By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 00:43 - Jul 6 by Kerouac
Every society has proto capitalism. It is the nature of human economic behaviour. The Arabs traded and had the necessary financial law. They can count plenty of achievements.
Modern Capitalism however refers to the efficient funnelling of wealth into the development of new technology and more efficient production. It is why the Industrial Revolution happened here and not the Ottoman empire.
Also, ruminate on this. You accept that Western Capitalism has raised living standards, life expectancy and general health for human beings...yet you constantly argue in favour of Socialists and Socialism. You are also quick to promote Islamic 'Capitalism'... I ask you and anybody reading to think about the contrasting outcomes when you examine; - The Soviet Union (a union of Socialist states) - The Islamic World - The West
Why do you think the West has performed best economically? Do try to explain.
[Post edited 6 Jul 2020 0:49]
Fair play, Kerouac. That's one hell of a reversal from claiming I'm talking utter sh*te and no historian has ever said Islamic empires facilitated the growth of capitalism. It's somewhat refreshing that it only took a paragraph from a Wikipedia article to make you change your tune, if you ignore how misinformed your original point was.
I'm not sure where you've got the impression that I constantly argue in favour of socialists and socialism. I mainly discuss issues of racism. I'm also quite happy to challenge Western exceptionalism, which is what I'm doing here. Neither of these things are an endorsement of the USSR or state socialism.
The economic divergence between the West and the Islamic world has been a gradual process over 700 years or so. The Islamic world abandoned the principles that guided its innovations in economics and wider science (9th - 14th century). It became increasingly insular, factional and not open to the advancement of its ideas by Western countries.
Western countries were far more advanced in naval engineering, necessitated by warfare and geography. The ancient Silk Road trade routes became less important. The West explored maritime trade routes in search of new commodities, exploiting vast numbers of people for capital gain, funding more and more innovation in the process.
The last 150 years, where the divergence has crystallised, is a much more complicated issue and one that I'd be happy to address if I had more time and if I thought it would be worthwhile.
You seem to like superficial comparisons across different eras of history to prove a point so I'll do the same. The economic philosophy of Muhammad shares far more similarities with Adam Smith than it does with Karl Marx.
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 18:01 - Jul 6 by Kerouac
Córdoba! Córdoba!!
You mean the Spanish, had the temerity to build churches on the site of mosques after their Muslim invaders had been sent packing, yeah, what a f*cking liberty.
Quite literally don’t understand your point or how it’s in any way relevant to what I posted.
1
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 18:21 - Jul 6 with 1407 views
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 18:18 - Jul 6 by Drizzy
Fair play, Kerouac. That's one hell of a reversal from claiming I'm talking utter sh*te and no historian has ever said Islamic empires facilitated the growth of capitalism. It's somewhat refreshing that it only took a paragraph from a Wikipedia article to make you change your tune, if you ignore how misinformed your original point was.
I'm not sure where you've got the impression that I constantly argue in favour of socialists and socialism. I mainly discuss issues of racism. I'm also quite happy to challenge Western exceptionalism, which is what I'm doing here. Neither of these things are an endorsement of the USSR or state socialism.
The economic divergence between the West and the Islamic world has been a gradual process over 700 years or so. The Islamic world abandoned the principles that guided its innovations in economics and wider science (9th - 14th century). It became increasingly insular, factional and not open to the advancement of its ideas by Western countries.
Western countries were far more advanced in naval engineering, necessitated by warfare and geography. The ancient Silk Road trade routes became less important. The West explored maritime trade routes in search of new commodities, exploiting vast numbers of people for capital gain, funding more and more innovation in the process.
The last 150 years, where the divergence has crystallised, is a much more complicated issue and one that I'd be happy to address if I had more time and if I thought it would be worthwhile.
You seem to like superficial comparisons across different eras of history to prove a point so I'll do the same. The economic philosophy of Muhammad shares far more similarities with Adam Smith than it does with Karl Marx.
The science is a good point. There were significant advances in Arabic science and maths that we only reached in the 17th century. It sort of came to a halt as everything was explained in relation To the Quran and sort of lost itself in not wanting to cause contradictions. Much as science and Christianity prior to the reformation
0
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 20:55 - Jul 6 with 1340 views
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 17:31 - Jul 6 by londonlisa2001
It isn’t just a ‘burial ground’ to them ffs.
So yes, it is you that needs educating.
And yes, I’m aware mosques were built on the site of churches. We’ve already agreed that.
Same as cathedrals were built in Córdoba.
It’s not Mount Rushmore in and of itself which is the issue, it’s the fact that the Black Hills were “ set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" of the Lakota” in a Treaty with the US and they then broke it. Them building the Mount Rushmore monument was just a part of the controversy.
Anyway - I’m glad you agree that the BBC was absolutely right to describe it as ‘controversial’. If it hadn’t been, Trump probably wouldn’t have bothered to give his speech there. It’s not like he’s usually a great fan of the outdoors unless it happens to be a golf course.
Be gentle with him/her - has never got over Miah's restaurant moving into the derelict church next to the Brangwyn .
It's quite a fun game trying to work out what ridiculous stuff K has come out with based only on the replies. Seemingly lots of ridiculous stuff today.
0
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 22:28 - Jul 6 with 1293 views
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 18:18 - Jul 6 by Drizzy
Fair play, Kerouac. That's one hell of a reversal from claiming I'm talking utter sh*te and no historian has ever said Islamic empires facilitated the growth of capitalism. It's somewhat refreshing that it only took a paragraph from a Wikipedia article to make you change your tune, if you ignore how misinformed your original point was.
I'm not sure where you've got the impression that I constantly argue in favour of socialists and socialism. I mainly discuss issues of racism. I'm also quite happy to challenge Western exceptionalism, which is what I'm doing here. Neither of these things are an endorsement of the USSR or state socialism.
The economic divergence between the West and the Islamic world has been a gradual process over 700 years or so. The Islamic world abandoned the principles that guided its innovations in economics and wider science (9th - 14th century). It became increasingly insular, factional and not open to the advancement of its ideas by Western countries.
Western countries were far more advanced in naval engineering, necessitated by warfare and geography. The ancient Silk Road trade routes became less important. The West explored maritime trade routes in search of new commodities, exploiting vast numbers of people for capital gain, funding more and more innovation in the process.
The last 150 years, where the divergence has crystallised, is a much more complicated issue and one that I'd be happy to address if I had more time and if I thought it would be worthwhile.
You seem to like superficial comparisons across different eras of history to prove a point so I'll do the same. The economic philosophy of Muhammad shares far more similarities with Adam Smith than it does with Karl Marx.
Nice try. There was no reversal. It is a fact that proto-Capitalism can be found in all human societies everywhere, whether that be African tribes or even in 1970s communist China. proto-capitalism is what humans do if they are economically active.
There was nothing particularly special about what was happening in Arabic society...certainly not the beginnings of Capitalism or a better version of Capitalism like you were claiming. Even the advances in Arabic Science and Mathematics were largely due to conquering new lands and coming into possession of libraries and inheriting advisers/scholars by the sword. A lot of it was built on Greek knowledge. That is not to say they didn't embrace it, value it and progress in certain areas. There are many Arabic achievements from that period but these days there is a tendency for modern scholars to exaggerate what was actually achieved....and yes I know about Mesopotamia and Babylonia being the cradle of civilisation and that parts of the Middle East were in advance of Europe for long periods of History.
...but the claims you made are quite frankly ridiculous. Britain developed Capitalism, it drove our Industrial Revolution which was then copied in Western Europe and America, this country is also largely responsible for the creation and expansion of global markets...and the Islamic world, well, didn't. While this country became the wealthiest in the world the Ottoman empire declined, and fell apart. https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism
The Islamic world, unfortunately, has been stunted by the intellectual confines of it's religion. Muhammed's economic philosophy... and let's face it, that statement is a stretch...is what you would expect of a trader in a proto-capitalistic society.
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 22:28 - Jul 6 by Kerouac
Nice try. There was no reversal. It is a fact that proto-Capitalism can be found in all human societies everywhere, whether that be African tribes or even in 1970s communist China. proto-capitalism is what humans do if they are economically active.
There was nothing particularly special about what was happening in Arabic society...certainly not the beginnings of Capitalism or a better version of Capitalism like you were claiming. Even the advances in Arabic Science and Mathematics were largely due to conquering new lands and coming into possession of libraries and inheriting advisers/scholars by the sword. A lot of it was built on Greek knowledge. That is not to say they didn't embrace it, value it and progress in certain areas. There are many Arabic achievements from that period but these days there is a tendency for modern scholars to exaggerate what was actually achieved....and yes I know about Mesopotamia and Babylonia being the cradle of civilisation and that parts of the Middle East were in advance of Europe for long periods of History.
...but the claims you made are quite frankly ridiculous. Britain developed Capitalism, it drove our Industrial Revolution which was then copied in Western Europe and America, this country is also largely responsible for the creation and expansion of global markets...and the Islamic world, well, didn't. While this country became the wealthiest in the world the Ottoman empire declined, and fell apart. https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism
The Islamic world, unfortunately, has been stunted by the intellectual confines of it's religion. Muhammed's economic philosophy... and let's face it, that statement is a stretch...is what you would expect of a trader in a proto-capitalistic society.
[Post edited 6 Jul 2020 22:30]
I’m not going to argue about economics- not my area, though clearly there was capitalism before Britain became any sort of power in the late 16th century.
But you are way off with science and maths. For starters we use Arabic numerals which have allowed more complex arithmetic. Islamic astronomy was several centuries ahead of Western observation. Islamic science was the first to truly use evidence based medicine and described the circulatory system several hundred years ahead of Harvey. Arabs practiced what we would now recognise as A form of vaccination based , as was Jenner’s use of cowpox, around observation of protection and exposure.
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 22:28 - Jul 6 by Kerouac
Nice try. There was no reversal. It is a fact that proto-Capitalism can be found in all human societies everywhere, whether that be African tribes or even in 1970s communist China. proto-capitalism is what humans do if they are economically active.
