The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What's the real origin of the scientific method?  (Read 27552 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« on: 16/07/2013 01:14:53 »
The Real Origin of The Scientific Method :

Source : Robert Briffault's " The Making of Humanity "

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

Additional Corroborating relatively short essay source :

https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&q=the+islamic+impact+on+western+civilization+reconsidered+by+koshul.pdf&oq=the+islamic+impact+on+western+civilization+reconsidered+by+koshul.pdf&gs_l=hp.12...232.43153.0.47906.71.39.0.28.28.4.2644.30473.2-4j9j6j2j9j6j0j3.39.0...0.0.0..1c.1.17.psy-ab.rTqr_7innpQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.d2k&fp=303b0adc67d3363b&biw=1024&bih=513

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45773561/Kosh ... vilization

Full thread from a Dutch site in English :

http://www.maroc.nl/forums/islam-meer/3 ... print.html



Source: Briffault's "Making of Humanity " you can download for free from here below :


The making of humanity : Briffault, Robert, 1876-1948 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive


Here you go :


Note that the author mentions the "Arabic civilization or Arabic science " instead of saying the islamic ones : Arabs were in the minority concerning the latters




Excerpt from "The Reconstruction of Religious Thought In Islam " by Sir Dr.Muhammad Iqbal you can download for free from here below :

The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam - Sir. Muhammad Iqbal | Feedbooks



Iqbal was quoting Briffault : chapter 5 : The spirit of muslim culture :


(....Europe has been rather slow to recognise the islamic origin of her scientific method .But full recognition of the fact has at last come .Let me quote one or two passages from Briffault's making of Humanity :






Quote :


"....It was under their succesors at that Oxford school that Roger Bacon learned Arabic & Arabic science .Neither Roger Bacon nor his later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental method.Roger Bacon was no more than one of the apostles of muslim science & method to christian Europe, and he never wearied of declaring that a knowledge of Arabic & Arabian science was for his contemporaries the only way to true knowledge.Discussions as to who was the originator of the experimental method are part of the colossal misrepresentation of the origins of European civilization. The experimental method of the Arabs was by Bacon's time widespread & eagerly cultivated throughout Europe . -pp.200-01-


Science is the most momentous contribution of Arab civilization to the modern world ,but its fruits were slow in ripening .Not until after long Moorish culture had sunk back into darkness did the giant to which it had given birth rise in his might .It was not science which brought Europe back to life .


Other and manifold influences from the civilization of islam communicated its first glow to European life.


For although there is not a single aspect of European growth in which the decisive influence of the islamic culture is not traceable,nowhere is it so clear& momentous as in the genesis of that power which constitutes the paramount distinctive force of the modern world and the supreme force of its victory -natural science & the scientific spirit.


The debt of our science to that of the Arabs does not consist in startling discoveries or revolutionary theories, science owes a great deal more to Arab culture , it owes its existence .


The ancient world was , as we saw , pre-scientific .


The astronomy & mathematics of the Greek were a foreign importation never thoroughly acclimatized in Greek culture .The Greeks systematized, generalized & theorized , but the patient ways of investigation , the accumulation of positive knowledge ,the minute methods of science,detailed & prolonged observation, experimental inquiry ,were altogether alien to the Greek temperament .


Only in Hellinistic Alexandria was any approach to scientific work conducted in the ancient classical world, what we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry , of new methods of investigation ,of the method of experiment ,observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks .


That spirit & those methods were introduced to the European world by the Arabs -p.191-" end quote


The first important point to note about the spirit of muslim culture then is that ,for purposes of knowledge,it fixes its gaze on the concrete, the finite .


It is further clear that the birth of the method of observation and experiment in islam was due not to a compromise with Greek thought but to a prolonged intellectual warfare with it .In fact ,the influence of the Greeks who,as Briffault says ,were interested chiefly in theory ,not in fact ,tended rather to obscure the muslims ' vision of the Qur'an ,and for at least two centuries kept the practical Arab temperament from asserting itself & coming to its own .I want therefore to definitely eradicate the misunderstanding that Greek thought , in any way, determined the character of muslim culture.....)




