1. Ibn Al Haitham created the scientific method. Prior to the Islamic Enlightenment there was no science; it had not been invented.
2. The scientific method is an instrument of logic that is used to test a hypothesis. It is not (as its disciples believe) a explanation of the world.
3. One does not need to attack or undermine science to affirm Tawheed (an Islamic understanding of God). i.e. Harun Yayhaism is an unnecessary bidah. Not only is it intellectually bankrupt, it is fundamentally dishonest and an affront to our own contribution to civilization.
4. Most disciples of scientism, believe it to be an all encompassing explanation for everything without understanding the limitations of the scientific method.
Prior to the great Islamic universities of the 8th and 9th centuries, science did not exist. Aristotle, for all his brilliance, only managed to derive knowledge based upon empiricism (constructing theories about reality based on one’s experience). This clearly has some limitations. It is true that he also developed the beginnings of deductive reasoning (syllogism), but this is little more than empiricism and intuition. Inductive reasoning is not science, it is observation and inference based on intuition.
Without science, Greeks made surprising errors in observation and reasoning. Example, Plato, Ptolemy and Euclid all believed in the emission theory of light (that light is emitted from one’s eyes). It took Ibn Al Haitham to create hypothesis testing and demonstrate that
1. light travels in straight lines
2. light is received by the eye.
3. that white light can be separated into constituent colors
4. Created the Camera Obscura.
5. Postulated correctly that light is a stream of constituent particles of energy.
6. discovered “Newton’s” first law of motion
Ibn Al Haitham also created the scientific method, which remains fundamentally unchanged today:
1.Observation
2.Statement of problem
3.Formulation of hypothesis
4.Testing of hypothesis using experimentation
5.Analysis of experimental results
6.Interpretation of data and formulation of conclusion
7.Publication of findings to which the Islamic world added
8.Peer review
But it is point 4 which was most profound. Testing a hypothesis through experimentation is the essence of science. For a phenomena to be scientifically validated, it must be testable. If not, then science is an inadequate instrument to describe it.
It has taken a further ten centuries for the scientific method to be further refined by Karl Popper. Popper popularized the concept that for a hypothesis to be scientifically valid then it must be falsifiable (capable of disproof). In other words, the principle of modus tolens or proof by contradiction.
Popper correctly shows that we cannot prove a hypothesis to be true, we can show a hypothesis to be false, or we can at least test its falsifiability. He also limits the scope of science to those hypotheses that are so testable. Science cannot be observation, or observation based empiricism, two principles that the followers of scientism often mistake as science.
When I read Richard Dawkins’ critique of religion, it is dressed up in the robes of science, but it fails the test of science itself. That is, for Dawkins to state that Allah does not exist, he must create a suitable hypothesis and then test it. It is not up to Muslims to demonstrate that Allah exists, it is upto the devotees of science to use the instruments of science to show that God simply cannot exists, something science is clearly incapable of.
Example; a modus tolens hypothesis
If God exists then “x” must occur
“x” never occurs
Therefore God cannot exist.
Dawkins is therefore not attacking Tawhid through science, but rather using his scientific qualification as a validation of an entirely irrational atheist polemic against God, devoid of an scientific merit. That is actually a generous reading of his work, which often sinks further, to attack God through the behavior of people who have religious affiliation (a reworking of the child’s contention “if God exists why do bad things happen).
37 comments ↓
“Most disciples of science, believe it to be an all encompassing explanation for everything without understanding it’s limitations.”
I would challenge that - bit sweeping, maybe? Have you asked them all? My physics teacher never believed this and said as much. Some scientists have red Kuhn and even Feyerabend, surely!
This post is interesting when considered beside Zia Sardar’s (and others) assertion that ‘ilm had multiple meanings prior to the 14th century, when science would have been seen as one branch of ‘ilm, conceptually inseperable from its Quranic use. Then the ulema got their hands on it and reduced it to a singular meaning - oddly enough, one very much in keeping with their curriculum!
Thus, if modern science is mistakenly seen by its supporters as the supreme and ultimate form of knowledge, surely it is only borrowing its arrogance from the hallowed halls of Muslim madrassas? (And Christian theology, come to that)
By the way, an excellent book challenging the West’s perception of its own history, particular in terms of its many (actually not quite so many) scientific discoveries, is John M. Hobson’s ‘The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization’. World history rocks!
actually I should have written “all disciples” of scientism.
A disciple is not a scientist but rather someone who is a follower of the larger cult of “scientism” without actually realising what science is beyond some wooly conception that science is ‘rational”.
Hobson’s book has a disappointing small section of Islamic science.
Had you put foreard an argument that sid the Arab worldm or the middle eastern world you might have had the possibility of proving your point. The moment you say “The Islamic world created the scientific method.” you put forward a proposition that is at best laughable and childish. Please, if you wish to represent the tradition of Aristu Jah, use logic that makes sense to those outside the barrier.
go ahead appu, prove him wrong
Appu, the floor is yours, as you say my contention is childish and laughable, so it should be straightforward for you to correct me.
So who are these “disciples of scientism”? If you just mean the dumb proles who get everything else wrong, fair enough. But if you think that some people who are actually scientific practitioners you’re silly. Can you quote a scientist who thinks that the scientific method is “an explanation of the world”? The proposition dioesn’t even make linguistic sense. Are you trying to say that scientists think that the scientific method is a way of discovering explanations of the world? That would make more sense. This whole piece is a strawman.
By the way, if it’s up to Dawkins to prove that Allah doesn’t exist, it’s up to you to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Blessed be His Noodly Appendages) doesn’t exist.
Everyone gets one Antish in their life, and I’ve got mine; the guy who springs the trap, who asks the obvious question, who lays himself on the line for the benefit of the spectacle itself, the one who picks up the ball and carries it to the breakdown knowing he will be flattened, the crash test dummy.
Antish, I salute you
the shamans of scientism
Very nice post Baybers.
Went to Wikipedia for more info, and got floored. What a busy man Ibn Al Haitham was. Once again it shows that Islam was the tip of the edge of the spear in science in the Medieval ages. Christendom was an intellectual backwater in the 9th and 10th century.
It all went wrong for Islam in the 16th century though. Western Europe “found” the Americas and sprinted ahead of Islam. The Columbian Exchange helped Europe bury the Ummah especially in science.
The tools of scientific revolution were built by many hands. Islamic contributions were large and important. Unfortunately they have been given short-shrift in most histories. The west may have (literally) launched the rocket, but it was Islam that built the base and the scaffolding for the rocket.
History unfortunately is limited to its sources. Ibn Al Haitham had the bad fortune to have most of his copious works vanish. Blame the Mongol hoards or the fickle dame fortune. So we learn of Newton’s first law not Al Haitham’s law. Newton also managed to out gun Al Haitham one law to three. Newton also had the advantage of a wider publishing distribution. Almost all of Newton has survived the ravages of time, even the more loony ideas he held.
The only nit to pick is your conflating modern day Atheism with modern day science. Atheism does mau-mau it “logic” and “reason.” It claims to be “scientific.” It has a disturbing fetish with “science” as a way to bludgeon people of faith. Most serious scientist try to stay away from questions of faith. Science really does not have the tools to prove the existence or non-existence of God. So please leave the guys and gals in the lab-coats out of theological disputes, they have nothing pertinent to say.
Baybers, answer the questions rather than reasort to typical “Angry Leb” tactics. Who are these “disciples of scientism” you have set up? Do you really think that a scientist has said that the scientific method is “an explanation of the world”?
antish, its all there in the link “the shamans of scientism”in my previous post. if you cant read it, then me reproducing it here will be equally impenetrable to you’
But yes they have
” Carl Sagan, E. O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and Jared Diamond’
I am not angry, you have been a welcome addition to the site. Consider yourself Austrolabe’s official mascot (you can put that on your CV if you like).
And your assertion is to prove that God exists, why do I need to do that? Surely even a socialist totalitarian like you would allow us inferior people our beliefs?
If you don’t want us to have them the onus is on you to prove them false.
So Dawkins does need to prove that God does not exist if he is to be consistent with his professed views that science alone can explain the world and therefore explain his atheism. That is the test of science itself, statements can only be scientific if supported by experimental evidence and capable of being disprovable.
I am only holding him to the tenets of his publicly professed beliefs and challenging those of you with similar views to put us out of our “fantasies” and prove that God doesn’t exist using the instruments of science to do so.
Antish, far from being angry,
I am devastated by the All Black loss overnight.
Your best tactic in this debate is to taunt me about that using the Chewbacca gambit.
Look, you may have a point in your post but you have expressed in a manner which is NOT ENGLISH. No-one says that the scientific method is an explanation for the world. They MIGHT say that the scientific method provides a means of finding explanations for the world (although I haven’t heard anyone put it so inaccurately - that’s just barely coherent English). You are complaining (I gather, going to far more effort than I otherwise would, because I guess your poor English skills are a reult of our govt’s lack of support for immigrant language programmes) that people who ‘believe in’ science are prone to dismissing any other way of looking at the world. This is pretty trite (see an awful lot of Eng Lit from late 19th-C onwards) and it’s also not something that you need to actually demonstrate, not just state. No scientists that I know think that way, and I’ve never met one of your ‘disciples of scientism’ strawmen. SJ Gould certainly never said it in any of the books of his I’ve read.
oops - not “not something you need to demonstrate”, “something”
Antish,
It does help to be able to write correctly when you are attacking your opponents command of English doesn’t it?
At every opportunity to excel, you fail don’t you?
Clearly you are the only person alive who has read Dawkins’ book “The God delusion” and believes the author doesn’t accept that science alone explains the world. That is his entire point you idiot.
Its a stupid argument, but in a free society you are free to make a fool of yourself.
That is Dawkins’ premise, God is a delusion not required because science allows us the instruments to explain the entire world.
I have a suspicion that you don’t read at all, beyond surfing the internet, or worse still that you are educated beyond your intellectual gifts.
Now come at me with something better than that.
Can I also introduce you to the concept of paragraphs, which you may find improve the readability of the screed that you post (purely as a mercy to those of us who are forced to read it).
This is my favourite:
Antish said:
“reult” works better with an “s”. They taught me that in my immigrant language programme.
I don’t think anyone can deny the influence that the so-called “islamic world” has had on the modern world. Sadly, their influence petered out a thousand years ago when they turned their collective backs on science and embraced a cruel, stoneage death-cult.
The talibums in Afghanistan who blew up the giant buddha are the most recent examples of modern islamic “thinking”…
To Flanstein,
When Muslims were most religious, our scientific achievements were at their peak, slowly over the last 400 years as the Muslim world has become less religious its scientific and cultural achievements have declined.
That is not to say that there is a causal relationship, but there is a clear prima face association.
If you believe that the Taliban are an example of contemporary Islamic thinking, then so also is this piece of analysis.
Can I just say, without the merest attempt to grovel, how much I love this site, and the debates that follow. Well, the wit anyway. Debates might be going a bit far in some instances. And by the way, I think you’re right that Hobson doesn’t have much on Islamic/Arab science, but then the book is really about The West and its own historical mythologizing. Isn’t it?
This is the Dawkins view
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....32164.html
Thank you James and Yakoub,
James, you are correct, Much of the inward looking occurred after the fall of Baghdad and much was lost.
Yakoub,
Hobson’s book is a good introduction, his father also had similar views.
You are right to caution about the limits of debate, especially in the last 10 days of Ramadam, your advice is welcome.
Actually, it should have read: ** ‘Debates’ might be going a bit far in some instances**, implying that sometimes the debates are more an exchange of wit than reasoned argument. Which is fun, and I think the tone has remained well within the limits of the Ramadanian ethic. Allah knows better.
Um Asiyah ,
“When Muslims were most religious”
Who were more religious than the talibums? Isn’t that what they were trying to maintain - a society based on the literal word of your holy book? A society that beat and executed women, banned music and kite flying, restricted education to boys and blew up religious icons they didn’t understand.
In short, one of the most oppressive and “religious” societies ever built.
Maybe you can point me to the scientific breakthroughs they managed?
Bit late to the thread, but a very nice book that makes a distinction between science and scientism (as well as traditional, modern and postmodern) is Huston Smith’s “Why Religion Matters”. I highly recommend it!
It seems another Antish is developing with this ‘Flanstein’ character.
Flanstein, if the early Muslims (who were obviously the most religious because they lived closest to the time of the Prophet) embraced science (as you admit) but the Taliban who appeared 1,400 years later didn’t, then a more logical argument is that the Taliban couldn’t have been as religious.
Also, to test your theory that the religiousness of the Taliban made them stupid, why don’t you point to all the many scientific breakthroughs made by tribal Pashtuns in Afghanistan pre-Taliban? You need to show that the apparent religiousness of the group was the cause of their lack of scientific output.
It seems another Antish is developing with this ‘Flanstein’ character.
Eudaemonion: Flanstein is your stereotypical Islamophobic troll who has been visiting various Muslim blogs off and on over the past few years. The few times he’s tried leaving comments on my blog, I’ve just deleted them without further comment. Like any other troll he’s not worth the bother of trying to “reason” with.
Ignore him.
thanks
James: “It all went wrong for Islam in the 16th century though. Western Europe “found” the Americas and sprinted ahead of Islam. The Columbian Exchange helped Europe bury the Ummah especially in science.”
I have also considered Columbus’s invasion, not discovery (as if the indigenous weren’t human beings), of the Americas as the turning point for Christendom and the first clear manifestation of Globalisation. Later, England and France would prevail. In today’s world, it is the US.
There is a problem in the claim.
You claim that Aristotole’s science was empirical. I am afraid it is the exact opposite.
Problem with Aristotle’s philosophy was that it was NOT empirical. His idea being humans can ‘think up’ the universe. Example- he contended that human beings have most number of teeth without even bothering to verify it. And the claim is false.
It was Al-Haitham in whose works we first see the idea that every claim or thesis must be verified by experiment to be acceptable. It is this idea on which Science, with a capital S, stand on.
I request you to rewrite the claim, as it may confuse readers- your blog being so popular.
Manas, compared to Plato and the Sophists, I think it’s fair to say Aristotle was an empiricist. Unlike Plato who just sort of dreamed up lots of weird and wonderful theories, such as his Theory of Forms, Aristotle’s philosophy seems (to me) more grounded in experience (read his refutation of Plato’s notion of ‘forms’ for example). And Allah knows best.
thank you Manas,
whilst I do not intend to present myself as some expert on Aristotle or on philosophy, I must respectfully disagree.
Aristotle was the first empiricist, whilst it may not be the modern empiricism of Locke, that is only because of the era in which Aristotle lived.
There are several good short summaries available free online, but the best is John North, which is paid content
John North on Aristotelean empiricism
http://www.springerlink.com/co.....f93bf24e2/
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/SCIREV.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/Arstotle.htm
As for your description of ibn Al haitham, that is entirely the point that I have made, and the reason for the post.
Bayber
The issue is a bit entangled. I shall try my best to present my view.
Aristotle’s theories may have been based on experience. I would also not argue with the claim that his ideas were more based on experience than that of Plato.
The point I am trying to make is this-
Experience may have played some role in the philosophy of Aristotle, but he did not accept the doctrine of empiricism. He never said that all claims about the physical universe must be verified. That statement- that all claims or theories about the physical universe MUST be verified by experiment- is the central theme of empiricism.
So, in short, while some of his works may have been empirical, he was not an empiricist. Or in other words, by today’s standards, he was not empirical enough.
An example of this I gave already- aristotle made the claim that human beings have the most number of teeth. All he had to do to verify that, was to open his wife’s mouth and a horse’s. He never bothered.
It was al-Haitham, first, who made a coherent case about empiricism, and applied it. Every conclusion he drew from his experiments, raised further questions, which he sought to answer through more experiment. He was not the deductive doctrinaire (if I may use that phrase).
Bayber
The issue is a bit entangled. I shall try my best to present my case.
Aristotle’s theories may have been based on experience. I would also not argue with the claim that his ideas were more influenced by experience than in the case of Plato.
The point I am trying to make is this-
Even though experience have played some role in the philosophy of Aristotle, but he did not propose the doctrine of `empiricism’. He never said that all claims about the physical universe must be verified. That statement- that all claims or theories about the physical universe MUST be verified by experiment- is the central theme of empiricism.
So, in short, while some of his works may have been empirical, he was not an empiricist.
An example of this I gave already- Aristotle made the claim that human beings have the most number of teeth. All he had to do to verify that, was to open his wife’s mouth and a horse’s. He never bothered.
It was al-Haitham, first, who made a coherent case about empiricism, and applied it. Every conclusion he drew from his experiments, raised further questions, which he sought to answer through more experiment. He was not the deductive doctrinaire (if I may use that phrase).
(please delete my comment immediately above this one)
“It is not up to Muslims to demonstrate that Allah exists, it is up to the devotees of science to use the instruments of science to show that God simply cannot exists, something science is clearly incapable of.”
You are clearly asking for the proof of a negative result, something you should know cannot be done.
exactly
I’m not sure why this is so hard.
Scientist like Dawkins and others say quite simply that God does not exist and that Muslims are deluded.
So it is really up to him to prove that God does not exist.
Modus tolens is the best way to test a hypothesis, so if Dawkins is so certain, he should be able to devise a test to prove his point.
I haven’t sent the challenge for Dawkins, so much as his own big mouth has. He says God does not exist, so let him prove it using the instruments of his rationality, science.
If he cannot, which clearly he can’t, then he should admit the greater truth, that Science lacks the instruments to test if God can exist, and is therefore an inadequate tool in this discussion.
He should then return to his day job: boosting his pitifully derivative hypothesis of the extended phenotype (which can better be described as “statement of the bleeding obvious”)
“The doctor”, congratulations on your degree; we are all very impressed.
Leave a Comment