Medieval Science - Who did it?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

R
Woah now boy, Islamic world vibrant and dynamic? Evidence?

Do a Google search on 'Islamic' + 'medieval' + 'science'/'philosophy'. If it wasn't for the scholars of the Islamic world a vast amount of ancient Greek learning would have been totally lost.

The fact that you seem unaware of this basic piece of information says something about how history is being taught in your neck of the woods.

Taken from Right Wing Assault on History from the 'Pit. This discussion is about the medieval impact on science, in essence, though it has focussed on Islam's impact specifically. - imb39

[Syron]

Do a Google search on 'Islamic' + 'medieval' + 'science'/'philosophy'. If it wasn't for the scholars of the Islamic world a vast amount of ancient Greek learning would have been totally lost.

The fact that you seem unaware of this basic piece of information says something about how history is being taught in your neck of the woods.

I asked for evidence.

Surely if it's that obvious it would be so easy to provide me with some.

Did you even look at the topic on this subject on this forum? I think i know more about the topic, especially the evolution of scientific thought/technology than you do.

Do a Google search on 'Islamic' + 'medieval' + 'science'/'philosophy'. If it wasn't for the scholars of the Islamic world a vast amount of ancient Greek learning would have been totally lost.

It doesn't take much to get a bunch of scribes to copy manuscripts. That's rather different from the fantasical things some people attribute to Islamic civilisation.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I asked for evidence.

Surely if it's that obvious it would be so easy to provide me with some.

Okay, ever heard of scientific terms like 'azimuth', 'horizon', 'altitude', 'alkaline', 'alcohol' 'algebra' etc? They are all Arabic in origin. Why would that be?

Ever heard of the Eighth Century Persian mathematician, Al-Kharazmi, the guy who gave his name to the mathematical term 'algorithm'? How about Amr ibn Bahr Al-Jahiz who wrote on zoology and linguistics at around the same time. Or the Ninth Century Ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi, who wrote on physics, optics, medicine, mathematics, cryptography and metallurgy in Baghdad? Or Abu-Moussa Jabir ibn Hayyan, who was the first chemist to synthesise sulpheric acid? Or the mathematician Thabit Ibn Qurra? Or Ali ibn Sahl Rabban Al-Tabari, another Ninth Century mathematician and medical writer? Or Abbas Ibn Firnas, who made artificial crystals and made the first recorded experiment in manned flight?

Then there's Al-Zahrawi - 'the Father of Modern Surgery', Al-Karaji - the guy who created purely mathematical algrebra, the cartographer and geographer Abul Hasan Ali Al-Masudi and the really big names of medieval Islamic science like Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sinna.

These guys were doing all this stuff while most Europeans were living in mud huts thatched with straw and fighting off Vikings.

You are honestly unaware of all this?

Did you even look at the topic on this subject on this forum?

Yes. And then I replied to your request for 'evidence' for something so basic that I learned it in junior high school.

It doesn't take much to get a bunch of scribes to copy manuscripts. That's rather different from the fantasical things some people attribute to Islamic civilisation.

Do some reading on the guys mentioned above. You clearly have very little idea of what you're talking about if you think they were just 'scribes copying manuscripts'. They didn't just preserve Greek learning, they expanded on it greatly.

[Syron]

Okay, ever heard of scientific terms like 'azimuth', 'horizon', 'altitude', 'alkaline', 'alcohol' 'algebra' etc? They are all Arabic in origin. Why would that be?

Because the west traded with the Arabs? It’s precisely the same reason we in the west use Arabic numerals, it made trading in the Mediterranean easier to use a single system. Think about it for a minute, why would we get the word alcohol from Muslims?

As for the astronomical terms (a subject I know specifically well) it is because the first examples of classical astronomical data were some versions in Arabic that the Cordovan Caliphate collected. Western scholars used these in around the 12th century. All of the originals however were brought to Europe from the fall of the Byzantine Empire much later and the Arabic names simply stuck. It has little bearing on Islamic contributions in astronomy - which for the resources that were at their disposal – were not terribly significant.