Source : The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam by Sir Dr. Muhammad Iqbal , chapter 5 : the spirit of muslim culture :


Download the book for free :




http://www.maroc.nl/forums/nieuws-de...ml#post4903943










Further more , see in the above mentioned book of Iqbal how muslims were the first ever to discover evolution itself & much much more




see this 3-part docu on the matter too while u are at it , presented by a an Iraki-British scientist on the field :















« Last Edit: 30/07/2013 16:01:49 by chris »


 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: The Real Origin of The Scientific Method
« Reply #1 on: 16/07/2013 23:46:04 »
What ?

Not interesting enough ?

You, guys , practice science , so , you gotta know where the scientific method came from first , right ?

Guess so

Later
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: The Real Origin of The Scientific Method
« Reply #2 on: 18/07/2013 23:28:54 »
Weird : nobody seems to be interested in this highly important issue , concerning the real origin of the scientific method .

How come, folks ?  Come on

Let me know about your opinions on the matter , please .

Thanks, appreciate indeed

Take care

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: The Real Origin of The Scientific Method
« Reply #3 on: 25/07/2013 00:28:07 »
What's going on ?

Are you shy , people ?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: The Real Origin of The Scientific Method
« Reply #4 on: 25/07/2013 01:07:14 »
Interesting and amusing, perhaps.

Important? No.

Dangerous? Very possibly.

I don't think we can dismiss all ancient Greek learning in the same breath as Aristotle's stupefying impact on physics: Pythagoras and Eratosthenes (?spelling) are still regarded as significant contributors to applied mathematics and cosmology.

Why dangerous? The scientific method clearly has practical and humanitarian value. My concern is that if its obscure origins (and they are indeed obscure and very ancient: I have observed a gorilla conducting a controlled experiment in gravitation, but there is no evidence that Galileo actually carried out the "leaning tower" test!) become associated with any particular philosophy or religion, that philosophy or religion can in some way appear to be validated, to the intellectual detriment of mankind.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: The Real Origin of The Scientific Method
« Reply #5 on: 27/07/2013 00:22:22 »
Interesting and amusing, perhaps.

Important? No.

Dangerous? Very possibly.

I don't think we can dismiss all ancient Greek learning in the same breath as Aristotle's stupefying impact on physics: Pythagoras and Eratosthenes (?spelling) are still regarded as significant contributors to applied mathematics and cosmology.

Why dangerous? The scientific method clearly has practical and humanitarian value. My concern is that if its obscure origins (and they are indeed obscure and very ancient: I have observed a gorilla conducting a controlled experiment in gravitation, but there is no evidence that Galileo actually carried out the "leaning tower" test!) become associated with any particular philosophy or religion, that philosophy or religion can in some way appear to be validated, to the intellectual detriment of mankind.


Hi there :

Thanks for your reply , appreciate indeed .

You are the very first person to reply to this thread , as you can see : i do salute you for just that .

Why do you think this topic's subject is amusing by the way ?

You seem to have a peculiar sense of humor .
Besides :
This topic's thread is very important , mind you : it concerns the real origin of the scientific method : if this is not an important issue, according to you at least , then , i do not know what's more important than the very genesis of science itself , science as one of the major players , if not THE major one, which had paved the path to the modern world ...

That said :

I suggest you try to take a close look at my above mentioned sources , especially that relatively short essay of Koshul on the matter .

Koshul had made his case brilliantly  , methodically and scientifically  : try to prove him wrong then, if you can at least , which i seriously doubt you can do .

The ancient Greek thought was not only unscientific, but was also hostile to science , despite the fact that Aristotle and others used to talk about sense -perception, observation, experience , induction ...as valid sources of knowledge, but that talk was just abstract and was thus almost never applied to reality .

Aristotle said once , for example , that women had more teeth than men haha , without even bothering to check out that extraordinary claim of his empirically , as he should have done, in the first place to begin with  ...

