Hi There is a heated debate about science and Islam on Wikipedia. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science and the debate on the talk-page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Science_in_medieval_Islam#Factual_accuracy And perhaps we as psychologists have been culpable in neglecting the origins of much of psychological knowledge in Islamic culture, at least according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_psychology There are innumerable interesting and challenging issues in these debates ... here's a few observations 1. That science is founded on multiple cultural influences, independently of where it ultimately flourished, undermines the claim that science is Eurocentric and should help us to promote it as a universal way of knowing. I'm skeptical that will be the dominant response, at least in circles where indigenous forms of "science" are being promoted (talk about a "truism"). 2. How valid are historical approaches that start out with a thesis and then seek confirming instances in the historical record? Does it matter that these instances are being found over a time period of 800 years? Given that 8 centuries (or more) intervening period, how much further along was our knowledge of the natural world from the start to the end of the period? A rich scientific tradition during this period of Islam would also make even more interesting than it already is the question of what cultural factors led to its diminishing influence and development in that part of the world. 3. Is it in fact the case that Islamic (some question this as an appropriate affiliation for many people being cited) and other non-Western influences (China, India) have been ignored in the historical record of science? I would guess this might differ markedly depending on the source (e.g., explicitly historical or history being a side issue). In any case it would be interesting to see some quantification of the neglect, especially in the historical record. (How are empirical approaches to history fairing these days, anyway?) Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [email protected] >>> <[email protected]> 12-Mar-09 2:02:06 PM >>> For some reason or other, from time to time we've been preoccupied with the question of Eurocentric science, and the extent to which other civilizations, in particular African-based ones, have contributed to and advanced European science. We are not alone. _Nature_ has just reviewed two books which attempt to illuminate on this question. The books are: Aladdin's Lamp: How Greek Science Came to Europe Through the Islamic World by John Freely Science and Islam: A History by Ehsan Masood According to the reviewer of both, Yasmin Khan, "It has been widely accepted that the Islamic civilization had merely a bridging role in preserving the wealth of inherited ancient Greek knowledge ready for future consumption by the West. This pervasive belief, now known to be a damaging distortion of history, is explored in two new books." However, Khan criticizes the apparently conventional view of Freely that the flow was Greek to Islam to the West, and prefers the more complex thesis of Masood that the influence was a two way street, with knowledge flowing in both directions. In particular, he notes that Islam did not merely pass knowledge along from the Greeks, but changed and improved it in significant ways. According to Khan, both authors showed an appreciation for the masterpiece of Ibn al_Haytham, the Book of Optics, "which is considered one of the most influential works produced in Islamic science, representing a definitive advance beyond the achievements of the ancient Greeks in their study of light...Masood elaborates further, asserting that al-Haytham pioneered a progenitor to the modern scientific method back in the eleventh century. Al-Haytham's investigations were based on experimental rather than abstract evidence, and his experiments were systematic and repeatable, enabling him to establish empirical proof of the intromission theory of light - that vision is the result of light from objects entering the eye. Two centuries later, al-Haytham's work had a profound influence on Roger Bacon". It is a bold claim that the scientific method has its origins in Islam, but apparently a claim with merit. If I can add my own two bits, I've stumbled upon an interesting figure in the early history of chemistry, a woman known as Mary or Maria the Jewess (among other names). She lived in Alexandria some time around the third century CE. She's credited with being a founder of alchemy and of apparatus and procedures which the later science of chemistry depended on. One of them, the "bain Marie" is a water bath still in use today. As a Jew, a woman, and an Alexandrian, she obviously represented something other than a white, Christian, male, Eurocentric source of knowledge. Stephen Nature review (free): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7235/full/458149a.html#a1 Maria the Jewess: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi964.htm http://tinyurl.com/cw5ejw Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
