Talk:Islamic science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "List of Muslim Scientists" or "Islamic science"? 2 Striver 3 Picture 4 Quranic passages regarding Science 5 NPOV 6 History of Islamic science 6.1 Split Section on History from Islamic Science 7 Peer review citation needed 8 Resource? 9 Islamic philosophy of science 10 Islamic Science and Chemistry 11 Requested move 11.1 Survey 11.2 Discussion

[edit] "List of Muslim Scientists" or "Islamic science"?

"The introduction states: Islamic science is science in the context of traditional religious ideas of Islam, including its ethics and prohibitions. This is not the same as science as conducted by any Muslim in a secular context.."

And yet the article goes on to give a big list of scientists and mathematicians even though there is no cited evidence that their ideas were "science in the context of traditional religious ideas." The mathematics section confuses "Arabic science" with "Persian science" and states "Although some claim that Al-Khwarizmi's personal religion was Zoroastrianism, nevertheless his work has always been and remains in the mainstream of Islamic intellectual history." Thus it is not even know whether or not Al-Khwarizmi was actually a Muslim. None of Al-Khwarizmi's mathematical work is "in the context of traditional religious ideas of Islam." It isn't possible to frame mathematics in the context of religious faith (although that is not true for the natural science, where reigious faith may play a big role). This article seems a lot of like Golden Age of Islam and yet it is not able to establish that any of these mathematicians and scientists were even believing Muslims (as opposed to scientists born in a Muslim society), let alone establish that their scientific work was "in the contest of traditional religious ideas of Islam." Most of the names dropped in the article don't belong there. And I entirely question the inclusion of a mathematics section under the heading "Islamic science" as it is defined in the introductory paragraph. Mathematics cannot be anything but a wholely secular pursuit. Religious zealots claiming the triumphs of science and scientists for their particular religion are all too common and their views cannot be taken as NPOV content. This article should not be a soap box for such people, it should remain true to its purpose, i.e. describing science done by Muslims in the context of Islamic beliefs. -- Zeno of Elea 10:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It is definitely possible "to frame mathematics in the context of religious faith" . Just ask the Pythagoreans. I am no expert on Al-Khwarizmi, so I wouldn't want to claim that his mathematical work is in the context of Islamic faith, but the existence of an "Islamic mathematics" is well documented. Here are some links: [1] and [2] --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 06:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Muslim mathematicians != Muslim mathematics, just as Christian mathematicians != Christian mathematics. Just because a scientist subscribes to a particular faith, it does not somehow give his scientific endeavors religious qualities. If there's going to be an article on so-called "Islamic science" (basically scientific achievements of Muslims of different cultures lumped together under the Islamic banner), then there ought to be appropriately sized articles on "Christian science" or "Hindu science" or "Olympian science" --SohanDsouza 01:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Just because a scientist subscribes to a particular faith, it does not somehow give his scientific endeavors religious qualities." I definitely agree with this point. But, as can be seen from the second source I cited, it is the case that there are/were religious qualities to, at the very least, mathematics and astronomy in an Islamic context: "As for mathematics proper, like astronomy, it received its direct impetus from the Quran not only because of the mathematical structure related to the text of the Sacred Book, but also because the laws of inheritance delineated in the Quran require rather complicated mathematical solutions." If it were true that the only way in which we could say a scientific endeavour was "Islamic" was that the scientists were Muslims, then this assessment would certainly be fair, but if there was (as the source claims) a theological motive behind the inquiry, then it is less fitting. --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And my point is precisely that this "theological motive" (as opposed to practical necessity, pre-existing or imported secular cultural systems, or simply natural curiosity) needs to be proved to a reasonable degree for each of these alleged cases of "Islamic science", and not simply assumed because of the scientists' membership in a religious following. --SohanDsouza 13:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Which of these "alleged cases" need to be proved to a more reasonable degree? For each of the cases of Islamic science cited (mathematics, medicine, and astronomy), a rationale for the characterization is provided either on this page ("Prophetic Medicine (al-tibb) was a genre of medical writing intended as an alternative to the Greek-based medical system (See:Galen). It advocated the traditional medical practices of Muhammad's time (those mentioned in the Qur'an)") or in the article I cited (BTW, I deliberately omitted "scientific method" because it is misplaced as a field of science -- it should be moved). I'll go ahead and cite the article on this page regardless, but if you don't think that would suffice as a reasonable degree of proof, it would help if you could point out the specific claims that you see as lacking in justification and why. --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To start off, what about all those mathematicians linked from the "Islamic mathematics" subpage? If their work can be considered "Islamic science", then there is an equally strong or stronger case for the scientific work of the many devout Christian scientists and even full-scale Christian scientist-clerics like Roger Bacon to be considered "Christian science". What is a "religious science" anyway? Can we claim that those individuals would (as a direct consequence, not circumstantially) not have been great scientists if it had not been for their religion? --SohanDsouza 15:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't really understand the argument here. It seems like you are interpreting the claim that there is such a thing as "Islamic science" as somehow precluding the existence of similar faith-based sciences in other religions. But the fact that there is an Islamic science does not mean that there is no such thing as a a "Hindu science" or a "Christian science", far from it. I don't really see the controversy here; given the reality of Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, etc. as being worldwide established religions with influences over every facet of life, it seems to me that to claim that this influence extended to the sciences would be no more objectionable than the claim that there is a Hindu approach to art or a Jewish approach to government. So I don't see anything contradictory in saying there is also such a thing Christian science (Creation science, for instance).

2. I would say a "religious science" would be an approach to scientific inquiry rooted in the religious concerns of a particular faith.

3. "Can we claim that those individuals would (as a direct consequence, not circumstantially) not have been great scientists if it had not been for their religion?" I don't know, but this claim is not one at play here. Surely there have been "great" scientists of many different religions, and there is no way to definitively know the answer to the question you presented. But as to justifying the basic claim that there is such thing as "Islamic science" all thats necessary is to find cases in which science was interpreted in light of Islamic considerations, which has already been established in the source I've cited as well as the subpages for the fields of Islamic science (or at the very least, no sources have been brought up which would falsify these claims). --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 01:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, biblical creation science is a perfect example of Christian science, since it relates to the specifically Christian worldview, i.e. planned divine creation of all existence, as opposed to the continental drift theory, biological taxonomy, or other ideas that have no particular relation to Christianity, even though they may have been developed by scientists who happen to have been Christians. In fact, if you take a look at the Christian Science article, you will see only the "scientific" ideas that directly relate to Christian theology, which expectedly does NOT include Gregor Mendel's genetic theories, and rightly so. Are you saying that it should then? Islamic equivalents would be acceptable as Islamic science (for example, a treatise on djinn biology), but how are works of algebra or optics developed by scientists who happen to be Muslim a part of a similarly specifically Islamic worldview? To what "religious concerns" are these and many others "rooted"? In the light of precisely which "Islamic considerations" were these sciences interpreted? Lack of evidence to the contrary is not enough to prove a religious connection. So my question still stands as "What is particularly Islamic about this Islamic science?", and this question could be applied to most religious claims on various scientific endeavors. Frankly, to me, the idea of "Islamic science" smacks of scientific minorityism. --SohanDsouza 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, biblical creation science is a perfect example of Christian science, since it relates to the specifically Christian worldview, i.e. planned divine creation of all existence, as opposed to the continental drift theory, biological taxonomy, or other ideas that have no particular relation to Christianity, even though they may have been developed by scientists who happen to have been Christians. In fact, if you take a look at the Christian Science article, you will see only the "scientific" ideas that directly relate to Christian theology, which expectedly does NOT include Gregor Mendel's genetic theories, and rightly so. Are you saying that it should then?

I don't see how you got that impression.

Islamic equivalents would be acceptable as Islamic science (for example, a treatise on djinn biology), but how are works of algebra or optics developed by scientists who happen to be Muslim a part of a similarly specifically Islamic worldview?

I don't know, but the article doesn't claim that they are.

Though Ibn Al-Haitham's Optics is mentioned, the article does not claim that this is an example of Islamic Science, but (as should be obvious from being under the heading of "Scientific Method") an example of usage of the scientific method which "arguably developed in early Muslim philosophy" (i.e. a distinctly Islamic worldview).

This is true as far as algebra goes as well, all the article claims is that the word is derived from an Islamic scholar.

To what "religious concerns" are these and many others "rooted"?

In the light of precisely which "Islamic considerations" were these sciences interpreted?

To reiterate-

Medicine: "Prophetic Medicine (al-tibb) was a genre of medical writing intended as an alternative to the Greek-based medical system (See:Galen). It advocated the traditional medical practices of Muhammad's time (those mentioned in the Qur'an)"

Astronomy: "A major impetus for the flowering of astronomy in Islam came from religious observances, which presented an assortment of problems in mathematical astronomy, specifically in spherical geometry." (http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/phys/alshukri/PHYS215/Islamic%20astronomy.htm)

Mathematics: "As for mathematics proper, like astronomy, it received its direct impetus from the Quran not only because of the mathematical structure related to the text of the Sacred Book, but also because the laws of inheritance delineated in the Quran require rather complicated mathematical solutions."

Lack of evidence to the contrary is not enough to prove a religious connection.

Similarly, without evidence one cannot disprove a religious connection.

I see what you are saying, but as it stands, outside sources (the websites cited) have supported the articles claims (e.g. the characterization of Islamic medicine, astronomy, and math). If we follow Hume's advice that the "wise man proportions his belief to the evidence", it seems that we would be more justified to believe that there is such a thing as "Islamic Science", as no evidence has been provided to debunk that claim (or to discredit the sources which support it).

Frankly, to me, the idea of "Islamic science" smacks of scientific minorityism.

Perhaps, but without evidence to support your view, how can you be sure that your belief isn't merely mistaken?

[edit] Striver

A long list of Qur'an quotes is of no possible use to any non-Muslim readers. Do you really have to use the article to tell Muslims that it's OK to study? Furthermore, the non-quote text you added is incoherent and misspelled. The pre-Striver article isn't all that good, but the version you've created is much much worse. Zora 08:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The quotes is there to for the "Islamic" part in "Islamic science". --Striver 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Maybe a picture of this book?--Striver 16:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Why should we advertise that book? Zora 20:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quranic passages regarding Science

The section "Quranic passages regarding Science" should be deleted, improved, or moved to Wikiquote. A list of out-of-context quotations is not encyclopedic. — goethean ॐ 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "out of context"? Its not like you found them in the Elephant articel, is it? --Striver 04:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

From the article: "the era that followed the Romans Era and is commonly refered to as the "Dark Ages", should fairly be named the "Muslim Era"."

This is plainly NPOV, like much of the rest of the article.

Furthermore, the Muslim contribution to science is overrated. Most "Muslim" science was actually ancient Greek science, in translation; this was determined when the Greek originals were discovered during the Renaissance. See André Servier's 1922 work, Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman. (Hey, I'm not responsible for the book's title.) Godfrey Daniel 22:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You can add that info here, where there is a special section made for this argument.--Zereshk 15:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of the periodization of Western European History doesn't have much relevance to the discussion of the History of Islamic science. I'd suggest removing the first two or three paragraphs (depending on how you count), and start the historical discussion with "Islam began to grow..." This would solve most of the NPOV issues, particularly if the remaining paragraphs were fleshed out with specific examples. --SteveMcCluskey 17:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to move the info around, but the info is relevant to the article, so dont delete it. --Striver 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I don't see the relevance of the periodization of Western European History to an article on Islamic science; a similar tabulation of the main periods of Islamic history would be much more relevant. --SteveMcCluskey 12:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Islamic science

Although I am not an expert on the history of science in Islam, this section is very weak and could be improved in several ways.

First, it merits detailed discussions of the contributions of specific Islamic scholars to the development of science, including a consideration of their interactions with the philosophical and scientific ideas of their neighbors.

Secondly, the section on the "Decay of Islamic Science" seems to be based on outdated interpretations. As I understand the historical literature, most historians of science in Islam no longer accept the picture of a decline of science after the eleventh century and have produced examples to demonstrate that innovative scientific research (especially in astronomy) continued through the fifteenth century. --SteveMcCluskey 14:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split Section on History from Islamic Science

Two different groups are interested in the topic of Islamic Science, and these two groups define it in very different ways. I am concerned that the different assumptions of these two groups may lead to unnecessary conflict, which can be avoided by separating the topic into two separate areas.

• The article "Islamic science" seems to have been founded by advocates of a modern intellectual movement called "Islamic science," which seeks to establish the practice of science within a particular set of traditional Islamic religious norms. Thus the article defines "Islamic science [as] science in the context of traditional religious ideas of Islam, including its ethics and philosophy. A Muslim engaged in this field is called a Muslim scientist. This is not the same as science as conducted by Muslims in the secular context."

• Historians of science, on the other hand, find this definition excessively constraining, since they investigate the ways in which scholars within the Islamic world developed scientific ideas through original research and by drawing on and transforming the ideas of their neighbors and predecessors. It really doesn't matter to historians of science whether the particular scientist was Muslim (e.g., al-Khwarizmi), Sabian (e.g., Thabit ibn Qurra), Christian (e.g., Hunain ibn Ishaq), or Jewish (e.g., Hasdai ibn Shaprut), whether he advocated strict adherence to Muslim traditions (e.g. al-Ghazzali) or was critical of tradition and open to the ideas of foreign philosophers (e.g. Averroës), or whether he worked in a religious or secular context. If he studied natural phenomena and worked within the Islamic world, his work fits the historians' broader definition of Islamic science.

These contradictory expectations are likely to lead to conflict in two or more different ways:

• When historians wish to discuss scholars who don't follow traditional Islamic religious norms, while advocates of the modern movement would wish to delete these from the discussion.
• When advocates of the modern Islamic science movement wish to discuss those modern scholars who contribute to the development of that movement, while historians would wish to delete them as not relevant to the historical development of science in Islamic cultures.

Rather than go this unhappy route, I propose an amicable divorce, removing the section on the History of Islamic Science (perhaps renamed History of Science in the Islamic World) and making it a separate article under the History of Science portal, and leaving the remaining article on Islamic Science as part of the series of articles on Islam. --SteveMcCluskey 12:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree; and in general, "Science in the Islamic World" would be more fitting, unassuming and NPOV compared to the current title. --SohanDsouza 19:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see some merit in your suggestion. Some questions need to be answered before taking a definitive decision:

How does splitting this article into "history" and "concept" relate to the series of articles in the Islamic studies articles? Are they also splitted in "history" and "concept"? Should they? Is it possible?

Or are you suggesting a split into "Islamic view of Islamic science" and "non-Muslim view of Islamic science"?

I'm not sure i can forsee the full magnitude of the propose changes, but the idea seems worth discussing. Peace! --Striver 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Striver and others,

I understand your concern and am gratified by the positive attitude reflected in your questions. Let me give you my reading on those issues.

Splitting other parts of the Islamic studies articles into "history" and "concept" would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. I can see some merit in splitting Islamic astronomy and Islamic medicine, where strong historical traditions can also be separated from the modern Islamic science movement. I don't know enough about other fields to say what could happen there. In any event, links between the two would provide a way that those interested in the concept could find out about its historical background.

I don't see this as a split into "Islamic" and "non-Muslim" views of the same topic "Islamic science." In fact, some of the historians I rely on are Muslims (while others are not). Rather I see it as a split into two distinct topics whih draw on different intellectual foundations and premises: "Islamic science" and "Science in the Islamic world." The former is concerned with science as religiously guided (in fact, it seems to take the normative view that science should reflect a religiously based moral and ethical framework). The latter is concerned with science whatever the motives of its practitioners, and is purely descriptive without a claim of how or why science ought to be practiced. Historians seek the motives for science in the Islamic world in specific historical examples, not in modern interpretations of scriptural texts.