There were some contributions though by some ancient Greek 'scientists " , but the latters were just exceptions to the rule , and had no idea about  the scientific method as such , while "practicing " it , to some degree at least . intuitively .


Besides, Aristotle's legacy , for example , was one of the main obstacles which had to be fought against in order to achieve some degree of progress in modern philosophy, modern logic , the natural sciences ...

You were unlucky enough to pick Aristotle as a bet horse  thus .


Kind regards
« Last Edit: 27/07/2013 00:30:00 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: The Real Origin of The Scientific Method
« Reply #6 on: 28/07/2013 00:51:02 »
Still waiting for a "dare devil " to address this highly important issue .
No pain , no gain indeed .
Best of luck ,folks
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: The Real Origin of The Scientific Method
« Reply #7 on: 28/07/2013 01:23:36 »
I repeat:

Quote
My concern is that if its obscure origins........become associated with any particular philosophy or religion, that philosophy or religion can in some way appear to be validated, to the intellectual detriment of mankind.

Origins are unimportant at best, dangerous at worst. We have gleaned some useful science from Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, but I wouldn't want to dignify either regime by association with scientific knowledge and understanding.

Do you judge a man by his parentage or his actions? Does the good deed of a son excuse the evil of the father?

History may help us unravel some mistakes but for the most part, it is of interest only to historians. Science is about what works.

And I did indeed say that Aristotle was rubbish. Little point in replying if you don't read the replies.
« Last Edit: 28/07/2013 01:25:53 by alancalverd »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: The Real Origin of The Scientific Method
« Reply #8 on: 30/07/2013 00:00:54 »
I repeat:

Quote
My concern is that if its obscure origins........become associated with any particular philosophy or religion, that philosophy or religion can in some way appear to be validated, to the intellectual detriment of mankind.

Origins are unimportant at best, dangerous at worst. We have gleaned some useful science from Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, but I wouldn't want to dignify either regime by association with scientific knowledge and understanding.

Do you judge a man by his parentage or his actions? Does the good deed of a son excuse the evil of the father?

History may help us unravel some mistakes but for the most part, it is of interest only to historians. Science is about what works.

And I did indeed say that Aristotle was rubbish. Little point in replying if you don't read the replies.


I do read the replies : you just miss the whole point of this thread :

This thread is  not about scientific discoveries or about some contributions to science delivered by people from certain cultures, religions, philosophies or from other thoughtstreams, it's mainly about the origin of the scientific method or about the origin of science itself : so, do not confuse scientific discoveries or scientific knowledge , as you put it, with  the scientific method or science itself = 2 different things, even though the latter leads to the first though  :
Scientific discoveries are the unveiling of some secrets of the natural reality , while science is a tool or a method to approach the natural reality .
.
.

If history had taught us anything , it did teach us that all cultures, religions, thoughtstreams had delivered some contributions to science , to some extent at least , from the ancient civilizations such as the Babylonian one , the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Greeks, ancient indians ....

So, you have been missing the whole point of this discussion, i am sorry to say  .

You are the one who's not been reading this thread well, i am afraid  .

Thanks anyway , appreciate indeed .

Kind regards
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #9 on: 01/08/2013 23:44:26 »
"...There comes the rain again ,

I wanna talk  like lovers do ....."

Silence is consent sometimes ....
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #10 on: 02/08/2013 00:00:21 »
You are wrong on one fundamental issue. Religion is the antithesis of science and has never taught anyone anything. For that reason, I cannot allow you to dignify any faith by association witrh the scientific method.

Science: acceptance of those disprovable, explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not been disproved

Belief: acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of facts

Faith: acceptance of a hypothesis in the face of facts

Islam is no more intellectually respectable than any other faith.

All religions are ethically suspect: good deeds do not require supernatural justification, but such evils as crusades, fatwahs, inquisitions and pogroms can only be justified by reference to the ludicrous notion of divine authority. According to the scientific method, there is no authority in science, only observation.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2013 03:43:22 by alancalverd »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #11 on: 02/08/2013 13:40:40 »
I suspect it is more likely to be historians (history of science) that are interested in the origins of the scientific method, and scientists are more likely to be interested in refining and implementing it than pondering its origins in any great detail.

I drive a car to get from A to B. The history and origins of the automobile are of passing interest, but of little importance to my journey.

Perhaps DonQuichotte can explain why the history and origins of the scientific method should be considered a 'highly important issue' as suggested?

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #12 on: 04/08/2013 00:47:10 »
I suspect it is more likely to be historians (history of science) that are interested in the origins of the scientific method, and scientists are more likely to be interested in refining and implementing it than pondering its origins in any great detail.

I drive a car to get from A to B. The history and origins of the automobile are of passing interest, but of little importance to my journey.

Perhaps DonQuichotte can explain why the history and origins of the scientific method should be considered a 'highly important issue' as suggested?

I can put it this simple way :

The origin of the scientific method or the origin of science itself should be a matter of the philosophy of science , not only an issue for the historians of science .

I can even add that it should be a scientific issue as well .

If the genesis of science or the genesis of the scientific method as 1 of the major players that had paved the way to the modern time , if not THE major player ,is not highly important , then , what is ? 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #13 on: 04/08/2013 01:09:45 »
You are wrong on one fundamental issue. Religion is the antithesis of science and has never taught anyone anything. For that reason, I cannot allow you to dignify any faith by association witrh the scientific method.

Science: acceptance of those disprovable, explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not been disproved

Belief: acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of facts

Faith: acceptance of a hypothesis in the face of facts

Islam is no more intellectually respectable than any other faith.

All religions are ethically suspect: good deeds do not require supernatural justification, but such evils as crusades, fatwahs, inquisitions and pogroms can only be justified by reference to the ludicrous notion of divine authority. According to the scientific method, there is no authority in science, only observation.

Then , i invite you to take a close look at my above mentioned sources , especially at  the relatively short essay of Koshul on the matter : the islamic impact on western civilization reconsidered .


Koshul made his case brilliantly , methodically and scientifically: all you have to do is just take a close look at it  .

Is that too much to ask ?


Besides :

That you happen to confuse christianity with other religions is not my responsibility .

That was / is the main unscientific unfounded generalization  thought error of western enlightenment by the way = rejecting all religions ,just because of western Eurocentric legetimate and founded rejection of christianity .

That said :

Religion and science are indeed 2 different things : they both have different roles, functions, natures ...

In the case of islam, both science and islam complete each other , are necessary to each other , go hand in hand with each other , are the both sides of the same medal ...

The early muslims did "invent " the scientific method and did actively practice it , mainly thanks to the epistemology of the Qur'an they had interiorized so well at that time at least :

Religious extremism was 1 of the reasons which explain the fact that later muslims abandoned science and the seeking of knowledge in general ,and therefore deserved their decline ...

That epistemology of the Qur'an which used to consider / considers the use of reason, observation, experience , induction, work, the seeking of knowledge in the broader sense ....as religious duties, as forms of worship of God .

So, those early muslims used to consider science and the seeking of knowledge in the larger sense ...as religious duties, as forms of worship of God , while separating science proper from islam proper in the process, and then by trying to make a synthesis of both afterwards , in order to approach the ultimate reality .

Science was used by those early muslims as a tool to approach the natural reality , in order to understand and find out about God's secrets or signs both in ourselves and outside of ourselves , in nature , man, the universe , the world ...in the sense the more knowledge a believer can get , the closer he /she gets to God ...



« Last Edit: 04/08/2013 01:13:24 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #14 on: 04/08/2013 02:02:43 »
Quote
in the sense the more knowledge a believer can get , the closer he /she gets to God ...

What is "god"?

How do you measure your distance from it?

What experimental tests have been made of your method?

Science and fairytales do not mix.

 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #15 on: 04/08/2013 19:39:51 »
Perhaps DonQuichotte can explain why the history and origins of the scientific method should be considered a 'highly important issue' as suggested?
If the genesis of science or the genesis of the scientific method as 1 of the major players that had paved the way to the modern time , if not THE major player ,is not highly important , then , what is ? 
I note you didn't answer the question:

Can you explain why the history and origins of the scientific method should be considered such a 'highly important issue' to a scientist?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #16 on: 04/08/2013 23:45:11 »
Quote
in the sense the more knowledge a believer can get , the closer he /she gets to God ...

What is "god"?

How do you measure your distance from it?

What experimental tests have been made of your method?

Science and fairytales do not mix.

What are you talking about ?

I said that early muslims used to separate science from islam ....Re-read what i said :

They used science as an effective  tool to approach reality , the natural reality , and then they tried to make a synthesis from both islam and science , in order to approach the ultimate reality , because the natural reality is just one single level of reality or of the ultimate reality .

There are indeed many levels of reality, as there are many levels of human consciousness.

Islam also approaches  reality , the ultimate reality , while science approaches just the natural reality .

So, science  is not the only valid source of knowledge , science has no monopoly on the truth ...

See what post-modernism , for example, has to say about the latter , if you are not willing to broaden your horizon by approaching  it via the islamic perspective at least  .


P.S.: Heart's intelligence , heart as not emotions or feelings . heart as not the biological one , heart as intuition or intuitive insights , is the highest form of intelligence = intuition is the highest form of intellect :

See this unique book on the matter by Linda Jean Shepherd :

"Lifting the veil , the feminine face of science " , to mention just this one .

In short :

 there is much more to man and life , the universe ,.... than just those poor human 5 senses .

P.S.: Modern science has been driven by the materialistic paradigms so far , so , i see not why it should not be driven by the islamic paradigms and epistemology that had created it from nothing , so to speak , in the first place to begin with :

The materialistic paradigms ,that have been exclusively monopolyzing science for more than 5 centuries now , post -modernism , for example , had largely discredited and refuted , the materialistic paradigms as just one view of the universe , man, nature , the world ...among many others thus .


« Last Edit: 05/08/2013 00:12:08 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #17 on: 04/08/2013 23:53:26 »
Perhaps DonQuichotte can explain why the history and origins of the scientific method should be considered a 'highly important issue' as suggested?
If the genesis of science or the genesis of the scientific method as 1 of the major players that had paved the way to the modern time , if not THE major player ,is not highly important , then , what is ? 
I note you didn't answer the question:

Can you explain why the history and origins of the scientific method should be considered such a 'highly important issue' to a scientist?


Well, you are trying to make me explain the obvious to you , ironically enough .

The scientific method is a matter of epistemology in the first place , to begin with, one should find out about its origins , its real ones , not what you have learned in your schools and universities about  .

Science has been transforming our world in ways no one could have imagined , say , some centuries ago , and this same science will be transforming our world and ourselves  in the process  in ways no one can imagine yet .
Besides :
You have no problem , as i have not , with the fact that science tries to find out about the origins of life , about all kindda origins , but you seem to disagree with the obvious validity and necessity of finding out about the origin of science itself :

Is that not a paradox ?

Be serious , please .

Kind regards .
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #18 on: 05/08/2013 09:25:33 »
Quote
Islam also approaches  reality , the ultimate reality ,

So, what is the ultimate reality, and how do you know how close you are to it?

"Proof by assertion" has no legitimacy in my world.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #19 on: 05/08/2013 11:12:05 »
.. you seem to disagree with the obvious validity and necessity of finding out about the origin of science itself
Not really; rather, I'm not persuaded simply by your assertion that there is 'an obvious validity and necessity' of finding out about the origin of science itself. That requires you to make a persuasive argument, which, so far, is notably absent.

Personally, I think it may be interesting, potentially useful, background information for some, but I was curious to know why you were making such a song and dance about it.

You continue to assert the 'obvious' importance of knowing the 'real' origins of the scientific method, without explaining what you think it is that makes it so important to a scientist today; perhaps you could give some examples of how this knowledge would help a scientist ? 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #20 on: 07/08/2013 00:50:44 »
.. you seem to disagree with the obvious validity and necessity of finding out about the origin of science itself
Not really; rather, I'm not persuaded simply by your assertion that there is 'an obvious validity and necessity' of finding out about the origin of science itself. That requires you to make a persuasive argument, which, so far, is notably absent.

This is really a weird discussion : what do you want me to say to prove to you the very importance of the scientific method itself , or rather its origin : such a great scientific method or science that has been transforming our world and ourselves in the process, requires from us to try to find out about how it came to exist , in the first place to begin with .

The very evolution of science itself and of its philosophy of science , epistemology make such a research so vital and necessary to us ,that it would be foolish not to conduct such a research all the way to the bottom of it .

Why is    epistemology in philosophy and in the philosophy of science so important , according to you ?

Practicing science without having a clue about its epistemology is rather a peculiar thing to do for a scientist , don't you think ? Especially when we consider the fact that that epistemology cannot be static , but rather dynamic and evolutionary , as post-modernism for example , had proven .

Quote
Personally, I think it may be interesting, potentially useful, background information for some, but I was curious to know why you were making such a song and dance about it.


An unexamined life or history are worthless : it's obvious that one should try to know the origins of things one practices and lives :

Man without awarness of his / her history in the broader sense is without future , i must add .

Quote
You continue to assert the 'obvious' importance of knowing the 'real' origins of the scientific method, without explaining what you think it is that makes it so important to a scientist today; perhaps you could give some examples of how this knowledge would help a scientist ?

See above
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #21 on: 07/08/2013 01:09:41 »
Quote
Islam also approaches  reality , the ultimate reality ,

So, what is the ultimate reality, and how do you know how close you are to it?

"Proof by assertion" has no legitimacy in my world.

I understand the ultimate reality as the  very essence of things islam tries to approach as such, or as the whole picture : note that the whole is not the sum of its parts by the way  .
The essence of things we cannot approach via science , reason or logic : that's something beyond the realm of science , reason, logic ...
The natural reality is just one single aspect or level of reality, once again  :

If you think that the natural or empirical reality is all what there is , then , i really pity you  for that  .

Even modern maths had proven the fact that there are some true premises one cannot prove as such , like the very existence of intuition as the highest form of intellect  ...


I see that we are getting nowhere  .

I just started this thread in order to debunk the assertion or false premise of many prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett , Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and many others , who claim that  science, reason , logic  and evolution are the major "arguments " against religion , by trying to prove the fact that the scientific method or science itself originated from the very epistemology of the Qur'an , and that evolution was discovered by those early muslims, centuries before Darwin was even born ,  , thanks to the evolutionary spirit of islam ...and that the essence of things islam tries to approach as such is way beyond the realms of reason, logic ,  and science , that's all .

So, i am certainly not trying either to promote islam or "convert " anyone , let alone

that i was , supposedly , trying to "validate"  islam ....

In short : i  prefer to talk about islam only in this context , and in this context only, which means that i will not be responding to anything concerning islam outside of this context you were dragging me into.

« Last Edit: 07/08/2013 01:15:13 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #22 on: 07/08/2013 05:55:42 »
Without getting sidetracked into ultimate reality, I'm not convinced that you can identify the real origin of the scientific method in any written work.

The algorithm (a word with arabic roots) "observe, hypothesise, test" that we call the scientific method, is pretty much universal among sentient animals. You can see it being used by dogs and birds any day . It seems to have been the guiding principle of our remotest human ancestors, who clearly studied the migration of their prey and engaged in selective breeding of plants and animals - none of which is set down in anyone's bible - and in retrospect is the only way we could have evolved and survived as a naked collaborative ape. In contrast, the perverse and divisive foolishness of faith, replacing discovery with arbitrary authority, seems to be unique to recent humans. 