Ever heard of the Eighth Century Persian mathematician, Al-Kharazmi, the guy who gave his name to the mathematical term 'algorithm'

If you indeed had read the topic on this subject like you said you have then you would know that I know of him. You would also know that his so-called discoveries are not as fantastical than are made out. I don’t think you did read that topic did you?

That said, I must thank him on the work he did on algorithms. Pretty damn useful.

How about Amr ibn Bahr Al-Jahiz who wrote on zoology and linguistics at around the same time. Or the Ninth Century Ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi, who wrote on physics, optics, medicine, mathematics, cryptography and metallurgy in Baghdad? Or Abu-Moussa Jabir ibn Hayyan, who was the first chemist to synthesise sulpheric acid? Or the mathematician Thabit Ibn Qurra? Or Ali ibn Sahl Rabban Al-Tabari, another Ninth Century mathematician and medical writer? Or Abbas Ibn Firnas, who made artificial crystals and made the first recorded experiment in manned flight?

So? I can provide you with lists of names of many people in Europe doing novel work at the same time and more importantly work that would later be used in further discoveries unlike much of “Islamic Science”.

Or Abbas Ibn Firnas, who made artificial crystals and made the first recorded experiment in manned flight?

Made artificial crystals? It was not the first recorded attempt at manned flight, though granted he used a more promising method, but so what? His method had no benefit to the (much) later development of powered flight.

These guys were doing all this stuff while most Europeans were living in mud huts thatched with straw and fighting off Vikings.

So were most Muslims…..well except the bit about Vikings obviously. As I said before, please less of the stereotype and more actual evidence for your claims.

You are honestly unaware of all this?

I am aware of it though as I have explained, it means nothing. I have never said that Islamic Civilisation produced nothing of worth, simply that it was nothing special as so many seem to imply. The majority of those under Islamic Caliphates lived in much the same conditions as people in Europe.

Do some reading on the guys mentioned above. You clearly have very little idea of what you're talking about if you think they were just 'scribes copying manuscripts'. They didn't just preserve Greek learning, they expanded on it greatly.

You talked at first about preserving Greek learning, that is simply 'scribes copying manuscripts'. You said nothing at the start about “expanded on it greatly”.

As for this “expanded on it greatly”, that is completely false. A large part of Islamic knowledge came from their translations of work done by the Indians and Chinese and other cultures. Did you know that one of the key things about guys like Al-Kharazmi is that he came from modern day Uzbekistan and he knew many languages of the Orient? The majority of his works were translations of manuscripts brought to Baghdad from other civilisations.

If you had read that topic you would know that.

You clearly have very little idea of what you're talking about.

You could call it an all-wing assault on history. This is one of the things that bothers me the most, whether liberal or conservative, is that each tries to twist history for their own gain/purposes.

Indeed, very true.

Islamic civilization incorporated not only the Arabian Peninsula, but also Egypt, North Africa, West Africa, much of Spain, Asia Minor, Persia, Central Asia, northern India, and western China. They would not only spread Islamic culture, but adopt aspects of other cultures for their own purposes. The Dar el-Islam ("Abode of Islam") preserved and enriched Western civilization. I would strongly suggest picking up Ross Dunn's "The Adventures of Ibn Battuta: A Muslim Traveler of the 14th Century" so you can see just how advanced and cultured the Islamic world was. You could travel from Morocco to western China, and the only language you would have needed to be fluent in was Arabic, or possibly Turkish or Persian.

None of that is of any worth to this discussion as evidence goes……..

[Garbarsardar]

Because the west traded with the Arabs? It’s precisely the same reason we in the west use Arabic numerals, it made trading in the Mediterranean easier to use a single system. Think about it for a minute, why would we get the word alcohol from Muslims?

Because it was more economical and versatile.

That said, I must thank him on the work he did on algorithms. Pretty damn useful.

That was nice

So? I can provide you with lists of names of many people in Europe doing novel work at the same time and more importantly work that would later be used in further discoveries unlike much of “Islamic Science”.

You asked for evidence, evidence you have been given.

Made artificial crystals? It was not the first recorded attempt at manned flight, though granted he used a more promising method, but so what? His method had no benefit to the (much) later development of powered flight.

So you cannot dismiss his contribuition just because of your bias.

As I said before, please less of the stereotype and more actual evidence for your claims.

I haven't seen one shred of evidence to your claims until now. And you talking about sterotypes is rather gross.

I am aware of it though as I have explained, it means nothing. I have never said that Islamic Civilisation produced nothing of worth, simply that it was nothing special as so many seem to imply. The majority of those under Islamic Caliphates lived in much the same conditions as people in Europe.

So there was a civilization that "produced something of worth" and "it meant something" ?

You talked at first about preserving Greek learning, that is simply 'scribes copying manuscripts'. You said nothing at the start about “expanded on it greatly”.

As for this “expanded on it greatly”, that is completely false. A large part of Islamic knowledge came from their translations of work done by the Indians and Chinese and other cultures. Did you know that one of the key things about guys like Al-Kharazmi is that he came from modern day Uzbekistan and he knew many languages of the Orient? The majority of his works were translations of manuscripts brought to Baghdad from other civilisations.

And now you are going to enlighten us on the civilizations that do not copy?

None of that is of any worth to this discussion as evidence goes……..

Of which, granted, you provided none.

[Syron]

I think you should start here. That will provide you with a general background and then you can do your own search. It is nice, interactive and you will not get bored.

That site claims that Muslims invented the Astrolabe which is false, we know it was invented by Hypatia, the first recorded female scientist or by Hipparchus.

Thankyou but that site appears not to be a great source of information.
------------

Because it was more economical and versatile.

No, that is why European mathematicians adopted it later on. It came to Europe because for many European Mediterranean countries, Islamic Caliphates were their primary trading partners.

That was nice

Nice? It’s simply praise where it’s deserved.

You asked for evidence, evidence you have been given.

What has been posted is only evidence of noted people and their fields of work. He would have a point if I said people under the Islamic Caliphate made no works.

I did not say that however.

What is being claimed is the “magnificence of medieval Islamic civilisation” especially compared to contemporaries. No evidence for that has been provided.

So you cannot dismiss his contribuition just because of your bias.

One of his supposed contributions I don’t think is true and I’d like evidence for it.

As for his manned flight then sure fine he attempted manned flight just like many others but show me evidence that this event was significant. What was his contribution?

I haven't seen one shred of evidence to your claims until now. And you talking about sterotypes is rather gross.

Er….my position that the claim about the greatness of Islamic civilisation is false means disproving the arguments of people here. It has nothing to do with my claims.

Gross?

So there was a civilization that "produced something of worth" and "it meant something" ?

Yes, all civilisations to a greater or lesser extent. All I’m simply saying is that there is no evidence that the medieval Islamic civilisation was one of the “greater” ones. I thought that was plainly obvious.

And now you are going to enlighten us on the civilizations that do not copy?

None, and in fact it is an essential part of civilisation. The point I’m making is that Islamic civilisation was far more copying than innovating.

Of which, granted, you provided none.

One liners seriously don’t make you look intelligent! I was simply saying that he was talking about Islamic civilisation not about what it did.





we have already had this discussion and the result was pretty conclusive,

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...c+civilisation

Double post merged - imb39

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Okay, ever heard of scientific terms like 'azimuth', 'horizon', 'altitude', 'alkaline', 'alcohol' 'algebra' etc? They are all Arabic in origin. Why would that be?

Because the west traded with the Arabs?

Nope, it was because in the Twelfth Century western scholars realised that the scholars of the Muslim world had a lot of learning lacking or lost in the West. They travelled to Spain and Sicily to get hold of copies of Greek works long since lost in the West and, in the process, discovered the work of Muslim scientists, mathematicians and scholars. 'Azimuth', 'horizon' etc found their way into European parlance via the Arabic works of Muslim geographers and astronomers, not because 'we traded with the Arabs'.

It’s precisely the same reason we in the west use Arabic numerals, it made trading in the Mediterranean easier to use a single system.

Wrong again. The adoption of Arabic numerals came, once again, from Western scholars benefiting from the earlier work of Muslim scholars adapting and improving on the Hindu numerical system. Gerbert of Aurillac learned how to use them from his period studying in Barcelona, but they didn't get widespread use amongst European mathematicians until the translation of Al-Khwarizmi's On Calculation with Hindu Numbers into Latin in the Twelfth Century. Arabic numerals were used by European mathematicians, thanks to their study of Muslim mathematicians, for centuries before they came to be used by merchants.

Think about it for a minute, why would we get the word alcohol from Muslims?

Because, yet again, European chemists benefited from the earlier work of Muslim chemists thanks to the European openess to Muslim scholarship in the Twelfth Century. Muslim chemists made many advances in chemistry and the processes and chemistry involved in distillation and the chemical properties of ethanol led to them writing extensively on 'al-kuhut'.

As for the astronomical terms (a subject I know specifically well) it is because the first examples of classical astronomical data were some versions in Arabic that the Cordovan Caliphate collected. Western scholars used these in around the 12th century.

Yes. Exactly. Thanks for making my point. Those Arabic books on astronomy didn't just preserve Greek knowledge, however, but expanded on them. All medieval treatises on the operation of the astrolabe are based on Arabic originals, for example.

All of the originals however were brought to Europe from the fall of the Byzantine Empire much later and the Arabic names simply stuck.

Yes, they 'stuck' because those works and their Muslim expansions, commentaries and additional contributions had been informing and stimulating European astronomy for about 250 years by then.

It has little bearing on Islamic contributions in astronomy - which for the resources that were at their disposal – were not terribly significant.

Well, apart from little things like updating and adding to Ptolemy's catalogue of the stars, developing the astrolabe to account for the progression of the equinoxes, developing an astrolabe able to be used in multiple latitudes, developing various new types of quadrant and inventing the equatorium, no they added nothing at all.

That said, I must thank him on the work he did on algorithms. Pretty damn useful.

Again, thanks for agreeing with my point.

So? I can provide you with lists of names of many people in Europe doing novel work at the same time and more importantly work that would later be used in further discoveries unlike much of “Islamic Science”.

I've been studying medieval science for about 20 years now, so if you can give me a list of any European scientists from the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Centuries that is longer than a handful of names I'll be amazed and astounded. Later medieval centuries saw quite a few advances in western science and mathematics etc, but that was only after the Twelfth Century Renaissance and the stimulus provided to western by contact with the Muslim intellectual world via Spain and Sicily.

But go ahead and show me this great big list of Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Century European scientists. This should be interesting ...

It was not the first recorded attempt at manned flight, though granted he used a more promising method, but so what?

Icarus doesn't count.

And 'so what?' Leonardo's doodles of an impractical flying machine supposedly makes him a genius, but the medieval experiments with real gliders by Ibn Firnas and Eilmer of Malmesbury get a 'so what?'

His method had no benefit to the (much) later development of powered flight.

No. And? It was still a remarkable thing to do as part of a scientific study of aerodynamics.

So were most Muslims…..well except the bit about Vikings obviously. As I said before, please less of the stereotype and more actual evidence for your claims.

In the period we're talking about there was precious little science, mathematics etc being done in Europe (though lots of mud-hut living). In the Muslim world there was quite a bit of science etc being done (and lots of mud-hut living). Thus the contrast.

Unless, of course, you can produce this amazing list of Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Century European scientists that (i) I'm unaware of, despite 20+ years of study of medieval European science and (ii) outnumbers or even rivals a similar list of Muslim scholars in similar fields in the same centuries.

I look forward to seeing that list.

[Garbarsardar]

I asked for evidence.

Surely if it's that obvious it would be so easy to provide me with some.

Did you even look at the topic on this subject on this forum? I think i know more about the topic, especially the evolution of scientific thought/technology than you do.


It doesn't take much to get a bunch of scribes to copy manuscripts. That's rather different from the fantasical things some people attribute to Islamic civilisation.

I think you should start here. That will provide you with a general background and then you can do your own search. It is nice, interactive and you will not get bored.

