Comment by throw0101a | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw0101a | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I asked what he thought of what happened in the Arabic and Iranian regions during that time, he replied: Nothing significant.

If a tree in falls in the forest, and no hears it, does it really matter?

There were many curious minds that made useful discoveries, but by ~1200 CE the general zeitgeist was to discourage scientific inquiries:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philoso...

Further, I don't think there was a 'critical mass' of people exploring and exchanging ideas (either because of a too-small population, or difficulties in communication), and so if you did just happen to make discoveries… there was no one to tell, and your book simply languished on a shelf somewhere unnoticed, as from your link:

> Ibn al-Nafis discovered that the blood in the right ventricle of the heart is instead carried to the left by way of the lungs.[70] This discovery was one of the first descriptions of the pulmonary circulation,[70] although his writings on the subject were only rediscovered in the 20th century,[71] and it was William Harvey's later independent discovery which brought it to general attention.[72]

If a tree in falls in the forest, and no hears it, does it really matter?

> If a tree in falls in the forest, and no hears it, does it really matter?

But people DID hear it, just not in big parts of Europe where most of "our" history is taught / comes from. It's very eurocentric to assume that just because "we" didn't hear about it, it didn't exist. Civilization was miles ahead outside of Europe for a long time.

Indeed, and if not for the Enlightenment it would still be. That's what made room for science on a much larger scale and in contradiction with lots of things that were considered established knowledge than ever before. The power of science is such that a resource poor part of the world managed to overtake the rest in many ways in a couple of centuries.

Not only resource-poor, but also a cultural backwater burdened with a kind of religious extremism foreign to much of the rest of the world.

Did you conveniently ignore Islam?

No, that's why I said "much of the rest of the world", rather than "the rest of the world".

Cultural backwater right up to that point, and religious extremist right up to that point. Many countries/regions never went through such a phase and that is what allowed Europe to do what it did, it essentially leapfrogged from the dark ages to modernity in an extremely short span of time while elsewhere not much changed. It also enabled a period of expansionism and engendered some of the worst atrocities committed by mankind today, but the scientific and cultural progress can not be denied.

Why do you add the 'today' caveat? I think you again need to add an asterix to 'some of the worst atrocities committed' to instead be commonly recorded or the 'if the tree fell' analogy. What did the sacrifice culture of the Aztecs require to be sustained? Many many peoples of Europe were wiped from the earth (Old Prussians as an easy example). It wasn't about killing non-Europeans as Europeans were just as happy to genocide Europeans. How many many black slaves on whole went to China/East but because they used castration a permanent population was never established. Did this result in more or less suffering than slavery on the eastern seaboard of the Americas? Don't forget for a thousand years before Europeans went international slave hunting Europeans were the hunted (to the point they have mythical an anti-Santa that slave hunts for little European boys and girls). How many struggles like the Sioux almost genociding the Crow happened in the Americas that we don't know about? We have the same principle as being discussed happen in history discussions, only they are used to make European violence look like an outlier that it might not have been.

Because I don't think we've seen the worst yet.

"If a tree falls in someone else's forest, and I don't hear it, do I even care." I think sums it a bit more accurately.

I'm pretty sure the point of the comment that you're replying to is that, even in the non-European parts of the world where things like this were discovered, those discoveries were lost and forgotten and the significance of those discoveries only became obvious after they were rediscovered in Europe once society was structured in a way that lead to people communicating and building on them.

> Civilization was miles ahead outside of Europe for a long time.

Yes, and what happened to it? It withered after flourishing. Almost all of discoveries made anywhere else in the world were meaningless because they ended up not changing anything.

Astronomy was practiced in all the major civilizations. The telescope just happened to be invented in Europe in ~1600, and it brought to Mughal India and Imperial China (and spread by 'osmosis' to the Ottomans): they were not interested in it.

Certain individuals took it up, but as a whole those other societies disregarded it.

> Certain individuals took it up, but as a whole those other societies disregarded it.

Just like today? How many people today own a telescope? It's a niche tool useful to some but irrelevant to most.

Is it a case here that "we" just didn't hear about it, or that the impact of the knowledge never made it outside the community/region. Did it matter to the people living it? Seems like absolutely yes. Did it endure beyond that community or region? Maybe they do not mean "insignificant" altogether and simply mean insignificant within the context of the ideas and knowledge that endured and were built upon to arrive where we are?

I'm genuinely curious as I feel like this touches on something broader. I think about this with literature and poetry. There's a wonderful effect as you read through time where there are various dialogues happening. People sort of reacting to each other and speaking across generations and cultures. Ginsberg reads differently when you understand his relationship with the Greek epics and other poets before him. I guess my point is, and I may have bungled it spectacularly and just get told I'm an ass, something might not be insignificant unless evaluated as part of a larger context and historic dialog.

edit: removed my ignorant line about the book of optics.

> The wiki seems to indicate not except the book of optics?

Not sure how you reached that conclusion. Perhaps it would be helpful to search for 'Latin' in that wiki page. There's a reason why so many of these Islamic figures had Latinised names - Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi -> 'Rhazes' or Ibn al-Haytham -> 'Al-hazen'. Their works, as with other scholars, were translated into Latin so that they could be read in Europe.

There's a reason why the word 'Algorithm' starts with 'Al' - the etymology comes from the name 'Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm#History

Yeah that's a bad read on my part - sorry for that. Removed that bit :) And thank you for the information!

If a tree falls in the forest, but no Europeans / Christians heard it, does it really matter?

Yes. Yes it does.

Really? So Ibn al-Nafis discovered pulmonary circulation first:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_the_medieval_Islam...

What difference did his discovery make in the development of medicine? Who built on it? Which therapies were invented? If his writings sat on a shelf, read by no one, why did they matter?

Contrast that with the various works from the Muslim world on optics that did contribute the building of understanding in the greater world.

You link a page that mentions maybe 100 significant medieval Islamic researchers and innovations that had a huge impact on the world of medicine. But you pick out the only one described as having "limited impact on contemporaries" as evidence that it was all a waste of time?

My God, some things never die.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ_YDx2mtF0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0rXaQzc0KA

What do you mean with "some things never die"?

The first video I didn't watch fully (because it's 50 min long), but seems to be an analysis of Al-Ghazali's work in general. Are we supposed to make our own links to the point your parent poster was making? Maybe you can provide a timestamp for the relevant part?

The second one is just an argument for the existence of god, and I don't see what it has to do with this argument.

The OP was saying "but by ~1200 CE the general zeitgeist was to discourage scientific inquiries," and that was something an old orientalist said about Al-Ghazali, that Muslims Scholars dismissed because it is nonsense. But thanks God it came from a Western scholar (because the west never listens), Frank Griffel has two important books about this, and one of them focuses on Al Ghazali, that discusses that book in a more rational (not a classic orientalist hateful way), and it is not just Frank, that theory isn't accepted anymore.

The second link I find to be a little bit ironic, is that one of the top Christian American scholars borrow a good argument to respond to atheists "IN THAT BOOK" that his civilization (in the colonial days) used against Muslims. (Of course, all respect to him to be honest about the source)

Muslim Philosophers were using Greek philosophy to deny some things in Islam, and Al-Ghazali proved they were wrong. These attacks happened from all sides all the time, most people are not aware of that.

But what do you think Muslims should feel about that accusation?

As I said in another comment, Europe had already won in empirical science, why do they need to spread these kind of lies?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com