feel the need to pretend to be crazy. You brought him up. He is your example. The house arrest thing, pretending to be crazy, impossible engineering feats... It's not a good look, but I don't claim to be able to make sense of it. All I know is that every counterexample you bring up seems to undermine your own case, and this looks like going the same way.

::) picture me with a massive facepalm...

Can this discussion get any more absurd? You know FD, maybe - and I hope for your sake - you will look back on this debate one day and and think "oh dear God, did I really say that??"

This cute little anecdote has absolutely nothing to do with islam stifling science - its about (if its about anything), an engineer panicking after he realised he couldn't deliver what he had committed to delivering. One would expect this great 'stifling' islamic institution to, oh I don't know - actually *stifle* the work of this great scientist - instead of letting him thrive. I would expect this great science-stifling caliph to be rounding up scientists and demolishing their achievements - not open up a freaking centre of learning renound the world over  ::)


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

I am not talking about what Baron said.

what Baron said is very revealing - he clearly tried to fob us off pretending that this house arrest had everything to do with apostasy. I want to highlight it, because its what you clown resort to - like your bald faced lying about what muslims claim about camel urine. Its clearly all you can do to maintain your incomprehensible argument.


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

Also, the article says nothing about him promising anything. He was ordered to do the impossible

wiki wrote:

Quote:

According to one version of his biography, overconfident about practical application of his mathematical knowledge, he assumed that he could regulate the floods of the Nile.[15] After being ordered by Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, the sixth ruler of the Fatimid caliphate, to carry out this operation, he quickly perceived the impossibility of what he was attempting to do, and retired from engineering.

reading comprehension anyone?

Here's some accounts of Al Haytham that are actually relevant to our discussion:


Quote:

Using only logic like this and a few simple experimental materials – a pinhole in a curtain or a hollow straight tube – Ibn al-Haytham went on to deduce a great deal about modern optics. Light rays travel in straight lines. Light on flat mirrors is reflected in one set of ways, and on curved mirrors in others.  Light is refracted (bent) when it moves from air to water. Most importantly of all, Ibn al Haytham did all this good work using experiments and observations, writing out for his readers what they could do to show themselves the same evidence he had seen and reach the same conclusions

Quote:

Two hundred years passed after the death of the Arab scholar before a Christian monk took up a translated volume of the work and saw its value. Roger Bacon was our hero’s name.

Quote:

The reason science and engineering have been able to progress so much in our lifetimes is that the method of running experiments and testing results is enormously successful.  But in the old world, it was far from clear that this approach would lead to the most sound results. We owe Ibn al-Haytham and Roger Bacon a lot, not just for their good work on optics, but for recognizing the power of the scientific method that has given us so much today.

http://wsm.wsu.edu/discovery/index.php/tag/al-haytham/


Quote:

Ibn al-Haytham was the major ligure in the science of optics and the study of vision between Clas-sical civilization and the Renaissance. ... later known in Europe as Alhazeni. His work represents the first major advance in optiœ after Euclid and Ptolemy of Alexandria and in visual physiology after Galen. We must wait until Kepler and Newton in the 17th and 18th Centuries for further fundamental understanding of the nature of light and until at least Helmholtz in the 19th Century for further advances in under­standing visual perception. ... Like Leonardo, Ibn al­Haytham was a polymath, contributing to astronomy, mathematics, philosophy as well as a variety of other subjects. Unlike Leonardo, who had little or no impact on suc- cessive generations of scientists, Ibn al-l­laytham’s influence was pervasive and usually recognized well into the 19th and 18th Centuries.

http://www.princeton.edu/~cggross/Bull_Islamic_Med_1981.pdf

Like I said, for the people who are actually expert in the relevant fields, the Al Haytham's of the muslim world are unquestioned as amongst the greatest contributors to scientific advancement.

Freediver on the other hand, derives his conclusions solely from wiki articles that are spoon fed to him - and he STILL can't even interpret those correctly. He definitely won't go out and find the information for himself.

You'll forgive me if I go with the experts on this one no?

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:13pm:

If you think wikipedia is wrong, please enlighten us.

wikipedia may or may not be wrong (it can be written by anyone) - but you definitely are.

The relevant part of the article for our discussion is under the heading "legacy" - which I have quoted before:


Quote:

Max Meyerhoff states the following on Jabir ibn Hayyan: "His influence may be traced throughout the whole historic course of European alchemy and chemistry."[32] The historian of chemistry Erick John Holmyard gives credit to Jābir for developing alchemy into an experimental science and he writes that Jābir's importance to the history of chemistry is equal to that of Robert Boyle and Antoine Lavoisier. The historian Paul Kraus, who had studied most of Jābir's extant works in Arabic and Latin, summarized the importance of Jābir to the history of chemistry by comparing his experimental and systematic works in chemistry with that of the allegorical and unintelligible works of the ancient Greek alchemists.

It may be all wrong, or it may be all right - amateurs like us can never really be sure. But the important point is that there are two sides of the story presented here - you refuse to look at both. You are never going to win any arguments being so selective.


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:13pm:

I keep asking you for one that you think is most significant or who deserves to be on the top 100 list.

I have you three names already to include amongst "the greatest". They are obviously not the only ones though. Such giants of the scientific world are not denied their rightful status by anyone who actually knows what they are talking about. Like all the articles I have provided for you.


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:13pm:

How about he didn't invent the hang glider, he just glued feathers to his arms and broke his neck?

Why do you keep saying he broke his neck? You are incredible - mocking me for supposedly embellishing the story and drawing baseless conclusions. What we can say for absolute certain is that none of the many sources testifying his successful flight, mention anything about him breaking his neck. If he broke his neck he wouldn't have lived for another 10 years.


freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:13pm:

These people squandered a golden opportunity, and the best that can be said about them is that they did not destroy too much knowledge.

Right - so says Freediver - the preeminent authority on the subject. Unfortunately, you just haven't been able to come up with any evidence that refutes the near-universal consensus amongst western experts (samples cited previously) that modern western science is indebted to the works of islamic scientists during the golden age.

Interestingly too - though not much discussed here, though I bring it up every now and then - you have failed to explain the existence of the greatest cities and learning centres of their time - namely Baghdad and Cordoba - amongst other great cultural centres like Cairo and Alexandria. And the fact that these centres thrived as great centres of knowledge and learning - including, significantly, between different religions and ethnicities - eg jews and muslims, as well as christians, and in Baghdad, where Persian knowledge and scholars were imported as part of the thirst for knowledge.

Quote:

This cute little anecdote has absolutely nothing to do with islam stifling science

And yet we just found a second example (one of yours again) of a great scientist (note I did not say greatest) being put under house arrest. If I keep looking into your examples, how many more will I find?


Quote:

One would expect this great 'stifling' islamic institution to, oh I don't know - actually *stifle* the work of this great scientist - instead of letting him thrive

What do you think pretending to be mad is? Stifling or thriving?


Quote:

what Baron said is very revealing - he clearly tried to fob us off pretending that this house arrest had everything to do with apostasy.

Your explanation seems equally odd. You keep claiming he promised what he could not deliver, but the evidence suggests he was simply ordered by the Caliph to do the impossible.


Quote:

reading comprehension anyone?

Do you know the difference between an assumption and a promise? What about the difference between an order and a promise?


Quote:

Like I said, for the people who are actually expert in the relevant fields, the Al Haytham's of the muslim world are unquestioned as amongst the greatest contributors to scientific advancement.

Should they be in the top 100?


Quote:

Freediver on the other hand, derives his conclusions solely from wiki articles that are spoon fed to him

I am merely using your own evidence to contradict your argument.


Quote:

and he STILL can't even interpret those correctly. He definitely won't go out and find the information for himself

So what did the bird feather guy's invention look like? A hang glider? Angel wings? A helicopter?


Quote:

You'll forgive me if I go with the experts on this one no?

What if the experts disagree with each other? Would you still refuse to think for yourself? You could probably find experts to tell you that the bird feather guy invented the hang glider if you looked hard enough.


Quote:

It may be all wrong, or it may be all right - amateurs like us can never really be sure. But the important point is that there are two sides of the story presented here - you refuse to look at both.

But I am looking at both. That is how I am able to point out that every bit of evidence you have presented so far actually supports my argument that Islam stifles basic science.


Quote:

I have you three names already to include amongst "the greatest". They are obviously not the only ones though.

I can only look into one at a time. So far I have looked into whoever topped whatever list you provided, and the result has been far from good for Islam. Instead of me choosing them, I have suggested that you say who is the best example, but you refuse to do so.

Are you suggesting that instead of this, we accept your list at face value and look into none of them? Or that I look into every one before I comment on any of them?


Quote:

Why do you keep saying he broke his neck?

It is one of the many stories going round about him. Like you claiming he invented the hang glider.


Quote:

What we can say for absolute certain is that none of the many sources testifying his successful flight

You mean the single one line primary source from a poet who liked to mock him that mentions bird feathers and flying faster than a phoenix?


Quote:

mention anything about him breaking his neck.

They don't mention anything about hang gliders either. They don't say anything at all about his supposed flying machine, which is why Muslims have gone to town filling in the blanks with their elaborate fantasies that you swallow hook line and sinker. You admitted you are wrong about the hang glider. But now you insist his invention was identical to someone else's, even though there is no evidence for that either, and we don't actually know what that other invention looked like anyway. You go on and on about primary and secondary sources as if they back your claims up, but they don't. The existence of the source does not mean it supports whatever elaborate fantasy Muslims feel compelled to invent around a one line reference to a phoenix.

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 10:34am:

And yet we just found a second example (one of yours again) of a great scientist (note I did not say greatest) being put under house arrest.

um no its the same person, same story. Bit of a habit of yours - turning one example into two isn't it?

What was I saying about reading comprehension again? Explain to me again how I'm supposed to take anything you interpret from articles seriously? This on top of blatantly lying about what muslims say. You are an intellectual joke.


freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 10:34am:

What if the experts disagree with each other? Would you still refuse to think for yourself?

show me where any expert claims that islamic science made little or no contribution to modern science.

See "thinking for yourself" in fields you are not expert in, is about weighing up the consensus of what the experts say. I have only heard people giving the highest credit for islamic science, and acknowledging the contribution it made to modern science. I have not heard any of the experts saying otherwise - let alone seeing any sort of consensus. If you believe there is, please show me. Oh wait, that would mean researching for yourself - we can't have that!


freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 10:34am:

hang glider

wow thats really all you've got isn't it? Nothing about the curious existence of the greatest cities the world has ever known? Nothing about the cross-cultural, cross-cultural centres of learning that thrived during the time the Europeans were languishing in the dark ages? Nothing about the actual scientific contributions of the many prominent islamic scienctists in fields of physics, maths, medicine etc?

No, it all has to come back to the hang glider. I guess that literally is all you have - after the camel urine claim was exposed for the blatant lie that it is.

As if it matters, but it was a gliding apparatus, achieved by fixing wings to his hands - and possibly feet. Whether you call it a "hang glider" is rather irrelevant, the principle is the same. The only relevant point is that his apparatus - by all accounts - worked and he achieved flight. I simply can't see the logic of believing one flying account based on a single secondary source, but dismissing another that has several secondary sources, plus a primary account, as "obviously fabricated". Since it was the first documented flight, I don't see the problem with people - muslims as well as non-muslims (in fact I can't find anyone who really doubts the story - certainly not taking the absurd position that it was "obviously fabricated) hailing this as the "first known documented flight attempt".

Quote:

um no its the same person, same story. Bit of a habit of yours - turning one example into two isn't it?

How many examples do you have of me doing this gandalf? One or two? When does it become a habit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%81bir_ibn_Hayy%C4%81n

Jābir was placed under house arrest in Kufa, where he remained until his death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen

Fearing for his life, he feigned madness[1][16] and was placed under house arrest


Quote:

What was I saying about reading comprehension again? Explain to me again how I'm supposed to take anything you interpret from articles seriously? This on top of blatantly lying about what muslims say. You are an intellectual joke.

Don't get carried away Gandalf, you'll just make yourself look silly.