[Aristophanes]

The principal reason for the paucity of technological and scientific growth in Dark Ages/Early Medieval Europe was extreme political instability coinciding with the invasion and emigration of steppe tribes.[this drastically reduced populations] The barbarian invasion altered the urban/rural compositions of Europe, favouring ruralization. Without significant politically stable cities, where, the vast majority of technological innovation and scientific discovery originates, the West was at extreme disadvantage to the East which remained largely urban. European turmoil gradually abated, and urbanization set in again; however, it wasn't long after the return of significant city populations that the most deadly plague in recorded human history struck.
Of course, Europe faced other disadvantages in relation to the Middle East: the Middle East was at the crossroads of both Europe and Asia, ensuring that developments from both areas reached it before reaching extrema. Do not underestimate that. A common truism is that "there can be no creativity in a void": in other words, progress is the accumulation of small discoveries drawing upon each other. The group which possesses the most to draw from is also best placed to innovate.
Following up that thought, the libraries of Europe were largely destroyed by fire and steel; the fairly politically stable East preserved much of the treatises and writings of the ancients. Many that we take for granted today exist only due to the scribes of the Arabs and the Persians.

I don't really care to compile a comparative list. Nor do I see any particular need to enter this ****ing contest; however, those who are interested in living outside the "dark ages/middle ages europe was so regressive" cliche should read a couple books: Cathedral, Forge, And Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages; and The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success.[which despite its title should be seriously considered, rather than dogmatically dismissed as I'm sure no time will be wasted in doing]Contrary to popular opinion, the Dark Ages were not so dark, and the Middle Ages produced some important innovations and science in Europe.

[bigfootedfred]

What has been posted is only evidence of noted people and their fields of work.
He would have a point if I said people under the Islamic Caliphate made no works.

If we go with that, then people such as, Thomas edison, Albert Einstein, Issac Newton.
Where just 'people living in the west' and mentioning them would have no bearing on western civilizations contributions.
In fact, that argument would asign everything indivdually, and in fact, no civilization has contributed anything of worth.
Of course, this according to your interpretation.
Which is a very intersting one.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Since imb439 suggested we move the discussion about medieval science here, I'm responding to parts of SignifierOne's post here rather than on the original thread.

As for Islamic science, the names Thiu provided should suffice, though I'll also add the name Ibn Sina (Avicenna) to the list, a great Islamic polymath who greatly built upon the medical works of Galen and Hippocrates.

Actually, I'd already mentioned him in my first post:

... and the really big names of medieval Islamic science like Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sinna.

That is flat out false, as one historian estimated, most knights in Europe bathed on average of once in their entire lives, while Islam -- a culture in the middle of a desert -- flourished with flowing water, irrigated canals, bathrooms, showers, and highly advanced personal hyugine.

I have no idea what modern historian would still believe the nonsense that medieval people rarely bathed. If such a strange creature exists, they probably aren't a specialist in the Middle Ages. They would also have to account for what those guilds of soap makers were doing with their time, why medieval cities had hundreds of public bath-houses, why medieval household accounts make frequent mentions of the purchase of soap for bathing as well as linen for towels etc and why medieval art and literature regularly depicts bathing, both in private and communally.

Arabic writers do comment on European bathing habits, though not that they didn't bathe. They were shocked that both sexes of Europeans bathed together - something else regularly depicted in the medieval evidence.

There was a period, however, where the weird idea that bathing was bad for your health caught on. It was in the Sixteenth Century - the Renaissance.

What was great about medieval Islamic civilization was the profusion of mathematicians, scientists, doctors, philosophers, and every other type of learned men, when all of those men had been absent from Europe for a thousand years.

Er, 'absent'? No, for the period from the Eleventh Century onwards, they were very much present. That's why A. C. Crombie was able to write a two volume history of medieval European science, over 500 pages in total, and David Lindberg was able to write another 450 page book on medieval science and scientists. They would be very slim volumes if scientists etc were 'absent' in the the Middle Ages. You're over-stating your case even worse than Syron is.