To see how this could go, I recently was tinkering with the article on al-Tusi and noted that his astronomical research was sponsored by the Mongol ruler, Hulagu Khan. Since in this case we have an Islamic astronomer working under the patronage of a non-Islamic ruler, it is hard to believe that Hulagu supported this research because of Koranic injunctions to study the heavens.

Conversely, the astronomical work of ibn al-Shatir flows from his role as muwaqqit (timekeeper) at the great Umayyad mosque in Damascus. Time keeping, of course, comes from the institutional need to determine the correct time to call the faithful to prayer. Here we have a religious motive, but not the textual one emphasized in the present articles on Islamic science and Islamic astronomy (Prayer times were ignored in those articles until I recently added a few brief mentions of them to the sections on sundials and quadrants).

Historical discussions tend to emphasize the complex and varied causes of scientific inquiry; this diversity is not stressed in the "Islamic science" discussion.

I hope this clarified the nature of my concerns. --SteveMcCluskey 14:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposal to split off the section on History of Islamic Science has been up since 30 May and there have been no comments since my remarks of 2 June. Are there any other concerns or can I take the recent silence as indicating a lack of major objections to this proposal? --SteveMcCluskey 03:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've drafted a pair of "hatnotes" (it's not my word, it's a Wikiword) for the two resulting articles. They will direct readers to the appropriate article. Do they look OK?

This will go at the head of the present article, Islamic science:

This will go at the head of the new article, History of science in the Islamic World:

--SteveMcCluskey 13:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the (proposed) title to lower case "science," since it's not a proper noun.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ragesoss (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, the split is done. There is also a disambiguation page for Science in Islam that points to the two different pages. Hope this works to everyone's satisfaction. --SteveMcCluskey 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, bro, im really sorry that i forgot about this talk page! I have some many other areas of interest here in wiki, that i forgot this one. Anyway, i took a closer look, and although it doesn't feel 100% greeeeat, its ok, i aprove of the split. Maybe in the future ill come back and ill have a stronger opinion, but i can live with this until then. In any case, its good that it work to your satisfaction. Peace :) --Striver 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review citation needed

Please comment on the discussion at Talk:History of scientific method#Peer review in medieval Islam?. --SteveMcCluskey 16:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resource?

I found a resource, but is it good? It is well referenced:

Khaleel, Kasem (2000). The Arabian connection: A conspiracy against humanity. Lincolnshire, IL: Knowledge House Publishers. ISBN: 0-911119-70-1.

A neighbor recommended it, and it is available on Amazon. While it does not appear to be biased, it does have a somewhat personal tone, however thoroughly referenced.

He asks the question: "Who originated the modern sciences?" The book purports to answer this question.

Cover bio: "Dr. Kasem Khaleel is a medical writer specializing in health and the history of science. The author of over twelve books, his ten year study in the field of scientific history culminated in the publication of this book."

--Anonymous writer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.24.41.50 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of Khaleel's books before but from a quick check I found that

• None of his publications are listed in the History of Science online bibliography.
• His books are not cited by any articles or book reviews in the Arts and Humanities, Social Science, or Science Citation Indexes.
• His name does not appear in any of the articles or book reviews held in the J-STOR whole text database.

In sum, he does not seem to have made much of an impact in the places where serious historical scholarship would be recognized.

--SteveMcCluskey 03:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic philosophy of science

This could be expanded. Avicenna and Averroes made some great advances here. I do not have time to work on this but can provide references to anyone who wants to. Arrow740 00:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Science and Chemistry

I was wondering if there should a bit on chemistry in this article. Islamic chemists laid down most of the foundations of modern chemistry and helped get rid of superstition from alchemy. Much of the equipment, techniques and lexicon of chemists today have their origins in Islamic science eg. distillation, alcohols. The article on alchemy dedicates a few paragraphs to alchemy in the Islamic world (see- Alchemy#Alchemy in the Islamic world). Afn 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Please note that the proposed targets are unobstructed, so anyone could perform these moves if they had a mind to, although I would suggest that sentence case should be used: Early Arabic inventions, Early Arabic medecine. --Stemonitis 10:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutly no objection to the move. How is that no consensus?--Sefringle 01:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)