tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post8622865974650737613..comments2024-03-19T09:06:21.507-04:00Comments on Irtiqa: Pigliucci and the Islamic CivilizationSalman Hameedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-33069694608979522922010-06-30T09:03:48.374-04:002010-06-30T09:03:48.374-04:00I recently came accross your blog and have been re...I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.Rubina Munierhttp://www.pel.com.pknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-80395754171333755362010-06-29T08:37:25.359-04:002010-06-29T08:37:25.359-04:00No, Massimo, I was not unfair or biased at all in ...No, Massimo, I was not unfair or biased at all in my review(s) of your book. First, I did not “focus on one particular lacuna”; I devoted a long post (over a thousand words) to reviewing the main themes of your book, which I praised repeatedly as “a very interesting book”, “a very good book”, “a very enjoyable read”, etc. But then I identified an important and striking lacuna, and this blog being to some extent interested in “Islam and Science” issues, I thought it would be relevant – and informative to many of the readers – to point out the errors in your brief treatment of the subject. On the contrary, I was totally fair and even generous in my reviews, taken together.<br /><br />Secondly, in your reply to my post, you have changed your argument regarding the contributions of the medieval Muslim scholars: you have switched from “we see little in the way of either conceptual advances or even genuine discoveries and much in the way of copying and translating other people’s work” to “genuine scholarship in the ancient world… did occur, [but it didn’t have any] actual influence [in the west]…”. That’s a totally different argument, and if you had taken that position in your book, we wouldn’t be having this exchange, and my review would have been drastically different. I would have had some comments to make, but not the kind of stunned reaction I got.<br /><br />Thirdly, the reference to Newton and his standing on the shoulders of a giant was not from me, it was from Jim Al-Khalili; you’ll have to take it up with him, especially since I hinted at my disapproval of his exaggerated characterizations of Ibn al-Haytham. (I think Jim meant that Newton benefited from the great Optics advances made by Ibn al-Haytham, whether he knew of him and his work directly or through intermediaries. In your analogy, this is like Columbus benefiting from people who previously improved ships enough to allow him to make his historic voyage; it doesn’t matter if he knew of them or not.) All I meant to point out was that there was, in the Islamic era, genuine conceptual and technical scientific progress, not just the “copying and translating…”<br /><br />Finally, I surely realized that your book was aimed at a general audience and was not meant to be a “scholarly encyclopedia”, but that certainly cannot excuse the kinds of “simplifications and omissions” that were found in your treatment of the Islamic era, though – I repeat – other parts of your book were excellent. (Fair enough?)Nidhal Guessoumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638764091228065424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-29087134546063589412010-06-28T18:57:41.893-04:002010-06-28T18:57:41.893-04:00"First off, Nonsense on Stilts is not a schol..."First off, Nonsense on Stilts is not a scholarly book, it is aimed at the general public, so simplifications and omissions are a necessary part of it (hence the fairly heavy footnoting throughout)." <br /><br />Even if the book is not a scholarly work, even if it is aimed at the general public, I think if you want to be a credible writer, it is important to get your facts correct. <br /><br />"“[t]he fact of the matter is, however, that once again we see little in the way of either conceptual advances or even genuine discoveries and much in the way or copying and translating other people’s work”" <br /><br />I have not read your book. But the above statement from you makes me too feel that you would be happier if you can rather ignore the works of Islamic Civilisation. <br /><br />The works of Islamic scholars did not just bridge those of medieval and Renaissance scholars, but also helped to establish the foundations of various disciplines of human knowledge we have today. So, i think it is extremely sad if your necessary "simplifications and omissions" have to be such that they make these works appear undeservedly diminutive.Alinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-77897815171885571002010-06-28T11:52:55.250-04:002010-06-28T11:52:55.250-04:00I appreciate your double review of my book, but I ...I appreciate your double review of my book, but I do think you are being a bit biased and somewhat unfair. First off, Nonsense on Stilts is not a scholarly book, it is aimed at the general public, so simplifications and omissions are a necessary part of it (hence the fairly heavy footnoting throughout). It's a bit of a cheap shot to focus on one particular lacuna or another without acknowledging that the book isn't meant to be a comprehensive and scholarly encyclopedia.<br /><br />Also, for instance, I don't just start with Bacon. As you point out yourself, I trace basic ideas of modern science all the way back to ancient Greece...<br /><br />Second, like many historians of science who have sought to emphasize Islamic contributions, you seem to be confusing genuine scholarship in the ancient world (which undoubtedly did occur, not just within Islam, but in other non-western traditions) with the actual influence that such scholarship had on the development of ideas.<br /><br />For instance, to say that Newton's work stood on the shoulders of giants whom Newton did not know and not many people have heard of is disingenuous. How do you build on the work of people you are unaware of?<br /><br />This is a bit like historians (rightly) pointing out that North America was "discovered" by plenty of people before Columbus (including, of course, native Americans, but also Vikings). Yes, but it was Columbus' voyage that dramatically altered history on both sides of the Atlantic, and he didn't build on the previous discoveries made by the Vikings, for the simple reason that he was utterly unaware of them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.com