Perhaps both of you should try to overcome your respective prejudices and look at history rather more objectively. The result would be both more accurate and more useful.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

... whitewashing the Middle Ages ...

Oh God, not this again ...

This 'whitewashing' that you keep objecting to is simply stuff well-known to professional historians of the Middle Ages finally filtering down to the popular level. Yes, it is counter to the popular (mis)conceptions about the period that date back to the Nineteenth Century, but that's because historians of the Nineteenth Century didn't have much of a clue about the Middle Ages (other than assumptions about them being 'dark' etc). The detailed study of the period only began in the Twentieth Century and its results are only beginning to filter down to the average reader now.

This isn't 'revisionism', let alone 'whitewashing' (nice value judgement there - something that has no place in the objective study of history), it's simply what happens when a neglected period finally gets the detailed attention it deserves.

But don't worry, I'm sure there will still be plenty of people who think medievals thought the Earth was flat etc for decades to come. I keep coming across them, so I guess the 'medieval round Earth' revisionists/whitewashers still have some work to do.

The mystery is why you are so desperate to cling to those outdated Nineteenth Century myths and bigoted value judgements about the medieval period. Very strange ...

For a history of the study of medieval history in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, see Norman Cantor's Inventing the Middle Ages - it lays out how history was dominated by Classical Studies to the detriment of study of the Middle Ages until pioneering modern historians began to turn their attention to the medieval period in the Twentieth Century.

This wicked 'whitewashing' is simply the result of their work finding its way into the popular conciousness. But feel free to cling to value judgements about 'good' and 'bad' periods of history if you like. Some people cling to using fob-watches, steel-nib pens and only travel on steam trains as well. We call them 'eccentrics'.

[Da Skinna]

So.... are we arguing history?

Bottom line should be that Islam was a very tolerant and advanced religion in its day, Baghdad, Cordoba, they were two cities any schmo European peasant would salivate over trying to get into. Architecture, mathematics, laws and the like were much more advanced than in Germany, France, or Britain or Italy. Not to mention how tolerant the Islamic overlords were with Christians and Jews.

Of course, there seems to a bit of a reversal nowadays. But Islam today isn't going back to the Middle Ages, it seems to be going even further, like 5th century Christianity further... :tooth:

[edmont]

There are many wrong points above:first numerals are Indian not Arabic.Futher many scientists were zoroactrian Persians,at least before Muslim conquest of Iran in 13th centiry.Then for long time in Alexandria existed Jewish scientists and first university in Muslim part of Spain called Salamanka which is Jewish like because Muslims would called it Suleimanka right?Then Irish when they been Irish Christians till 11th c. had very developed incorporation of Greek science but then they become Roman catholics and slowed down.

[SigniferOne]

Thiu, I don't understand, how can you say,

the Twelfth Century western scholars realised that the scholars of the Muslim world had a lot of learning lacking or lost in the West. They travelled to Spain and Sicily to get hold of copies of Greek works long since lost in the West

And then proceed to argue about the great science in the Medieval Era. Are you arguing for argument's sake, weary with people who make absolute statements? I mean, not only are we in agreement about the condition (i.e. nonexistence) of European science prior to the 12th century, but we are in agreement as to the resurgence of European science, slowly in the 12th century and as a torrent from 13th century onward. This is the coming of the Renaissance, the transitory era, between the Middle Ages -- characterized by ignorance, literal Christianity, sheer mysticism -- and Renaissance, characterized by resurgence of reason, science, and secular learning. Summa Theologica, the harbinger of the Renaissance, was after all written in mid-to-late 1200's. It is not a Medieval work, though written in the Medieval period, just like the works of someone like Tertullian are not Classical works though writing in the Classical Period. Petrarch, too, lived in the 1300's, a man as unlike the medieval person as possible.

So, against those who would detract from Islamic achievements you rightly point out the significance of Muslim learning to the learning-deficient medieval West. But when I accuse medieval West of being learning-deficient, you cry foul. It's confusing...