Quote:

show me where any expert claims that islamic science made little or no contribution to modern science

There are expert's who disagree with Kraus' assessment. They do so from a more informed position. You can hardly blame Kraus for taking Muslims at their word, it is a common mistake, but when the truth comes out it is a bit silly to cling to his original assessment.


Quote:

I have only heard people giving the highest credit for Islamic science, and acknowledging the contribution it made to modern science.

Except of course that not a single Muslim scientist made it onto the top 100 list, and your own evidence cites experts questioning the validity of the claims attributed to them.


Quote:

I have not heard any of the experts saying otherwise

I have pointed out to you where it says these things in your own evidence.


Quote:

let alone seeing any sort of consensus

There is no consensus because there is no real debate. For example there is no serious investigation into what the bird feather guy's invention was. It suffices to say that the only evidence over 700 years was a one line reference to bird feathers and a phoenix in a poem from an author who enjoyed mocking the guy. For most people, that is the end of the discussion.


Quote:

wow thats really all you've got isn't it? Nothing about the curious existence of the greatest cities the world has ever known?

I actually have referred to these many times throughout this discussion. Are you getting forgetful?


Quote:

As if it matters, but it was a gliding apparatus, achieved by fixing wings to his hands - and possibly feet.

Actually I think it does matter. Have you ever seen anyone fly with such an apparatus? Is it even possible, even with modern technology? Does the fact that it is not even possible undermine your argument?


Quote:

Whether you call it a "hang glider" is rather irrelevant, the principle is the same.

Have you gone back to claiming it is a hang glider? You claimed earlier that you invented this story.


Quote:

The only relevant point is that his apparatus - by all accounts - worked and he achieved flight.

By one account - a one line reference to vulture feathers and a phoenix from a poet who liked to mock him. BTW, the internet is full of 'secondary sources' that say it was a hang glider. Do they prove anything?


Quote:

I simply can't see the logic of believing one flying account based on a single secondary source, but dismissing another that has several secondary sources

Who is doing this?


Quote:

Since it was the first documented flight, I don't see the problem with people - muslims as well as non-muslims (in fact I can't find anyone who really doubts the story - certainly not taking the absurd position that it was "obviously fabricated) hailing this as the "first known documented flight attempt".

Gandalf, please explain to me the difference between attempting to fly and actually flying. This appears to be a sticking point for you.

You two will never uncover the truth back and forth like this. You need to learn from the old boy. He’s scientific. His maxim, "never ever", is quoted in schools and universities throughout the world. It comes from the Biblical Greek, paustos. Apparently the old boy’s an expert.

Over the years, the old boy has added to it. Never ever ever has entered the popular lexicon, a truism used by schoolboys throughout the non-tinted world. The old boy’s later maxim, "as every schoolboy knows", highlights this. Schoolboys, you see, are the experts in this field.

These theorum have been developed, of course, by Freediver’s "not it’s not". However, this has been rebutted by Gandalf’s "yes it is".

I’d stick to the old boy argument if I was you.

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

How many examples do you have of me doing this gandalf? One or two? When does it become a habit?

Sorry, I must be getting confused by all the times you make up stories about what muslims say.

Yes, it seems that Mr Jabir also was put under house arrest. Seems he associated himself with the wrong noble family - and paid for this when that family fell from grace. Again, this is something totally unique to the muslim world, and absolutely never would have happened in "non-science-stifling" societies.


freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

There are expert's who disagree with Kraus' assessment. They do so from a more informed position. You can hardly blame Kraus for taking Muslims at their word, it is a common mistake, but when the truth comes out it is a bit silly to cling to his original assessment.

Who? Where? Show me.

And Max Meyerhoff? And  Erick John Holmyard? Those too? Funny, I didn't see any such informed disagreement.

But its hardly answering my question. I asked for a scientific consensus disputing the idea that islamic science had a significant influence on modern science. But you won't find one, because none exists.


freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

There is no consensus because there is no real debate. For example there is no serious investigation into what the bird feather guy's invention was.

Yes, because as you keep reminding us, Ibn Firnas's flight is the be-all and end-all of islam's claim to scientific contribution. That and the camel urine drinking - oh wait, you just made that up... oops - sorry to keep bringing that up, I know you hate to talk about that  :-[

But of course there is no real debate about the contribution of the likes of Al Haytham in contributing the knowledge we now have of optics, as well as developing the scientific method, the astronomer al-Battani who accurately calculated the length of the solar year, and al-Khwarizmi who developed algebra. There is no debate, because it is not disputed. Everyone except Freediver acknowledges these great contributions. I wonder why you never want to talk about these guys. Much more fun to nitpick the obscurities rather than to acknowledge the big picture I guess  :-/.


freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

I actually have referred to these many times throughout this discussion. Are you getting forgetful?

I must be. Please bear with me and remind me again - how does the existence of the greatest cultural and learning centres the world had ever seen equate to "stifling" science? I really hope I don't miss this again, because it will be most interesting to solve this seeming paradox.


freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

Does the fact that it is not even possible undermine your argument?

Who says its not possible? Another imaginary scientific "consensus" is it? I'm calling bullshit on that one.


freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

Have you gone back to claiming it is a hang glider? You claimed earlier that you invented this story.

I guess I have. But you keep concentrating on these little details FD, don't you worry yourself with  the important things like the consensus regarding islam's contribution to modern science.


freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

Gandalf, please explain to me the difference between attempting to fly and actually flying. This appears to be a sticking point for you

No, I have shown you all the sources that clearly state his flight was successful. The idea that he jumped off a roof and fell straight to the ground is entirely your invention. No one else is saying that. Please don't confuse your own fabrications to what the evidence actually says.

show me where any expert claims that islamic science made little or no contribution to modern science.

Here You Go Gandalf.

Arabic philosophy is not important as original thought. Men like Avicenna and Averroes are
essentially commentators. Speaking generally, the views of the more scientific philosophers come
from Aristotle and the Neoplatonists in logic and metaphysics, from Galen in medicine, from
Greek and Indian sources in mathematics and astronomy, and among mystics religious philosophy
has also an admixture of old Persian beliefs. Writers in Arabic showed some originality in
mathematics and in chemistry--in the latter case, as an incidental result of alchemical researches.
Mohammedan civilization in its great days was admirable in the arts and in many technical ways,
but it showed no capacity for independent speculation in theoretical matters. Its importance, which
must not be underrated, is as a transmitter.

