[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 :

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

What ?

Not interesting enough ?

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

Guess so

Later

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

What's going on ?

Are you shy , people ?

[alancalverd]

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.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Still waiting for a "dare devil " to address this highly important issue .
No pain , no gain indeed .
Best of luck ,folks

[alancalverd]

I repeat:

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.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I repeat:

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

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

"...There comes the rain again ,

I wanna talk  like lovers do ....."

Silence is consent sometimes ....

[alancalverd]

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.

[dlorde]

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?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 ? 

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 ...

[alancalverd]

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.

[dlorde]

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?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 .

[alancalverd]

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.

[dlorde]

.. 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 ?