Psycho V, responding to your post from this thread:

This civilization was made great by its (partial) rejection of mysticism and remarkable rationality, fueled and inspired by Aristotle who was revered by Muslims and translated tirelessly, and commented on copiously.

Oh please. Islam was and is to this day steeped in mysticism.

This is a blanket statement which finds little corroboration with reality. Muslim civilization during the period we are discussing was nowhere near steeped in mysticism as it is now, and certainly nowhere near the primal mysticism of the contemporary Christians. I've already brought up examples of the "heretical" Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sinna, who advocated reason and doubted the Koran, advocated and practiced rational science and medicine free of religious dogma, and actively defended secular (Aristotelian) knowledge against attacks of mystical muslims. Such men were not the exception but actually the norm, all throughout Islamic Caliphates.

It was only through Islam that we had received our knowledge of most of Aristotle's works

Yup, true. They seized it from Christian / Byzantine loot and recorded it for the prosperity of humanity.

Yes precisely, hence their greatness.

And who prey-tell were the forefathers of this great age of Islamic enlightenment?



It was .. wait for it….

...the Jews!! (*gasps in horror*)

The Jews had their own time of glory in the person of Moses Maimonedes. But it wasn't the Jews commenting and spreading philosophy and science throughout the Caliphates, and thus into Europe. If Islam subsequently crumbled back into mysticism is no secret, but that they were the most rational civilization of their time is also hardly controversial.

….revolutionized Christianity (by making it more rational). This made Christianity more compatible with science and with reason, and converted it to the generally placid religion that we see today.

You make a great deal about the value of scholarship but after a comment like that I have to wonder if you are even literate yourself

You are welcome to make rational arguments if you would like.

[Ringeck]

mean, not only are we in agreement about the condition (i.e. nonexistence) of European science prior to the 12th century, but we are in agreement as to the resurgence of European science, slowly in the 12th century and as a torrent from 13th century onward. This is the coming of the Renaissance, the transitory era, between the Middle Ages -- characterized by ignorance, literal Christianity, sheer mysticism -- and Renaissance, characterized by resurgence of reason, science, and secular learning. Summa Theologica, the harbinger of the Renaissance, was after all written in mid-to-late 1200's. It is not a Medieval work, though written in the Medieval period, just like the works of someone like Tertullian are not Classical works though writing in the Classical Period. Petrarch, too, lived in the 1300's, a man as unlike the medieval person as possible..

11th century sounds better than 12th. It's the period of the rise of universities, after all. The problem with these definitions is that the traits you set to be medieval are hardly something that disappeared with the period usually defined as the renaissance, and that the traits you set to be renaissance were not unique before the 11th century. Ignorance is as common now as ever, as is literal christianity (and Islam). Mysticism was probably more common in the 16-17th centuries than it had ever been in earlier periods, both in terms of christian mysticism and the odder parts of alchemy. Reason is a human trait, not a historical trait, and can be found aplenty in pretty much any period. Science (a necessarily rather broad concept if it is not entirely defined away as a scientific revolution phenomenon) and philosophy had few known representatives before the earliest high middle ages in the west (Theophilus Presbyter and Alcuin are examples, and Isidore of Seville's encyclopedia was reprinted well into the 16th century). Secular learning wasn't unknown either, even if it was taught in church-run schools (just as secular learning was taught in schools attached to madrassa in the islamic world until the modern states started building entirely "secular" schools) - several Visigothic kings, for example, in the "darkest dark ages", received a late roman style-education.

This problem is not new, and has not been so since people started reading more sources and seeing that, after all, the Italian Renaissance wasn't so unique after all (volumes have been written by art historians trying to explain away naturalistic statuary from the 12th century ). The late Dr.Hollister suggested doing away with the two definitions of medieval and renaissance entirely (and renaming the Dark Ages, who, after all, are hardly all that "Dark" anymore - the scholary darkness has largerly been lit by the last hundred years of research) - a number of different new naming conventions have been proposed - the one I think is most fruitful is the one viewing the entire period 1000 (sometimes 500-)-1600 or so as the embryonic civilization of the 18th-20th centuries ( (this is where we got "early modern era" from). For historical reasons this is unlikely, however, so the middle ages remain - only they now tend to be blended together with the old period of the renaissance, producing an ancient - middle ages - modern era definition that, in many ways, is just as misleading.

This is a blanket statement which finds little corroboration with reality. Muslim civilization during the period we are discussing was nowhere near steeped in mysticism as it is now, and certainly nowhere near the primal mysticism of the contemporary Christians. I've already brought up examples of the "heretical" Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sinna, who advocated reason and doubted the Koran, advocated and practiced rational science and medicine free of religious dogma, and actively defended secular (Aristotelian) knowledge against attacks of mystical muslims. Such men were not the exception but actually the norm, all throughout Islamic Caliphates.

I think even this is far too broad. Muslim civilization of today is probably more secularized than it has ever been, hence the reactions we see from the Wahabbists et.al - after all, their position is similar to that of many medieval islamic reform movements - a fight against "pollution" of the faith - not in terms of science, but in terms of philosophy and especially new customs (the current Wahabbists wouldn't mind a high-tech Caliphate, they just don't want it to be founded on secular ideas). Also, the muslim world was, as it is today, extremely diverse and attitudes changed over time - as you have demonstrated yourself with the Ibn Rush/Ibn Sinna examples (contra al-Ghazali and the Almohads). The muslim world had no unified position on matters like these (it could not have - centralization was hardly impressiv even during the most unified Ummayad period) and it is in this period we see the more extensive contacts between latin universities and muslim scholars as well.

[edmont]

the answer to presumtion that science had only began in 17th century because ancients didn't have knowledge about the process of generalisation(from phenomena to law)You ever heard about Aristotelus?Then why you talking this?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

There are many wrong points above:first numerals are Indian not Arabic.

Given that I've already mentioned Al-Khwarizmi's On Calculation with Hindu Numbers, I think it's pretty clear we're aware they are not Arabic in origin. The point is that Europeans learned of them via their use in the Islamic world.

Futher many scientists were zoroactrian Persians,at least before Muslim conquest of Iran in 13th centiry.

But the ones we are discussing here are all post-conquest Muslims or ones whose knowledge found its way to Europe via Arabic translations and commentaries.

Then for long time in Alexandria existed Jewish scientists and first university in Muslim part of Spain called Salamanka which is Jewish like because Muslims would called it Suleimanka right?

I'm not sure what this means. The Univeristy of Salamanca was founded by the Christian king of Leon in 1218. But Jewish scholars were very much an important part of the intellectual life of both Muslim Spain and the Christian Spanish kingdoms. Many of the European scholars who travelled to Spain to benefit from the Greek knowledge preserved there learned both Arabic and Hebrew to do so. A lot of the stuff they brought back to the rest of Europe had been translated from Hebrew thanks to Jewish scholars who had benefited from the intellectually tolerant culture of Muslim Spain.

Then Irish when they been Irish Christians till 11th c. had very developed incorporation of Greek science but then they become Roman catholics and slowed down.

The Irish certainly did maintain a knowledge of Greek and preserved quite a few Greek works lost to the rest of Europe. They passed these on to the rest of western Christendom when they founded in England and Frankia. Those works included histories and some poetry (so a group of Irish pilgrims to Jerusalem in the Seventh Century stopped off in Egypt and did a tour of ancient monuments based on their knowledge of Greek historical writers) but they didn't preserve or practice much Greek science at all.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

There was no such thing as medieval science. Sure many significant discoveries were made, but they were not done scientifically.

[Vanquisher]

The fact that you seem unaware of this basic piece of information says something about how history is being taught in your neck of the woods.

I think this was inappropriate, I for one and Englihs and know jolly well the Islamic world brought about some fantasic inventions and continued the legasy of the greek prowess in the sciences being technologicaly superiour to Europe untill the reneassance. The dark ages did not extend into the muslim lands you see, while Europe dipped into relative sedation the east contineud to prosper at the normal rate. That is all I am saying goodbye

PS. They had torpedos!

PPS. Actually, I'm English not Englihs.