Dark Origins Of The Scientific Method

[Novus ordu seclorum]

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Ibn Haytham deserves a documentary film or movie. He is on par with Galileo or Newton. The first person to establish the scientific method which is the backbone of modern science. He transformed the way we view the world.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Ibn Haytham deserves a documentary film or movie. He is on par with Galileo or Newton. The first person to establish the scientific method which is the backbone of modern science. He transformed the way we view the world.

as does Ghazali, who ruined it all.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

as does Ghazali, who ruined it all.

I had thought that as well for a time after watching Neil deGrasse the clown's video.

Ghazali did not ruin it, a comment from the video below sums it.
'@grimmjow83149ears ago
I honestly think it's stupid to think al ghazali was the reason the Muslims declined. Infact al ghazzali had a major impact in Islamic jurisprudence and Sufism but Islamic scholars dismissed him as weak in hadith, the point is Muslims were definitely influenced by ghazali in many aspects but he was no pope nor was he given the reverence of early Muslims known as the salaf. Meaning Islamic scholars (asharites) could and did disagree with al ghazali on many things including theology.... Lastly and the most obvious proof that al ghazali didn't really affect science in Islam is the fact that science flourished many centuries after al ghazali, most of the Islamic works in astronomy were produced after alghazali's death (ibnal shatir, Ali al qushji etc.) Major discoveries in medical sciences occurred centuries after all ghazali (ibnal nafis, ibn tufail for example). In fact apart from political instability and threat from northern spain, philosophy was thriving in North Africa and Spain during ibn rushd's time.'

Ghazali is among the greatest philosophers/theologians of the world in his own right who has been studied in western academia ever since medieval times.

 

[Sinnerman108]

I had thought that as well for a time after watching Neil deGrasse the clown's video.

Ghazali did not ruin it, a comment from the video below sums it.
'@grimmjow83149ears ago
I honestly think it's stupid to think al ghazali was the reason the Muslims declined. Infact al ghazzali had a major impact in Islamic jurisprudence and Sufism but Islamic scholars dismissed him as weak in hadith, the point is Muslims were definitely influenced by ghazali in many aspects but he was no pope nor was he given the reverence of early Muslims known as the salaf. Meaning Islamic scholars (asharites) could and did disagree with al ghazali on many things including theology.... Lastly and the most obvious proof that al ghazali didn't really affect science in Islam is the fact that science flourished many centuries after al ghazali, most of the Islamic works in astronomy were produced after alghazali's death (ibnal shatir, Ali al qushji etc.) Major discoveries in medical sciences occurred centuries after all ghazali (ibnal nafis, ibn tufail for example). In fact apart from political instability and threat from northern spain, philosophy was thriving in North Africa and Spain during ibn rushd's time.'

Ghazali is among the greatest philosophers/theologians of the world in his own right who has been studied in western academia ever since medieval times.

Ok
Let me rephrase,
what we see in the Ghazali episode is the toxic political + religious amalgam
that has plagued us since.

Ghazali was just a example,
anyway it is history; no good in complaining rather than working out to be better.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Ok
Let me rephrase,
what we see in the Ghazali episode is the toxic political + religious amalgam
that has plagued us since.

Ghazali was just a example,
anyway it is history; no good in complaining rather than working out to be better.

I did not find any Muslim scholar's video who attributes the scientific decline to Ghazali. It's not right to mislabel or mischaracterize someone in the past based on conjecture or misinterpretation of what must have happened because of his writings. Declines happen because of multifaceted reasons and cannot be pinned on an individual who had no political authority. If you ask me, what intellectually dumbed down Muslims was Hadith. Muhammad Hijab debunks Neil deGrasse below. I don't like his combative style but he speaks from actually reading Ghazali.

 

[Sinnerman108]

I did not find any Muslim scholar's video who attributes the scientific decline to Ghazali. It's not right to mislabel or mischaracterize someone in the past based on conjecture or misinterpretation of what must have happened because of his writings. Declines happen because of multifaceted reasons and cannot be pinned on an individual who had no political authority. If you ask me, what intellectually dumbed down Muslims was Hadith. Muhammad Hijab debunks Neil deGrasse below. I don't like his combative style but he speaks from actually reading Ghazali.

Oh that is easy,
there was a Muslim,
his name was Ibn Rushd,
just read him ...

and later on check the fate of these "Muslim" scientists that you talk about.
they all suffered miserably, and had miserable end life.

guess why ?

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Oh that is easy,
there was a Muslim,
his name was Ibn Rushd,
just read him ...

and later on check the fate of these "Muslim" scientists that you talk about.
they all suffered miserably, and had miserable end life.

guess why ?

You have not shown or proven any link between him and scientific decline. Ghazali philosophized under the monotheist paradigm and opposed those who didn't which is understandable. For example, Ibn Sina thought the universe is eternal which is logically the wrong conclusion if you believe in God.

The main difference between Ghazali and Ibn Rushd is probably the latter may have argued that one can objectively conclude that the universe is not eternal and that God exists, whereas Ghazali inclined heavily toward Prophets and Revelations as evidence. However, Ghazali was not opposed to scientific and rational thought.

The Incoherence of the Philosophers - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

'Al-Ghazali did not refute all philosophical science as many scholars believe. Al-Ghazali stated that he did not find other branches of philosophy including physics, logic, astronomy or mathematics problematic. His only dispute was with metaphysics in which he claimed that the philosophers did not use the same tools, namely logic, which they used for other sciences.[2]'

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

al-Ghazali (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

'al-Ghazâlî’s acceptance of demonstration (apodeixis) led to a much more refined and precise discourse on epistemology and a flowering of Aristotelian logics and metaphysics. With al-Ghazâlî begins the successful introduction of Aristotelianism or rather Avicennism [Ibn Sina] into Muslim theology... Al-Ghazâlî’s approach to resolving apparent contradictions between reason and revelation was accepted by almost all later Muslim theologians ["toxic" environment??] and had, via the works of Averroes (Ibn Rushd, 1126–98) and Jewish authors, a significant influence on Latin medieval thinking.'

 

[MattieBaldwin]

Ibn Haytham deserves a documentary film or movie. He is on par with Galileo or Newton. The first person to establish the scientific method which is the backbone of modern science. He transformed the way we view the mod app.

Ibn al-Haytham, also known as Alhazen, was a pioneering scientist and polymath who lived during the Islamic Golden Age. He made significant contributions to the fields of mathematics, physics, astronomy, and optics, and his work has had a profound impact on modern science.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

as does Ghazali, who ruined it all.

Complete debunking in video below of the myth that Ghazali caused a scientific decline, based on his own writing. Essentially, he was saying science and religion are subjects in their own right [under God]. Don't know where laymen got that he hated science and Greek philosophy given Stanford University Philosophy department validates the opposite - 'al-Ghazâlî’s acceptance of demonstration (apodeixis) led to a much more refined and precise discourse on epistemology and a flowering of Aristotelian logics and metaphysics.'

 

[Sinnerman108]

Complete debunking in video below of the myth that Ghazali caused a scientific decline, based on his own writing. Essentially, he was saying science and religion are subjects in their own right [under God]. Don't know where laymen got that he hated science and Greek philosophy given Stanford University Philosophy department validates the opposite - 'al-Ghazâlî’s acceptance of demonstration (apodeixis) led to a much more refined and precise discourse on epistemology and a flowering of Aristotelian logics and metaphysics.'

Ghazali's scholarship had two phases,
in the earlier phase, he was a polymath
in the later stage he along with the incumbent political leadership
destroyed philosophy.

Anyway, that is history .. Ghazali or whoever did it, fact of the matter is that it got destroyed.

History can only be referred to, it can never be absolute truth.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

Ghazali's scholarship had two phases,
in the earlier phase, he was a polymath
in the later stage he along with the incumbent political leadership
destroyed philosophy.

Anyway, that is history .. Ghazali or whoever did it, fact of the matter is that it got destroyed.

History can only be referred to, it can never be absolute truth.

Should I take your word or the professor in the video with PhD in Chemical Engineering, doing second PhD in Theology. I guess for some people, myths without basis are more important than facts.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

I had thought that as well for a time after watching Neil deGrasse the clown's video.

I had figured out a while ago Neil deGrasse Tyson is a clown! Now, totally proving himself as a clown, and this guy thinks people who believe in God are deluded.