| To:
Guardian CiF Re: Different ethnic perspectives on the history of science Date: Wednesday 30 January 08 |
|
|
|
|
| In
response to "Arabic science that prefigured Darwin and Newton", by Jim Al-Khalili Link to article and thread at The Guardian. |
|
It seems to me that the flower of "Islamic" science blossomed and DIED many centuries ago and, not withstanding its academic interest, has "relatively" little relevance to the development of European science.
The Islamic world's most important contribution was in passing on ancient Greek (and with it, Babylonian) science and discoveries from India and China to medieval Europe, where Islamic discoveries, such as pulmonary circulation, were not taken over from Islam, but rediscovered; thus the credit going to William Harvey, because it was his discovery of it which profoundly influenced further developments.
As an aside, we would do well to give more attention to how revolutionary ideas and discoveries are received "at the time" (sometimes being completely ignored or forgotten, as happened with much "Islamic" science), and WHY, since it has great relevance to our own times. William Harvey's discovery, for example, met with much resistance from the medical establishment, which, from self-interest, wanted to stick with Galen. It took many years (i.e. a new generation of physicians), before it became generally accepted.
2nd Post
[Etznab]: "And now you get to see how racist the western world really is . . ."
Thanks for that [Etznab]. It is an excellent example of how the word "racist" is so often misused nowadays - not least, here on CiF - opportunistically to confound, abuse, condemn and dismiss others and their arguments. The equivalent words in McCarthy's America were "un-American" or "Communist"; in Stalin's Russian, "reactionary" or "counterrevolutionary"; in medieval Europe, "heretic", "Jew", or "heathen").
Are you comfortable with that [Etznab]? I hope not.
What [Etznab] is referring to, I assume, and calling "racist", is the natural tendency of everyone to identify with their OWN (their own people, ancestors, culture, history, etc.).
Because of his origins, Jim Al-Khalili understandably identifies strongly with his Islamic ancestors, culture and history. Thus his emphasis of Islamic contributions to science and civilization. A Chinese will emphasis Chinese contributions, an Indian Indian contributions, etc. And, of course, Europeans (except those of the self-hating variety) emphasis European contributions. There is nothing sinister or "racist" about this whatsoever.
The problem, of course, is that in a multi-racial/multicultural society, we are NEVER going to agree on which perspective is the correct one - and why should we? What we do need to agree on, however, is that everyone is entitled to their own particular perspective. Another problem is that European contributions have been so overwhelming, especially in respect to science and technology (or am I just being overly Eurocentric?)
Another point, [Etznab]: This IS Europe (the Guardian being a European paper based in a European country, owned, run and read predominantly by Europeans), so to criticize us, Europeans, (let alone damn us as "racists") for being somewhat Eurocentric, I think is a little unreasonable.
In contrast - and I point this out in great sadness - Western civilization, being NON-SUSTAINABLE, will be lucky to survive the next 70 years, never mind the next 700!
[deconvoluter], regarding my "glib criticism":
I didn't mean to be glib or critical, but help to clarify why this issue so easily leads to misunderstandings and (often heated) disagreements - as this thread itself has documented.
[Worktimesurfer]: ". . . why is Western civilisation 'NONSUSTAINABLE'?
Any attempt to answer your question here would be off-topic, so here's a link: http://spaceship-earth.org/In_a_nutshell.html
I would just to express my appreciation of the "Al Gore, Al-Zheimer, Al-Capone, etc. puns for lightening things up a bit (hopefully, no offense was meant or taken).
5th Post (missed deadline, so this final post doesn't appear on the thread)
[Fossil], Thank you for your excellent and informative post.
You are absolutely right about the history of science being one of the worst venues for ethnic chauvinism, and for the very reason you give about there being "nothing in any non-western culture to compare with the stunning exfoliation of systematic mathematical knowledge in the western world", which I think one can extend beyond mathematics to science, medicine and technology in general.
One can understand why non-Europeans might want to point out what the culture/society/civilization in which they have their own ethnic roots have also achieved or contributed* to the development of science and technology, but trying to put them on a par with European achievements is just rather silly and embarrassing for everyone.
As a European, of course I'm proud of European contributions to science and technology, and, being a mere mortal, have sometimes slipped vainly into feeling arrogant and chauvinistic about it (especially when under attack), but I am ashamed of myself when I do. Since, but for the grace of God . . . .
* Achievement in and contribution to science are not necessarily the same thing, as the case of Ibn al-Nafees' description of pulmonary circulation demonstrates, I believe, William Harvey's description of it, and of the even more important body circulation, being what actually contributed to further developments.
It is also interesting to note in this context that Harvey didn't observe, and thus couldn't describe, the capillaries with connect the arteries to the veins, thus completing the circuit, but postulated their existence, which microscopic investigations subsequently confirmed. That's science!