Yes they were transmitters of knowledge not the creaters of it.

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/History%20of%20Western%20Philosophy.pdf

This is the new age of Islamic scientists FD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58_hsyJ0CdY

Do you think that Camel Urine will kill the Devils Digit?

Adamant wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:

Here You Go Gandalf.

Yes, I have read Bertrand Russell as well. A great philosopher to be sure, but in many respects - such as his views on islam - he was a product of his time: he wrote that book in 1946, and those rather antiquated ideas about islam ("Mohammadans" as Europeans called them then), have well and trully been superseded by more contemporary works.

The record has been well and truly put straight.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

Adamant wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 3:12pm: Here You Go Gandalf. Yes, I have read Bertrand Russell as well. A great philosopher to be sure, but in many respects - such as his views on islam - he was a product of his time: he wrote that book in 1946, and those rather antiquated ideas about islam ("Mohammadans" as Europeans called them then), have well and trully been superseded by more contemporary works. The record has been well and truly put straight.

Antiquated ideas about Islam in 1946? How has Islam changed since 1946?

1546?

1046?

732?

Has there been some updating of Islam in 1400 years? I have never heard of any. Has anyone else??

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

Adamant wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 3:12pm: Here You Go Gandalf. Yes, I have read Bertrand Russell as well. A great philosopher to be sure, but in many respects - such as his views on islam - he was a product of his time: he wrote that book in 1946, and those rather antiquated ideas about islam ("Mohammadans" as Europeans called them then), have well and trully been superseded by more contemporary works. The record has been well and truly put straight.

Yes Gandalf the record is being put straight by many people who believe in the truth, no amount of rewriting history by the muslim can be tolerated. The truth about islam must be told. We as humans Must eradicate islam. Call it jihad if you like.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient" Rome.

Read Winston Churchill as well have you Gandalf?

ISLAM is just a fraud upon mankind.



Quote:

No wonder that Sina (2008) concluded: “No matter how you look at Islam it turns out to be a foolish religion.” Although Muslims have sold their soul to Muhammad, can they logically clear the above doubts? The Sana’a episode had put them in such an awkward position that even circular reasoning or absurd logic will not help. Isn’t it time for prudent Muslims to give a second thought to their cherished faith? Instead of trying hard to reason out the above doubts, isn’t it more sensible to agree that the entire Muslim ummah had been fooled by a vulgar imposter named Prophet Muhammad? Isn’t it time for Muslims to care truth? As poet Thomas Gray (cited Sagan, 1997, p. 12) wrote, “… where ignorance is bliss, “Tis [It is] folly to be wise”. To protect the Quran from more humiliation, Yemeni authorities already debarred Puin and Bothmer from further examination of those manuscripts. In fact, now they do not allow anyone to see those manuscripts anymore except some very carefully selected non-Quranic parchments, which are at display at the ground floor of Dar al-Makhtutat Library. But this is not going to help; the bird is out of the cage already; it is useless closing the door now. More than thirty-five thousand microfilms are out of Yemen before the authorities came to know; and already, several duplicates have been made. The present author is sure that, at this very moment, in some undisclosed location in Germany, a group of experts are endlessly working on those microfilms and Puin is burning enough midnight oil to complete his book, which, once published, will hammer another nail in the coffin of Islam. Islam is in real danger now.

http://www.islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

ISLAM is just a fraud upon mankind.  #2



Quote:

Today, when the divinity of the Quran is shattered by the Sana’a manuscripts, the spiritual nature of Islam is also exposed. Islam is nothing but a pure Arab political movement. The Divinity was attached to the Quran, when Arabs started conquering the surrounding nations, and Islam was imposed on them by force. Arabs not only imposed Islam on others, but also imposed this irrational belief of Quranic divinity to the minds of their victims, so that once Arabs are gone, the conquered people cannot come out from this mental enslavement, and return back to their original faith. It is a rare political skill. Many companions of Muhammad clearly knew that the Quran was fake, but they remained with their prophet to share the booty and to enjoy the women. We all know, after Muhammad’s death, several Arab tribes returned back to their original belief, and idolatry flourished, but were forced back to Islam with the sword and bloodbath. With much shock to Muslims, modern study on Psychology had spoken out the truth that Muhammad was an imposter, a madman, who was suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Narcissists are such self-absorbed persons, who are pathological liars. It means, either they are unaware of their lies or feel completely justified and at easy in lying to others. Their mental condition is such that they have that rare capability to believe their own lies (Vaknin, 1999, p. 24).

http://www.islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46








The Sana’a manuscripts, expose a truth [about ISLAM, Mohammed, and the 'perfect' religion of Allah] which the the moslem mind refuses to confront.

Why so ?

Because moslems, are so mentally entrenched, engrossed, within the lies which ISLAM fosters and promotes, that moslems can no longer bring themselves to confront any truth which challenges their warped and fraudulent worldview.

It would be too 'hurtful' to the psyche of moslems, for moslems to acknowledge that ISLAM is, and always has been, a fraud upon all of mankind.



And ISLAM remains, a false religion, for a false people.

Yes, Y, but you have to admit, they’re quite nice in Malaysia, no?

south korean rock sensation and current you tube record holder for the most veiws ever on youtube  has retitled his song gangman style in case it offends muslims

what a fing softc#ck

so at least it stifles dumb rappers from korea

http://news.yahoo.com/psy-revise-song-over-worry-may-offend-arabs-070637494.html

Postmodern trendyism reaches Korea.
Then again, it could be a tactical marketing ploy. More hits on you tube from the Arabs states.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 8:22am:

Postmodern trendyism reaches Korea. Then again, it could be a tactical marketing ploy. More hits on you tube from the Arabs states.

;) ;) ;)

he had actually done a rap song early in his career saying "kill the mother fing americans"
then he was booked for obamas christmas ppagent. (the daughters a huge fan) and then this came out.

they will pander to whoever they feel is popular nowdays.  obama is such a vain man

Quote:

Again, this is something totally unique to the muslim world, and absolutely never would have happened in "non-science-stifling" societies.

Not unique, but apparently common.


Quote:

Who? Where? Show me.

Sorry not sure where I read that. This is what I found in the wikipedia article on Hayyan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%81bir_ibn_Hayy%C4%81n

In total, nearly 3,000 treatises and articles are credited to Jabir ibn Hayyan.[19] Following the pioneering work of Paul Kraus, who demonstrated that a corpus of some several hundred works ascribed to Jabir were probably a medley from different hands,[10][20] mostly dating to the late 9th and early 10th centuries, many scholars believe that many of these works consist of commentaries and additions by his followers,[citation needed] particularly of an Ismaili persuasion.[21]


Quote:

I asked for a scientific consensus disputing the idea that islamic science had a significant influence on modern science.

Isn't this like asking for a mathematical proof of God's existence? You have a strange habit of setting the bar absurdly high for anyone who disagrees with you, and doing the opposite for yourself.


Quote:

But you won't find one, because none exists.

Of course it does not exist. Now for the difficult question: what does that mean?


Quote:

But of course there is no real debate about the contribution of the likes of Al Haytham in contributing the knowledge we now have of optics, as well as developing the scientific method

Except of course on the wikipedia page about him:

G. J. Toomer expressed some skepticism regarding Schramm's view, arguing that caution is needed to avoid reading anachronistically particular passages in Alhazen's very large body of work


Quote:

Everyone except Freediver acknowledges these great contributions. I wonder why you never want to talk about these guys.

What do you think we have been doing Gandalf? Chatting about the weather?


Quote:

Much more fun to nitpick the obscurities rather than to acknowledge the big picture I guess  Undecided

The big picture is that Islam contributed very little to science, despite the otherwise fertile environment it created. I am not surprised that the two examples you now focus on are of scientists who were placed under house arrest by the all powerful caliph. Ironically enough this house arrest is credited with enabling some of the work. In addition to this, there is a lot of evidence that a lot of what is attribued to him actually came from several other people.


Quote:

I must be. Please bear with me and remind me again - how does the existence of the greatest cultural and learning centres the world had ever seen equate to "stifling" science?

This is one of the great ironies.


Quote:

I really hope I don't miss this again, because it will be most interesting to solve this seeming paradox.

I never missed it. In fact I raised it. You must have missed that.


Quote:

Who says its not possible? Another imaginary scientific "consensus" is it? I'm calling bullshit on that one.

Can you give a single example of someone achieving flight by attaching wings to their arms? Have you seen how large a hang glider is? Think about it.


Quote:

I guess I have. But you keep concentrating on these little details FD, don't you worry yourself with  the important things like the consensus regarding islam's contribution to modern science.

What consensus? The 'scientific' consensus you were demanding of me?


Quote:

No, I have shown you all the sources that clearly state his flight was successful.

You also claimed that you made up the bit about the hang glider, even though this little fantasy is all over the internet. You have never maintained a consistent and coherent story on what he invented and what he achieved. Of course, no one would expect you to given that the only evidence over a period of 7 centuries is the one line reference to a phoenix in a poem from a guy who liked to mock him. Muslims could invent any story they wanted to around that. They did. They invented many stories. You seem happy to pick and choose which one is most convenient to you, while demanding the highest standards of anyone who disagrees with you.


Quote:

The idea that he jumped off a roof and fell straight to the ground is entirely your invention

No Gandalf, I do not take credit for the fabrications of other people. There are all sorts of stories about what actually happened. That is because there is no real evidence for what happened.

freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

Not unique, but apparently common.

Yup - 2 known instances in a 600 year period. Sounds common enough.  :D


freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

Sorry not sure where I read that. This is what I found in the wikipedia article on Hayyan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%81bir_ibn_Hayy%C4%81n In total, nearly 3,000 treatises and articles are credited to Jabir ibn Hayyan.[19] Following the pioneering work of Paul Kraus, who demonstrated that a corpus of some several hundred works ascribed to Jabir were probably a medley from different hands,[10][20] mostly dating to the late 9th and early 10th centuries, many scholars believe that many of these works consist of commentaries and additions by his followers,[citation needed] particularly of an Ismaili persuasion.[21]

As always you miss the point. The important point is that there were these groundbreaking scientific works, that we know existed, and they were produced by muslims in the islamic world. Your quote merely reaffirms this fundamental point. Or to put it another way - arguing that the works ascribed to one muslim during the islamic golden age - was actually the work of a different muslim during the islamic golden age - doesn't exactly refute my overall argument that important scientific works were produced in the muslim world does it?


freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

Isn't this like asking for a mathematical proof of God's existence? You have a strange habit of setting the bar absurdly high for anyone who disagrees with you, and doing the opposite for yourself.

The bar was set by you, believe it or not, when you stated repeatedly (again in your last post) that islam definitely contributed nothing to modern science. You see, the argument against your claim is the undeniable consensus amongst both historians and scientists that states the exact opposite. This consensus is clear from the most cursory investigation into the matter - and I have provided you with enough quotes already to give you a good enough idea. But here's another one from the respected economist magazine:


Quote:

The caricature of Islam’s endemic backwardness is easily dispelled. Between the eighth and the 13th centuries, while Europe stumbled through the dark ages, science thrived in Muslim lands. The Abbasid caliphs showered money on learning. The 11th century “Canon of Medicine” by Avicenna (pictured, with modern equipment he would have relished) was a standard medical text in Europe for hundreds of years. In the ninth century Muhammad al-Khwarizmi laid down the principles of algebra, a word derived from the name of his book, “Kitab al-Jabr”. Al-Hasan Ibn al-Haytham transformed the study of light and optics. Abu Raihan al-Biruni, a Persian, calculated the earth’s circumference to within 1%. And Muslim scholars did much to preserve the intellectual heritage of ancient Greece; centuries later it helped spark Europe’s scientific revolution. Not only were science and Islam compatible, but religion could even spur scientific innovation.

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21570677-after-centuries-stagnation-science-making-comeback-islamic-world-road

So here we have it - I have provided you with more than enough evidence to suggest that islamic science has made significant contributions to modern science. Yet you continue with your insistence that this is not the case. In the face of the evidence I have provided, the onus is on you to firstly demonstrate that the consensus I refer to doesn't exist, and secondly that in fact there is a consensus amongst the experts pointing the opposite direction.

Of course if you think the bar of substantiation is now too high, then by all means feel free to abandon your untenable position that islam contributed nothing to modern science.


freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

Of course it does not exist. Now for the difficult question: what does that mean?

It means you don't have a leg to stand on.  :)


freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

he two examples you now focus on are of scientists who were placed under house arrest

again FD - just the simple things... if you can't even get my argument right, how do you expect to have any chance of refuting it? In my last post I "focused" on 3 great scientists - only one of whom was placed under house arrest.


freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

a lot of what is attribued to him actually came from several other people.

other muslims yes. Other muslims working in the apparent "stifling" environment of the Islamic golden age.


freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

This is one of the great ironies.

Ignoring all the evidence and concensus that there was no great scientific advancement during that time - would make it ironic, yes.


freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

Can you give a single example of someone achieving flight by attaching wings to their arms?

Eilmer of Malmesbury did exactly that according to the only source we have on him.

Quote:

Yup - 2 known instances in a 600 year period. Sounds common enough.

They are your examples Gandalf, not mine - the first two I looked into after you gave them as examples to demonstrate that Islam does not stifle basic science.

Are you suggesting they are the only two?

So far your first two examples of how Islam does not stifle basic science consist of one guy who deliberately wrote gibberish to prevent the spread of knowledge to all but the 'true believers', who claimed to be able to invent humans and scorpions in the lab, whose actual contributions are seriously questioned by historians, and whose name literally came to mean gibberish. His father was executed by Muslims for political reasons and he had to flee for his life at a young age. His political connections later lead to his house arrest. The second guy had to feign madness and was also placed under house arrest by the all powerful Caliph. Ironically this house arrest is credited with created the conditions for a lot of the scientific work.

Not looking real good is Gandalf? Is that why you are not willing to give a single example of a scientist who you think should be on the top 100 list.


Quote:

The bar was set by you, believe it or not, when you stated repeatedly (again in your last post) that islam definitely contributed nothing to modern science.

You don't understand what you are asking for do you gandalf? You are demanding a 'scientific' consensus on a question of history. Do you realise how absurd that is? Do you realise that stating that Islam stifles basic science is not the same thing as demanding such an absurd standard of evidence? Do you understand the difference between "islam definitely contributed nothing to modern science" and what I actually posted?


Quote:

Of course if you think the bar of substantiation is now too high

It is not too high Gandalf. It is nonsensical. Gibberish even.


Quote:

In my last post I "focused" on 3 great scientists

Of course, you keep coming up with more examples after it is pointed out to you how silly your previous examples were. Would you care to suggest one single Muslim scientist who you think deserves to be on the top 100 list? Do you think that Hayyan deserves to be on the list for his contributions to the field of gibberish? Or perhaps for his ability to invent humans and scorpions in the lab?


Quote:

Eilmer of Malmesbury did exactly that according to the only source we have on him.

What about the guy who flew too close to the sun and melted the glue on his wings? Would you believe that based on a single story? At what point does common sense kick in? I have suggested you look into whether this is even possible but you continue to dig yourself in deeper.

freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

Not looking real good is Gandalf?

;D if you say so. I guess we'll just have to take your word that in both instances big bad islam came along and said "gar! science.. knowledge... imprison them! garr!" And I guess we'll also have to accept that this sort of practice was systematic and endemic - even though we only have two instances in an entire 600 year period (not that thats a problem - we'll just respond with 'oh you think they were the only two??").

And then I guess we'll just conveniently ignore contradictory facts - like, you know, all the great achievements I keep referring to like algebra, hospitals, optics, astronomy etc etc - which you'd think if islam really did stifle science, would never have existed.

By the way, what are your thoughts of the claims made in the economist article I quoted? Did you get a chance to look into the scientific advances cited - such as Ibn Sana's (Avicenna) canon of medicine which was used as a standard medical text in Europe for hundreds of years? Or al Biruni who accurately calculated the earth's circumference? Khwarizmi's development of algebra? Would you say they were significant contributions to modern day science?

Or are we going to keep pretending that Mr Gibberish and house arrest guy are the only representatives of islamic science?  :-/ 


freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

Do you realise that stating that Islam stifles basic science is not the same thing as demanding such an absurd standard of evidence?

hmm yeah, silly me. Why don't you enlighten me - what would you consider adequate proof for the (what I would consider) rather ambitious claim that islam during the golden age "stifled" science - given all that we know that was achieved that seems to contradict this claim? Two guys being imprisoned? disputing the flight claims of Ibn Firnas? making up stuff about what muslims say about camel urine? All very compelling I'm sure, but you'll forgive me if I think thats not quite enough.


freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

Do you understand the difference between "islam definitely contributed nothing to modern science" and what I actually posted?

Apologies FD, what you actually posted was "Islam contributed very little to science". I really don't know what I was thinking.  ::)


freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

Of course, you keep coming up with more examples after it is pointed out to you how silly your previous examples were.

Nope. All there in the very first list I gave you. I think there are about 17. Please feel free to look into the others for yourself without me having to spoon feed them to you.


freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

Would you care to suggest one single Muslim scientist who you think deserves to be on the top 100 list? Do you think that Hayyan deserves to be on the list for his contributions to the field of gibberish? Or perhaps for his ability to invent humans and scorpions in the lab?

Add any of them to your top 100 list if it makes you feel better. I've stated repeatedly that I'm not participating in any such list making, so I really don't know why you keep asking me to.

As for Hayyan, his contribution to our understanding of chemistry is well known. If making great discoveries through pursuing flawed ideas disqualifies the discoverer from being recognised for his or her contributions - then you better take out a fair chunk from your western list.

But of course its not only about individuals, its also about the advances that evolved as a result of the environment that was fostered for learning and discovery. Like the great learning centres of Baghdad and Cordoba amongst others, where the trading of knowledge between different cultures and civilizations was encouraged. And which even extended to tolerating the propagation of ideas that can only be identified as blasphemous to islam - as Baron so kindly pointed us to. This is the thing that should most be acknowledged for producing the great minds that made the great discoveries. A real culture of learning.

Really, your "stifling science" thought bubble is just hilarious.


freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

I have suggested you look into whether this is even possible but you continue to dig yourself in deeper.

Here's a suggestion from me: why don't you look into whether its definitely NOT possible. Surely that will settle this once and for all?

Quote:

Or are we going to keep pretending that Mr Gibberish and house arrest guy are the only representatives of islamic science?

Like I keep saying gandalf, I am waiting for you to propose an example that does not make Islam look bad.


Quote:

hmm yeah, silly me. Why don't you enlighten me - what would you consider adequate proof for the (what I would consider) rather ambitious claim that islam during the golden age "stifled" science

I think the justified absence of any Muslims from the list of the top 100 scientists is a good start, given the context of the 'golden age.' Your unwillingness to suggest any who should be is not helping your case.


Quote:

Add any of them to your top 100 list if it makes you feel better. I've stated repeatedly that I'm not participating in any such list making, so I really don't know why you keep asking me to.

I keep asking because it puts Islam's contributions into perspective. It does not make sense to attempt to measure Islam's contributions without comparing them to something else. Otherwise you just have a convoluted version of "how long is a piece of string".


Quote:

If making great discoveries through pursuing flawed ideas disqualifies the discoverer from being recognised for his or her contributions

I think that deliberately preventing the spread of scientific knowledge for religious reasons is yet another example of Islam stifling basic science (in addition to the house arrest, the execution of his father, the life in exile etc). I'm sure he was a genius and did great things, despite all the gibberish. But in the end his example supports my argument, not yours.


Quote:

Here's a suggestion from me: why don't you look into whether its definitely NOT possible. Surely that will settle this once and for all?

Because you can't prove a negative Gandalf. Think about it. Also, if you insist this guy invented something (and please make up your mind what it is you think he invented) then it is up to you to provide evidence. Given that you have changed your mind again and gone back to the hang glider story there does not appear to be much point.

freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

What about the guy who flew too close to the sun and melted the glue on his wings? Would you believe that based on a single story? At what point does common sense kick in? I have suggested you look into whether this is even possible but you continue to dig yourself in deeper.

Muslims might believe that one FD, he could have been in the right place at the right time to get close enough to the sun according to the Allah of the Quran.


Quote:

Allah speaking- Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of dark mud,...... www.quran.com/18/86

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 10:13pm:

By the way, what are your thoughts of the claims made in the economist article I quoted? Did you get a chance to look into the scientific advances cited - such as Ibn Sana's (Avicenna) canon of medicine which was used as a standard medical text in Europe for hundreds of years? Or al Biruni who accurately calculated the earth's circumference? Khwarizmi's development of algebra? Would you say they were significant contributions to modern day science? hmm yeah, silly me. Why don't you enlighten me - what would you consider adequate proof for the (what I would consider) rather ambitious claim that islam during the golden age "stifled" science -

When did the Economist become a respected scientific journal Gandalf?

Ibn Sina was an atheist apostate and kafir according to Al Ghazali yet that does not stop muslims from claiming he was a muslim.
Al Ghazali wrote a book that was very critical of Ibn Sina called the Incoherance of the philosophers.
You can download al Ghazalis book in pdf why dont you read that before asserting Ibn Sina was a muslim.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers

Islam stifles basic science and has done since Al Ghazali put an end to rational thought, nothing of use has come from the Islamic world since the days of Al Ghazali.

Quote:

Al Ghazali has sometimes been referred to by historians as the single most influential muslim after prophet Mohammad. Others have cited his movement from science to faith as a detriment to Islamic scientific progress www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth accurately before Mohammad invented Islam, he lived from 276BC-195BC which is long before Biruni copied the works of Aryabhata and passed them off as Islamic.
Muslims will ignore the previous work of non muslims to falsely claim Islam did it first.
Eratosthenes was the first to accurately calculate the circumference of the earth.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Biruni copied the works of Aryabhata who was doing algebra before Mohammad invented Islam.
The persian Al Biruni even mentions Aryabhata in his works.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata

There are bugger all arabs in the list of scientists from the Islamic world the vast majority of them are Persians who follow that deviant twelver shia Islam.

freediver wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 10:48am:

Like I keep saying gandalf, I am waiting for you to propose an example that does not make Islam look bad.

An example of what? A great scientist? I've given you a list of 17 - only two of which you think you can use to trash islam. Great acheivements? I've repeatedly given you an array of great scientific achievements - from the scientific method, to astronomical discoveries, optics, medicines, hospitals etc. A culture of learning that is the very antithesis of "stifling" science and learning? I give you the greatest learning centres of their time - Baghdad and Cordoba, as well as in Cairo - by the same caliph who imprisoned Al Haytham. Learning centres that encouraged the importation of different ideas and cultures from outside the islamic world, and who even gave a platform for non-islamic ideas - even blasphemous ideas.

How can you possibly say with a straight face that in this environment islam stifled science? You can't, its a joke of a claim. You can't even make a convincing case for islamic science not contributing much to modern science - let alone that islam actively "stifles" science.


freediver wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 10:48am:

I think that deliberately preventing the spread of scientific knowledge for religious reasons...

Stop there, and explain to me exactly where that happened during the islamic golden age.


freediver wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 10:48am:

Also, if you insist this guy invented something (and please make up your mind what it is you think he invented) then it is up to you to provide evidence.

picture me with a massive facepalm.


Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

When did the Economist become a respected scientific journal Gandalf?

It didn't. But it is a highly regarded international magazine who would be putting their reputation on the line if they made statements that were patently false.

The important part about the quote I posted is the examples it cites. The scientists and achievements it lists are not disputed from a historical point of view, nor are the conclusions it draws about their significance from a scientific point of view.


Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

Ibn Sina was an atheist apostate and kafir according to Al Ghazali yet that does not stop muslims from claiming he was a muslim. Al Ghazali wrote a book that was very critical of Ibn Sina called the Incoherance of the philosophers.

Yes we call this freedom of speech here. What sort of society is this that allows Ibn Sina to propagate such blasphemous ideas without having those ideas suppressed?


Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

You can download al Ghazalis book in pdf why dont you read that before asserting Ibn Sina was a muslim.

;D my God you are a bafoon Baron - no offence - you really just need to think your arguments through a little better. Nowhere did I claim he was a muslim. He was however a great thinker living in the islamic world. The fact that there were (apparently) atheists and apostates walking around in the heart of the muslim world freely propagating their blasphemous ideas - and having them challenged and debated in a civilized manner only supports my argument - not yours. Silly billy  :P


Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

There are bugger all arabs in the list of scientists from the Islamic world the vast majority of them are Persians who follow that deviant twelver shia Islam.

Well I trust that in the spirit of "stifling" science and different ideas, those Persians were promptly rounded up and executed. Whats that? They weren't?? The Abbassids actually encouraged cultural and knowledge exchange and allowed the Persian thinkers to flourish??? What a bizarre thing to happen. Its almost as if the islamic world... um... encouraged science and learning. You might even call it "enlightened".  :-?

Quote:

An example of what? A great scientist? I've given you a list of 17 - only two of which you think you can use to trash islam.

They were the first two you provided. I did not pick and choose which ones to look at. They were merely the first ones on whatever lists you gave. I recall one of the lists had a lot of translators on it. Is that the list you think proves your case?


Quote:

Great acheivements? I've repeatedly given you an array of great scientific achievements - from the scientific method, to astronomical discoveries, optics, medicines, hospitals etc. A culture of learning that is the very antithesis of "stifling" science

Except of course for the bit where they put the scientists under house arrest, made them feel like their only option was to feign madness, lead them to believe that deliberately writing gibberish and trying to prevent the spread of knowledge was the right ting to do in God's eyes, killed their family members, made them flee the country, and then ascribed developments to them that were from other people etc. And this is just from the first two examples you gave (I am ignoring the imaginary invention of the hang glider).


Quote:

How can you possibly say with a straight face that in this environment islam stifled science? You can't, its a joke of a claim.

It is actually quite easy. We have the outcome clearly communicated in the list of the top 100 scientists. And the more you attempt to provide counter-examples, the more evidence you give of the various ways Islam achieved that outcome, despite the superficially fertile ground for scientific development.


Quote:

Stop there, and explain to me exactly where that happened during the islamic golden age.

Do you want the entire history, or will a shortened version suffice?


Quote:

The scientists and achievements it lists are not disputed from a historical point of view, nor are the conclusions it draws about their significance from a scientific point of view.

Who do you think is the best example of Islam not stifling science? Now that I have demonstrated how your first two examples undermine your argument you seem afraid to single anyone out.


Quote:

Yes we call this freedom of speech here. What sort of society is this that allows Ibn Sina to propagate such blasphemous ideas without having those ideas suppressed?

Actually gandalf, if you check the list of the top 100 scientists, you will see that many of them were religious, just not Muslim. Not one. It is not just that these societies tolerated non-believers tinkering away with ideas. It is also that for many scientists, uncovering the fabric of the universe was an expression of their religious devotion (as oppose to say, fasting, walking round magic rocks, praying five times a day, trying to gather 4 wives, slaughtering the infidel etc).

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

;D my God you are a bafoon Baron - no offence - you really just need to think your arguments through a little better. Nowhere did I claim he was a muslim. He was however a great thinker living in the islamic world. The fact that there were (apparently) atheists and apostates walking around in the heart of the muslim world freely propagating their blasphemous ideas - and having them challenged and debated in a civilized manner only supports my argument - not yours. Silly billy  :P

Yes baron,

Why can't you accept it when gandalf tells us that non-moslems [or moslems] who are atheists and apostates could/can walk around in the heart of the moslem world freely propagating their blasphemous ideas ???




I mean baron, even here in Australia we have PROOF that a moslem, living within the Australian moslem community, can reject the tenets and laws of ISLAM and can freely propagate their blasphemous ideas on an Australian online forum - and he/she will still be regarded as a bona fide moslem.

e.g.
gandalf doesn't obey Allah, and as a moslem gandalf refuses to associate himself with the tenets and laws of ISLAM, regarding the relationship that moslems must foster towards disbelievers.

gandalf doesn't obey the Koran, and as a moslem gandalf refuses to associate himself with the tenets and laws of ISLAM, regarding the relationship that moslems must foster towards disbelievers.

gandalf doesn't obey Mohammed, and as a moslem gandalf refuses to associate himself with the tenets and laws of ISLAM, regarding the relationship that moslems must foster towards disbelievers.




So baron, why can't you just accept that every moslem [or even a non-moslem], can be 'a man for all seasons', who can be a tolerant individual who promotes the idea that ISLAM accepts a political environment of pluralism for all of mankind ?

And baron, why can't you just accept that a moslem can ignore the tenets and laws of ISLAM, and still remain a bona fide moslem ?

Hmmm?




So can you see, that gandalf is our proof, that a moslem can hold blasphemous and apostating views, and can still be a moslem, at that very same instant.
/sarc off


Dictionary;
pluralism = =
1 a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, etc., coexist.       a political theory or system of power-sharing among a number of political parties.
2 Philosophy a theory or system that recognizes more than one ultimate principle.      Compare with monism.i+++


Jahiliyya = = the un-ISLAMIC lifestyle, e.g. a society which embraces political pluralism.




Quote:

"THE RIGHT TO JUDGE" "It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya which are current in the world or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system........"

SAYYID QUTB - ISLAMIC scholar
http://www.islamworld.net/justice.html

OR, Google;
"THE RIGHT TO JUDGE" SAYYID QUTB




The 'Jahiliyya' lifestyle is totally incompatible with ISLAM.

And in fact, to devout moslems, the mere *existence* of non-moslem communities is viewed as insulting to the authority of Allah.
...because you see, moslems 'deserve' to have 'authority', to rule the whole world, for Allah.



Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia...


Quote:

"....Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia law, without which Islam cannot exist;" "...true Islam is a complete system with no room for any element of Jahiliyya" "...all aspects of Jahiliyya...are "evil and corrupt" "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyya#Jahiliyya_in_contemporary_societyi+++


IMAGE...
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/09/15/3637564/art-protest3-620x349.jpg
Sydney, 2012, moslem street protests.
"Ignore the placards. We are moslems!!! And we believe in pluralism!"