Which just prompted an interesting thought! Anthropologists make a lot of play out of ancient burial rituals. The line usually goes something like "believing in an afterlife, the living provided the dead with ...... in the grave." There are two flaws in that argument. First, having no such belief, I have nevertheless put flowers on the graves of relatives, but on careful reflection I did it for me, not for them. Second, faith in a spiritual afterlife is not the only reason for grave goods. Your best friend isn't moving or breathing, so tidiness and hygeine demand that you should bury him. But suppose your diagnosis was wrong and he was merely in a deep sleep? Then it seems sensible to bury him in a coffin to prevent animals eating him, and to leave his knife and some food just in case he wakes up. "Just in case" is rational and based on experience of catatonia, whereas faith in an afterlife isn't.     
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #23 on: 07/08/2013 10:10:21 »
This is really a weird discussion : what do you want me to say to prove to you the very importance of the scientific method itself , or rather its origin : such a great scientific method or science that has been transforming our world and ourselves in the process, requires from us to try to find out about how it came to exist , in the first place to begin with .

The point I have bolded is the reason I asked you to explain why you seem so exercised about the origins of the scientific method. Whatever the knowledge of it's origins in the scientific community, they seem to be doing well enough. There may be some problems or concerns with the correct application of the method, or with the ethics of its application, but you seemed to be saying a better knowledge of its origins would be helpful in some way - some way you seem quite unable to articulate.

Quote
Why is epistemology in philosophy and in the philosophy of science so important , according to you ?
I haven't made any comment about its importance here, and it's too wide a topic to address properly in a paragraph.

Quote
Practicing science without having a clue about its epistemology is rather a peculiar thing to do for a scientist , don't you think ?
It might be, if that was really the case. I suspect that most scientists doing useful and productive work have a sufficient knowledge of the epistemology of their field; the scientists I know personally certainly do, and many scientist authors of popular science books clearly do. I don't have any wider data on scientists in general - do you?

Quote
An unexamined life or history are worthless : it's obvious that one should try to know the origins of things one practices and lives :

Man without awarness of his / her history in the broader sense is without future , i must add .
More assertion and platitude. If you believe it is obvious, you should be able to explain why - or is faith involved here?
Ironically, the epistemology of your assertion is absent.

This is not to say I disagree with the general point about epistemology; but you have yet to provide a reasonable (or any) argument to support your assertion of the exceptional importance of knowledge of the origins of the scientific method.

 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #24 on: 07/08/2013 10:55:23 »
I understand the ultimate reality as the  very essence of things islam tries to approach as such, or as the whole picture : note that the whole is not the sum of its parts by the way  .
The essence of things we cannot approach via science , reason or logic : that's something beyond the realm of science , reason, logic ...

How does one 'approach' things that are beyond, and unapproachable via, reason, logic, or science?

Is there some irrational, illogical, unscientific method?

Quote
Even modern maths had proven the fact that there are some true premises one cannot prove as such , like the very existence of intuition as the highest form of intellect  ...
Bit of a red herring; intuition as a form of intellect is not a mathematical concern, and the Incompleteness Theorems only apply to axiomatic arithmetical systems, not the world in general. 'This sentence is false' and its ilk have no great relevance in the wider scheme of things.

Quote
I just started this thread in order to debunk the assertion or false premise of many prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett , Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and many others , who claim that  science, reason , logic  and evolution are the major "arguments " against religion , by trying to prove the fact that the scientific method or science itself originated from the very epistemology of the Qur'an , and that evolution was discovered by those early muslims, centuries before Darwin was even born ,  , thanks to the evolutionary spirit of islam ...and that the essence of things islam tries to approach as such is way beyond the realms of reason, logic ,  and science , that's all .

So all this talk about scientists and the epistemology of the scientific method, was intended to debunk the claims of atheists?

Leaving aside that 'atheist' and 'scientist' are not synonymous, it seems to me that it is the irrational, superstitious, paranormal, and supernatural claims of religion that the people you mention are wielding science against, and it has been very effective in those areas, hence 'God of the gaps', etc.

I think you'll find that Dawkins and co., have great admiration for the scientific and mathematical achievements of early scholars, Islamic and otherwise, but not for the irrational, superstitious, paranormal, and supernatural aspects of their belief systems. If we could strip out that stuff from all the scriptures of these belief systems, leaving the rational, the pragmatic, the scientific, and the philosophic, I'm sure those atheists would be overjoyed.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2013 10:57:17 by dlorde »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #24 on: 07/08/2013 10:55:23 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums