Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2011, 02:17 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
Hi AbdelZ -
How interesting you mention Linda Shepherd and her book Lifting The Veil: The Feminine Face Of Science. I've read that book.
It draws on basic tenets of Jungian psychology and describes how science is successfully unveiling the feminine in newer areas like quantum physics and chaos science. It concludes that science can only improve, and help humanity to prosper, by uncovering its feminine side.
***
I agree with Lucradis; I really just don't care. As a Non-Theist, I have no interest in viewing science through any Theist filter, be it Islam, Christian, Veda, New Age... whatever. A Theist view makes itself unimportant, irrelevant, and unnecessary to science.

However I will challenge Islam itself to make me or anyone care about the importance, relevance, or necessity of Islam, by addressing the feminine side of Islam.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kim's post
09-12-2011, 02:28 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
Well, I've downloaded the PDF - the book isn't primarily about the scientific method and the argument doesn't come up until page 147 and consists of:

Quote:And where did Roger
Bacon receive his scientific training? - In the Muslim universities of
Spain. Indeed Part V of his Opus Majus which is devoted to ‘Perspective’
is practically a copy of Ibn Haitham’s Optics.16 Nor is the book, as a
whole, lacking in evidences of Ibn Hazm’s influence on its author.
17 Europe has been rather slow to recognize 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,
‘… it was under their successors at that Oxford school that Roger Bacon
learned Arabic and 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 and method to Christian Europe; and he never wearied
of declaring that a knowledge of Arabic and 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 and
eagerly cultivated throughout Europe’ (pp. 200-01)… .

Then goes on to keep saying how wonderful Islam is and how it's the basis of any rational thought Rolleyes

Problem 1: Where does he get the basis for the claim that Roger Bacon studied in Islamic schools in Spain? No citation and I've not found anyone else corroborating that claim. The sources I've found say he studied at Oxford, which is neither in Spain, nor is it Islamic.

Problem 2: Yes, Roger Bacon based some of his works on Arabic works, particularly the optics. So what? Optics != the scientific method, nor does it say anything about him first reading/learning about the scientific method from these works.

I might have more later when I've read more, but it seems to be a very, very biased source - the most cited book is the Qur'an...

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Azaraith's post
09-12-2011, 03:52 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2011 04:14 PM by kineo.)
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
Maybe when I my class is done I'll give it a read, but I'm seriously not interested in subjecting myself to: "Islam is good because it made science! See?" I get the enough here and now with Christianity and it is equally as incorrect.

If that's what it is, then it will be a waste of time. I think it's great that the scientific method has a history with Muslims. That's wonderful. That does not give me any reason to think that god exists and that if god existed it would be the god of the Qur'an just like how some scientists being Christian does not give me reason to think the god of the Bible exists.

Maybe I'll read them, but so far I'm not convinced it will be worth my time. Especially given the insults of the person promoting them.

AbdelZ, You came here for the discussion that you don't have time for. Just remember that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kineo's post
11-12-2011, 02:04 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2011 02:15 PM by AbdelZ.)
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
(09-12-2011 02:17 PM)kim Wrote:  Hi AbdelZ -
How interesting you mention Linda Shepherd and her book Lifting The Veil: The Feminine Face Of Science. I've read that book.
It draws on basic tenets of Jungian psychology and describes how science is successfully unveiling the feminine in newer areas like quantum physics and chaos science. It concludes that science can only improve, and help humanity to prosper, by uncovering its feminine side.
***
I agree with Lucradis; I really just don't care. As a Non-Theist, I have no interest in viewing science through any Theist filter, be it Islam, Christian, Veda, New Age... whatever. A Theist view makes itself unimportant, irrelevant, and unnecessary to science.

However I will challenge Islam itself to make me or anyone care about the importance, relevance, or necessity of Islam, by addressing the feminine side of Islam.

Hi, my friend :

Well, that's really a great unique book i "fell in love with & with its writer " haha , really , somehow

Concerning the feminine side of islam , you just have to know that islam already acknowledged the fact that intuitive insights or heart , feeling ....were / are sources of knowledge as well together with reason, logic, empirics , 14 00 years ago, so

I think that intuitive insights or heart or heart's intelligence as i like to put it stands higher than the intellect while they do share some organic relationships between each other

See also how intuition, feeling , emotion shape our thought too


See how religion or islam at least for that matter already stimulated experience a long time ago before science ever did , the latter as the legetimate natural daughter of islam = the 2 are the 2 sides of the same story

See how religious experience stands sometimes higher than the scientific one : read Iqbal's book on the matter + William James ' " The varieties of religious experience " for example


Note that :


The biggest drama of the west is that it had elevated reason to the level of an a-historic , a -cultural absolute religion ideology while rejecting the rest of Man as sources of knowledge : one cannot really divide man in separate "independent " departments such as reason, feeling , intuition, emotion , they all work together in man in fact while having mutual constant organic or not relationships between each other .....man is in fact unity as well as multiplicity : you , guys , should apply synthesis as well as analysis on the matter : you have a lot to learn from Oriental holism too for example as post-modernism does in fact , the latter that tries to combine western individualism with Oriental holism while islam is laready individualistic & holistic at the same time = an understatement

Reason for example is shaped not only by biological psychological social factors but also by culture , education, nurture , ecology ...so


The biggest drama of the west is that it had separated between the inseparable : between object & subject : matter & spirit ,between spiritual & material dimentions of man, life , between life & after-life , while they are inseparable , except by death , the latter that's just a necessay "bridge " to the ...after-life , so

Pragmatic William James fror example had tried to "finish off " that classical distinction between object & subject or between matter & spirit in the conventional philosophy by denying the existence of human consciousness as such , as an entity or thing , paving the way for his unnuanced incorrect pragmatism in his book " Does consciousness exist ? "

Besides :

Spinoza's monism or monistic ethics for example in the sense that matter & spirit or object & subject are one , so it means nothing to say whether the one influences the other or not are the source of the current materialistic ethics in the sense that neither good nor bad as such do exist = just survival utilitarian pragmatic survival strategies

P.S.:

There is in islam therefore no separation between matter & spirit , between material & spiritual life , between life & after-life , or between church & state, between science & islam : no separation but only a practical one in order to approach the material & spiritual sides of life separately while combining between them afterwards = analysis & synthesis ,taking into consideration the unity as well as the multiplicity of man in the process

Even the notion of "secular " means really nothing in islam, there is no such a thing as secular or prophane , because islam is about all aspects of life & beyond = individual, material , spiritual, moral ethical, juridic , , scientific, economic, psychological, political, social, cultural, artistic, literature ....aspects of life

Old muslim scientists for example used to separate between science & islam in their actual scientific work while being driven by islamic paradigms in the process :

in the sense that as the materialistic philosophy of science or the materialistic philosophy can feed back science & vice versa , idem dito for hinduism, taoism, buddhism , so can islam do that & much better like no other

Finally :


Do not forget that materialism as an ideology , a view of life man the world the universe , a paradigm ...has been dominating in exact sciences as well as in human sciences , excluding all non -materialistic paradigms in the process, especially those of religions

That's why materialism as an Eurocentric ideology that's not to be confused with the material nature of science or with the material nature of the scientific method , that's why materialism thus has been succeeding only at the level of matter : its own level , not in human sciences for example

& even at the level of matter itself , where the very definition of matter itself has been drastically changed thanks to quantum theory & quantum mechanics , even at that level , materialism has been experiencing a serious dead lock at the level of quantum mechanics for example , so



See this unique book of French nobel prize winner scientist Alexis Carrel on the matter you can download for free : "Man, The unknown " : despite some racist aspects of it :


You gotta try to upload some docu , ebook in order to get that ebook for free in return or just go to some other similar site you can get from google in that regard :


http://www.scribd.com/doc/20893226/ALEXI...HE-UNKNOWN


I am also fascinated by the neo-feminist ethics of care i read about in this great book on the matter : "Ethics of care : personal, political, global " By Virginia Held : beautiful, a real improvement of those a-moral liberal materialistic ethics without a heart or soul , that have been dominating in the world today, even between nations : Kantian, utilitarianist , contractarianist , a real improvement of those ethics of the market together with the other liberal ones that have been invading even our private personal familial ereas where they absolutely do not belong

Virginia Held was inspired by Oriental holism too & by the Oriental fact that feeling , intuition, compassion , empathy , solidarity ......love ...should be really at the core of the real civilized ethics

Neo-feminist ethics of care that have a lot in common with the islamic ethics , the latters i think are the best ever , to be honest , so



Thanks , appreciate

Good night indeed

All the best , folks
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2011, 03:04 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
(09-12-2011 02:28 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  Well, I've downloaded the PDF - the book isn't primarily about the scientific method and the argument doesn't come up until page 147 and consists of:

Quote:And where did Roger
Bacon receive his scientific training? - In the Muslim universities of
Spain. Indeed Part V of his Opus Majus which is devoted to ‘Perspective’
is practically a copy of Ibn Haitham’s Optics.16 Nor is the book, as a
whole, lacking in evidences of Ibn Hazm’s influence on its author.
17 Europe has been rather slow to recognize 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,
‘… it was under their successors at that Oxford school that Roger Bacon
learned Arabic and 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 and method to Christian Europe; and he never wearied
of declaring that a knowledge of Arabic and 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 and
eagerly cultivated throughout Europe’ (pp. 200-01)… .

Then goes on to keep saying how wonderful Islam is and how it's the basis of any rational thought Rolleyes

Problem 1: Where does he get the basis for the claim that Roger Bacon studied in Islamic schools in Spain? No citation and I've not found anyone else corroborating that claim. The sources I've found say he studied at Oxford, which is neither in Spain, nor is it Islamic.

Problem 2: Yes, Roger Bacon based some of his works on Arabic works, particularly the optics. So what? Optics != the scientific method, nor does it say anything about him first reading/learning about the scientific method from these works.

I might have more later when I've read more, but it seems to be a very, very biased source - the most cited book is the Qur'an...


I suggest you finish reading those books before saying anything
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2011, 04:05 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
Equating a materialist view of the universe (monism) with Eurocentrism seems really pointless. This view simply says that there is no spirit, there is only the material - you don't have to be Eurpean to see that.

You also confabulate several dichotomies into one structure and then politicize it. Islam can say whatever it wants about the material and spiritual, but it doesn't really matter since there is no Allah.

And you completely missed the point about Islam and women. It's the way you treat them that is abhorrent to the civilized world.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2011, 04:08 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
lol he put me on ignore.

Edit: wait, no "PM" means you're on ignore, right? If so, Kim has me on ignore as well Sad

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2011, 04:10 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
(12-12-2011 04:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  Equating a materialist view of the universe (monism) with Eurocentrism seems really pointless. This view simply says that there is no spirit, there is only the material - you don't have to be Eurpean to see that.

You also confabulate several dichotomies into one structure and then politicize it. Islam can say whatever it wants about the material and spiritual, but it doesn't really matter since there is no Allah.

And you completely missed the point about Islam and women. It's the way you treat them that is abhorrent to the civilized world.

You have to look up the definition of Eurocentrism first , it does not mean European only

That life is just a matter of material processes , including the human spirit has nothing to do with science , has more to do with materialism as an Eurocentric ideology

Gotta go, thanks , tomorrow then
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2011, 04:17 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
(12-12-2011 04:10 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  
(12-12-2011 04:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  Equating a materialist view of the universe (monism) with Eurocentrism seems really pointless. This view simply says that there is no spirit, there is only the material - you don't have to be Eurpean to see that.

You also confabulate several dichotomies into one structure and then politicize it. Islam can say whatever it wants about the material and spiritual, but it doesn't really matter since there is no Allah.

And you completely missed the point about Islam and women. It's the way you treat them that is abhorrent to the civilized world.

You have to look up the definition of Eurocentrism first , it does not mean European only

That life is just a matter of material processes , including the human spirit has nothing to do with science , has more to do with materialism as an Eurocentric ideology

Gotta go, thanks , tomorrow then

Eu·ro·cen·tric (yr-sntrk) also Eu·ro·po·cen·tric (y-rp-)
adj.
Centered or focused on Europe or European peoples, especially in relation to historical or cultural influence.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocentrism

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2011, 04:26 PM
RE: Did Roger or Francis Bacon Really Discover The Scientific Method ?
(12-12-2011 04:10 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  You have to look up the definition of Eurocentrism first , it does not mean European only
Whose definition?
Eurocentric : centered on Europe or the Europeans; especially : reflecting a tendency to interpret the world in terms of western and especially European or Anglo-American values and experiences
Eurocentrism refers to a discursive tendency to interpret the histories and cultures of non-European societies from a European (or Western) perspective.
Quote:That life is just a matter of material processes , including the human spirit has nothing to do with science , has more to do with materialism as an Eurocentric ideology
No, it has to do with many branches of science. Biology, especially neuroscience, indicates that all thoughts and emotions can be shown to be the result of physical processes.
Materialism (monism) is a scientific theory to scientists. Science is culture-neutral, it is not an ideology. There is no such thing as European Science, or Eastern Science, or Islamic Science; there is only science.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: