Credulous skeptics

[Augustus]

Nope. The OP here has some personal beef with Tyson. Why we do not know for sure, that earlier post was mostly speculation, but based on an irrational attack that indicates there is some reason that he is not saying for his attacks.

Whether he likes Tyson or not, it doesn't change the evidence on which his argument stands. It seems "sceptics" often assume bad faith when presented with evidence they don't want to believe.

eanwhile you only look at sources that you agree with.

Demonstrably false. I have specifically referred to sources that contradict my position in this thread.

I am always willing to have a proper discussion, but it does not appear to me that you are willing to give to your opponent the same consideration that you demand from them.

The people who get precious here usually are completely unaware that they do exactly what they are accusing the other person of (check this yourself if you want).

I was more than happy to engage in a civil, rational discussion, based on evidence but, instead of actually responding with a proper answer, you simply asserted I was "spinning it the same way a creationist does".

Asserting, without evidence, that a good faith post is the equivalent bad faith religious apologetics is hardly an attempt at civil, rational discussion.

And yuse all sorts of improper debating techniques.

Pot/kettle

He won't listen. Oh wait. too late on my part. He did not listen. Only his "scholarly" sources count. He is back to cherry picking verses instead of looking at the results of Ghazali's preaching and teaching.

See what I mean?

No rational argument, just a simple assertion that the clear evidence presented that shows the article to be wrong is somehow "cherry-picked" and misleading.

Blind faith indeed

 

[KWED]

Augustus provides examples of Ghazali praising math and science giving scholarly sources.

We give examples of post Ghazali Islamic innovation using scholarly sources.

You provide some scholar's opinion. What's this Cambridge trained scientist's evidence?

And no scholar whatsoever has been able to provide the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil. Can we agree that this is another figment from Neil's imagination?




It's possible that Ghazali played a part in the lull three or four centuries after his death. So what's your evidence? Can you do more than express an opinion?



I would agree Ghazali's role is difficult to quantify. But I don't agree that it's demonstrably negative. It may even be positive.

Ghazali challenged the authority of Aristotle and the Greek philosophers. This may have paved the way for Vesalius, Copernicus, Galileo and other scientists who discarded the wrong models of Aristotle and the ancient Greeks.

But yes, there are orientalists who blame Ghazali for a decline.

But can we agree that the Ghazali text Neil talks about is a figment of his imagination?

And can we agree there was no abrupt decline in 1100? It's arguable there was no decline until 14 or 1500.

Neil's story is an exaggeration and caricature of the Orientalist narrative. He embellishes and invents history to add to their arguments.

In summary I would like to thank you for stating your unsubstantiated opinions as fact. This supports some of Augustus' talking points.

You seem confused.
You (and others) seem to be arguing that Al Ghazali's works made no contribution to the decline of the Golden Age.
I presented an article by a leading scientist, who is also an Islamic scholar, which claims the opposite.
I present no opinion of my own on the issue other than to point out that there is clearly disagreement regarding the issue - which is self-evident and undeniable.
Really can't see what you are objecting to here, other than simply dismissing any argument or opinion that differs from yours.

 

[KWED]

Demonstrably false. I have specifically referred to sources that contradict my position in this thread.

And simply dismiss them because they contradict yours.

The people who get precious here usually are completely unaware that they do exactly what they are accusing the other person of

Careful with that irony - it burns!

 

[Augustus]

And simply dismiss them because they contradict yours.

Presenting clear and specific evidence from multiple sources to show something is wrong is not "simply dismissing"

I present no opinion of my own on the issue other than to point out that there is clearly disagreement regarding the issue

If there is disagreement, shouldn't a sceptic look at the evidence that supports both and see which seems stronger?

If the disagreement is based on an obvious error, why should both positions be given equal weight?

 

[Hop_David]

Tyson's falsehoods regarding Newton should be getting more attention.

Tyson claims as indisputable fact that Newton could have easily done Laplace's n-body models in an afternoon. But he started basking in the majesty of God and just stopped.

To support this claim he points to the amazing accomplishments Newton did in just two months, practically on a dare. Here is Tyson's imagined timeline:

Then, a friend of his says, “Well, why do these orbits of the planets… Why are they in a shape of an ellipse, sort of flattened circle? Why aren’t… some other shape?” He said, you know, “I can’t… I don’t know. I’ll get back to you.” So he goes… goes home, comes back couple of months later, “Here’s why. They’re actually conic sections, sections of a cone that you cut.” And… And he said, “Well, how did find this out? How did you determine this?” “Well, I had to invent integral and differential calculus to determine this.” Then, he turned 26. Then, he turned 26.

It was quite the bombshell when Newton explained elliptical orbits in Principia. It was Edmund Halley's famous question that prompted Newton to write Principia. So Tyson seems to be describing the encounter between Halley and Newton.

But there are a few inaccuracies.

Let's start with "Then, he turned 26". Edmund Halley asked his famous question in 1684. Newton was in his 40s.

Can we agree that this part of Tyson's timeline is inaccurate?

 

[Augustus]

So you finally admit that he played a role, but you disagree with others (some more qualified and experienced than yourself to comment) over the the extent of that role.

There, that wasn't too hard, was it?

Why should it be assumed his views had a negative impact?

Whether he had zero effect, or a minor positive or minor negative effect is largely unknowable.

As such we are limited to looking at the evidence he had a significant negative effect.

So far, the only argument presented about this is based on a misrepresentation of his views regarding the laws of nature and causality.

 

[KWED]

Presenting clear and specific evidence from multiple sources to show something is wrong is not "simply dismissing"

One man's "clear and specific evidence" is another man's "opinion".

If there is disagreement, shouldn't a sceptic look at the evidence that supports both and see which seems stronger?

And the evidence here points towards Al-Ghazali's work contributing in some way to the decline of the Golden Age. You have even admitted that yourself.
It seems entirely stubborn or dishonest to continue to insist otherwise.

If the disagreement is based on an obvious error, why should both positions be given equal weight?

Indeed. And the obvious error seems to be the claim that his work played no part.

 

[KWED]

Why should it be assumed his views had a negative impact?

You just admitted that his works played a role in that decline. I simply assumed that you saw that decline as a negative.

Whether he had zero effect, or a minor positive or minor negative effect is largely unknowable.

So despite now admitting that it is unknowable if his work contributed to the decline of the Golden Age, are you still insisting that it didn't?

As such we are limited to looking at the evidence he had a significant negative effect.

Ok. So you accept that his work may have contributed to the decline of the Golden Age, but you reserve judgement on whether it was "significant".
Why didn't you just say that at the beginning? It seems pretty reasonable, after all.

So far, the only argument presented about this is based on a misrepresentation of his views regarding the laws of nature and causality.

You may interpret those views as misrepresentations, others clearly do not. And despite your obvious confidence in the absolute accuracy and validity or all your opinions, I'm a little more, oh what's the word... sceptical?

 

[Hop_David]

You seem confused.
You (and others) seem to be arguing that Al Ghazali's works made no contribution to the decline of the Golden Age.

I have made no such argument.

Yes, there are orientalists that argue Ghazali was a cause of Islamic decline. Which may or may not be true. On that issue I'm agnostic.

What I object to are the Tyson fictions used to support these arguments.

So, instead of beating your straw man, can you show me the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil? Can you demonstrate a collapse of Islamic innovation in 1100?

 

[KWED]

I have made no such argument.

Yes, there are orientalists that argue Ghazali was a cause of Islamic decline. Which may or may not be true. On that issue I'm agnostic.

What I object to are the Tyson fictions used to support these arguments.

So, instead of beating your straw man, can you show me the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil? Can you demonstrate a collapse of Islamic innovation in 1100?

Ok, so you accept that despite using a seemingly inaccurate quote, the essential nature of his argument may be true, to a degree. So your spittle-flecked invective is somewhat unjustified.
Glad we managed to sort that out.

I'm always happy to be the voice of reason in such instances, for future reference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ironic that some rail against the irrational certainty of arguments based on cherry picking and a refusal to accept conflicting arguments or evidence, yet are more guilty than most of doing it themselves.

The hubris of over-confidence in one's own abilities, coupled with a low regard for the ability of anyone disagreeing with then, is both funny and sad. Perhaps Messrs Dunning and Kruger might be interested.

It is always easier to refute a strawman. No one has said that Ghazali was the only cause, but they seemed to think that we were. And when a person uses strawman arguments and distortions I do not feel like providing sources that will be ignored. They tend to act as if there were none or a quote mine of Ghazali's work refutes them. The best way to judge what Ghazali was teaching is by seeing what his followers believed.

 

[Augustus]

One man's "clear and specific evidence" is another man's "opinion".

Thus al-Ghazâlî himself raises the question of why miracles do not prevent our knowledge of the empirical world, admitting that if they did, a man who left a book in his home would have to say, 'I do not know what is in the house now, and the extent of what I know is only that I left a book in the house, and perhaps now it is a horse.'

Feel free to explain how this doesn't refute the claim of your author then.

It is literally AG explaining his position in a manner that clearly contradicts the claim of your "expert".

And the evidence here points towards Al-Ghazali's work contributing in some way to the decline of the Golden Age. You have even admitted that yourself.
It seems entirely stubborn or dishonest to continue to insist otherwise.

Again the only evidence presented is a clear misrepresentation, why would it be dishonest to reject that?

Indeed. And the obvious error seems to be the claim that his work played no part.

Feel free to explain how it played a part then.

Occasionalism was common throughout the GA and didn't mean nature is not predictable, as AG explicitly explained in multiple ways.

The second evil comes from the sincere but ignorant Muslims who thinks the best way to defend religion is by rejecting all the exact sciences. Accusing their professors of being astray, he rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and moon, and condemns them in the name of religion.

You just admitted that his works played a role in that decline. I simply assumed that you saw that decline as a negative.

You need to read more carefully, especially as you are so keen to cry fallacy at others

Ok. So you accept that his work may have contributed to the decline of the Golden Age, but you reserve judgement on whether it was "significant".
Why didn't you just say that at the beginning? It seems pretty reasonable, after all.

I accept god may exist, that doesn't mean I've seen any persuasive evidence that he does...

It may have had a positive effect given one thing he argued against the philosophers was that what seems rational based on sensory experience may actually be proved wrong by scientific evidence. When Europeans adopted this belief, it certainly helped lead to scientific progress.

Bu, I've also seen no real evidence it led to significant positive impacts in the Islamic world

TBH, I think the far more pertinent question is why didn't the 'Golden Ages' of multiple societies lead to a scientific revolution akin to Early Modern Europe, rather than why did economic decline, fragmentation of empire, multiple violent conquests and harmful changes in patterns of global trade have negative impacts on the (former) Abbasid Empire.

But that's another story.

You may interpret those views as misrepresentations, others clearly do not. And despite your obvious confidence in the absolute accuracy and validity or all your opinions, I'm a little more, oh what's the word... sceptical?

Feel free to make a case that they are accurate given AG very much seems to be saying something very different

For example, your author claims that AG said it was heretical to believe "nature had its own, internally-consistent laws and ways of operating" (point 17 in The incoherence..)

Point 17 is actually "17. On refuting their doctrine that the disruption of the habitual [course of nature] is impossible."

As both a sceptic and an expert in logical fallacies, perhaps you can identify the misrepresentation yourself

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have made no such argument.

Yes, there are orientalists that argue Ghazali was a cause of Islamic decline. Which may or may not be true. On that issue I'm agnostic.

What I object to are the Tyson fictions used to support these arguments.

So, instead of beating your straw man, can you show me the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil? Can you demonstrate a collapse of Islamic innovation in 1100?

But that has been explained to you.

I see that you are a Catholic. Would Jesus have known everything as a man? Would he have known that parts of the Bible are not literally true? I hope you said yes. For example we know without a doubt that the Noah's Ark story was a myth. To claim that Jesus believed it means that he was just a man and nothing more. Yet Jesus used the phrase "In the days of Noah". Was he lying or ignorant when he used that phrase? When I was a Christian I did not believe so. I thought it was akin to saying "She is as old as the hills". It was a poetic phrase referring to the distant past. But since I believe that Jesus was just a man I have no problem with him making that error.

There is no need to show you that quote, it does not exist but that was what his work essentially said. There are quotes from it that would support this, but they do not say this outright. And that is also supported by the immense loss of growth in the sciences after his time.

 

[Hop_David]

Ok, so you accept that despite using a seemingly inaccurate quote, the essential nature of his argument may be true, to a degree.

It's an open question. This has been my position from the start. Augustus' as well, so far as I can tell.

Has Ghazali helped advance science? I don't know. Has he hindered advancement of science? Again, I don't know.

So your spittle-flecked invective is somewhat unjustified.

So when arguing an open question you think Tyson is justified in inventing false histories to support his position?

Glad we managed to sort that out.

I'm always happy to be the voice of reason in such instances, for future reference.

 

[KWED]

Thus al-Ghazâlî himself raises the question of why miracles do not prevent our knowledge of the empirical world, admitting that if they did, a man who left a book in his home would have to say, 'I do not know what is in the house now, and the extent of what I know is only that I left a book in the house, and perhaps now it is a horse.'

Feel free to explain how this doesn't refute the claim of your author then.

"al-Ghazali extended this reasoning to other familiar situations: "Water does not quench thirst, bread does not satisfy hunger and medicine does not cure illness" – it is always God who mediates what we think is cause and effect.

Feel free to explain how this does not refute your source then.
etc
etc....

Again the only evidence presented is a clear misrepresentation, why would it be dishonest to reject that?

If it you you who is presenting the misrepresentation, obvs.

Anyway, don't know why you are still banging on about this after you have admitted that his work might have contributed to the decline of the Golden Age.
Just let it go...

 

[KWED]

It's an open question. This has been my position from the start. Augustus' as well, so far as I can tell.
Has Ghazali helped advance science? I don't know. Has he hindered advancement of science? Again, I don't know.

Finally! Jeez, that that took some doing. Like pulling teeth!
Could have saved everyone a lot of time if you had just said that at the start.

So when arguing an open question you think Tyson is justified in inventing false histories to support his position?

Glad we managed to sort that out.

I'm always happy to be the voice of reason in such instances, for future reference.

Using artistic licence to illustrate a point is a valid technique. How many historical films take liberties with the details for dramatic effect? Are you one of those who moans all the way through period dramas?
I personally don't see it as a big issue either way. However, if he had been making a documentary on BBC4 about Al-Ghazali, you might have more of a leg to stand on.

 

[Augustus]

"al-Ghazali extended this reasoning to other familiar situations: "Water does not quench thirst, bread does not satisfy hunger and medicine does not cure illness" – it is always God who mediates what we think is cause and effect.

Feel free to explain how this does not refute your source then.
etc
etc....

Quite easy.

Notice he doesn't argue that we should drink sand, and eat wood as they are equally likely to sate our thirst/hunger as water and bread...

He ridicules the idea we shouldn't assume predictability in general otherwise: a man who left a book in his home would have to say, 'I do not know what is in the house now, and the extent of what I know is only that I left a book in the house, and perhaps now it is a horse.'

If it you you who is presenting the misrepresentation, obvs.

Obvs, because you just said so without evidence.

You genuinely can't see the problem here? No wonder you keep getting stuff wrong.

Your chap:

Al-Ghazali's triumph in the Islamic world led to a deepening gulf between religion and science. A couple of examples from 15th-century traditionalist scholars will illustrate this. Ibn Hajar, a master of hadith-commentary, queried the Muslim astronomers who explained that solar eclipses were caused by the moon blocking the sun: "How can this be, when you yourselves claim that the sun is much bigger than the moon? And the Egyptian scholar Suyuti wrote in his Qur'an-commentary, "The religious authorities hold that the earth is flat, in opposition to the astronomers who hold that it is spherical, although this is not a major principle of religion."


What AG said:

Again, the eye sees a star and believes it as large as a piece of gold, but mathematical
calculations prove, on the contrary, that it is larger than the earth. These notions, and all others
which the senses declare true, are subsequently contradicted and convicted of falsity in an
irrefragable manner by the verdict of reason...

The second evil comes from the sincere but ignorant Muslims who thinks the best
way to defend religion is by rejecting all the exact sciences. Accusing their
professors of being astray, he rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and
moon, and condemns them in the name of religion. These accusations are carried
far and wide, they reach the ears of the philosopher who knows that these theories
rest on infallible proofs; far from losing confidence in them, he believes, on the
contrary, that Islam has ignorance and the denial of scientific proofs for its basis,
and his devotion to philosophy increases with his hatred to religion.
It is therefore a great injury to religion to suppose that the defense of Islam
involves the condemnation of the exact sciences. The religious law contains
nothing which approves them or condemns them, and in their turn they make no
attack on religion.

Anyway, don't know why you are still banging on about this after you have admitted that his work might have contributed to the decline of the Golden Age.
Just let it go...

You are really plumbing the depths now.

"I don't know why you keep banging on about this. You have admitted you can't prove god doesn't exist, so you should simply assume he does exist. Just let it go..."

 

[Hop_David]

Finally! Jeez, that that took some doing. Like pulling teeth!

My sentiments exactly. It looks like I'm finally getting you to admit it's an open question.

It's not cut and dried what Ghazali's influence is. Something Augustus and I have been arguing from the beginning.

Using artistic licence to illustrate a point is a valid technique. How many historical films take liberties with the details for dramatic effect? Are you one of those who moans all the way through period dramas?
I personally don't see it as a big issue either way. However, if he had been making a documentary on BBC4 about Al-Ghazali, you might have more of a leg to stand on.

Tyson claims Ghazali abruptly ended the Islamic Golden Agent when he wrote that math is the work of the devil.

If Tyson makes a claim he needs to back it up. In this case your term "artistic license" is a another way to say bovine excrement.

 

[Augustus]

It is always easier to refute a strawman. No one has said that Ghazali was the only cause, but they seemed to think that we were. And when a person uses strawman arguments and distortions I do not feel like providing sources that will be ignored.

Continuing the trend of accusing another person of that which you are clearly doing yourself

On what grounds do you think the writings of al-Ghazali were a main driver to the end of the Islamic Golden age (often called the Abassid Golden Age) as opposed to, for example, the Abassid Empire stopping existing and the much less wealthy and far more fragmented successor states being conquered by the Mongols?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Continuing the trend of accusing another person of that which you are clearly doing yourself

And I can show that that is all that you have so far..

And there was a response to your question a long time ago:

"It is not my area of expertise at all. I was merely pointing out that quite a few, if not most, historians think that al Ghazali had a major negative impact on the Golden Age of Islam. Calling Tyson ignorant for repeating that claim would not make him ignorant. At worst he is listening to scholars that you appear to be ignoring."