There was nothing particularly special about what was happening in Arabic society...certainly not the beginnings of Capitalism or a better version of Capitalism like you were claiming. Even the advances in Arabic Science and Mathematics were largely due to conquering new lands and coming into possession of libraries and inheriting advisers/scholars by the sword. A lot of it was built on Greek knowledge. That is not to say they didn't embrace it, value it and progress in certain areas. There are many Arabic achievements from that period but these days there is a tendency for modern scholars to exaggerate what was actually achieved....and yes I know about Mesopotamia and Babylonia being the cradle of civilisation and that parts of the Middle East were in advance of Europe for long periods of History.
...but the claims you made are quite frankly ridiculous. Britain developed Capitalism, it drove our Industrial Revolution which was then copied in Western Europe and America, this country is also largely responsible for the creation and expansion of global markets...and the Islamic world, well, didn't. While this country became the wealthiest in the world the Ottoman empire declined, and fell apart. https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism
The Islamic world, unfortunately, has been stunted by the intellectual confines of it's religion. Muhammed's economic philosophy... and let's face it, that statement is a stretch...is what you would expect of a trader in a proto-capitalistic society.
[Post edited 6 Jul 2020 22:30]
It wasn't proto-capitalism, Kerouac. It was a rudimentary form of capitalism using concepts that are still used today like limited partnerships (mudharaba), trusts (waqf) and developed the positional base 10 numeral system which made complex arithmetic accessible.
"Even the advances in Arabic Science and Mathematics were largely due to conquering new lands and coming into possession of libraries and inheriting advisers/scholars by the sword."
Yeah, that's just not true. I don't think the conquests of the 8th century inherited scholars who made scientific advancements 200 years later. To dismiss the development of algebra and geometry as "nothing special" is quite laughable.
There's a great irony to the fact you dismiss the achievements of the Islamic Golden Age based on the idea they built most of it off the Greeks, when the 12th-century Renaissance in Europe was facilitated by the same works of the Greeks and the translation of Golden Age scientific texts from Arabic to Latin.
I don't question whether Britain invented modern capitalism, however, there's an extensive body of literature describing how advanced economic concepts of the early Islamic world shaped the formation of capitalism in the Western World. I've never said Islamic capitalism was better just that it prohibited certain exploitative practices that were vital to the West's economic prosperity.
There's no point continuing this discussion any further because no matter how much evidence there is you'll always gravitate towards the Douglas Murray schools of thought that will seek anything to discredit Islam. You'll happily diminish the scientific revolution of the Golden Age just in case it gives any legitimacy to an ideology that you despise.
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 23:46 - Jul 6 by Drizzy
It wasn't proto-capitalism, Kerouac. It was a rudimentary form of capitalism using concepts that are still used today like limited partnerships (mudharaba), trusts (waqf) and developed the positional base 10 numeral system which made complex arithmetic accessible.
"Even the advances in Arabic Science and Mathematics were largely due to conquering new lands and coming into possession of libraries and inheriting advisers/scholars by the sword."
Yeah, that's just not true. I don't think the conquests of the 8th century inherited scholars who made scientific advancements 200 years later. To dismiss the development of algebra and geometry as "nothing special" is quite laughable.
There's a great irony to the fact you dismiss the achievements of the Islamic Golden Age based on the idea they built most of it off the Greeks, when the 12th-century Renaissance in Europe was facilitated by the same works of the Greeks and the translation of Golden Age scientific texts from Arabic to Latin.
I don't question whether Britain invented modern capitalism, however, there's an extensive body of literature describing how advanced economic concepts of the early Islamic world shaped the formation of capitalism in the Western World. I've never said Islamic capitalism was better just that it prohibited certain exploitative practices that were vital to the West's economic prosperity.
There's no point continuing this discussion any further because no matter how much evidence there is you'll always gravitate towards the Douglas Murray schools of thought that will seek anything to discredit Islam. You'll happily diminish the scientific revolution of the Golden Age just in case it gives any legitimacy to an ideology that you despise.
“ I don't question whether Britain invented modern capitalism”
Not really invented, more extended. Adam Smith was a driver in what is often called industrial capitalism, but to be honest it’s really an extension of the mercantile capitalism which preceded it which was an extension of the traders that preceded that and so on and so on. Much of the base of it, banking, bookkeeping etc, came from the Arab countries as did the notion of free trade. The Italian traders who traded goods with the Arabs then brought ideas back to Europe and the Dutch were also huge innovators (the first publicly owned company was the Dutch East India Company). Globalisation drove it forward (technical advances like the telegraph, telephone, transport advances, the gold standard - all pushed capitalism as we now think of it forward with Britain at the forefront of much of that).
We have moved past industrial capitalism now of course. Ironically the technical advances that drove ndustrial capitalism may bring an end to capitalism altogether. Not that it’s ever really existed in a pure form. Countries even like the US or UK despite the desires of the real anarcho-capitalists operate a mixed economy.
[Post edited 7 Jul 2020 0:30]
0
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 00:35 - Jul 7 with 1196 views
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 23:08 - Jul 6 by Professor
I’m not going to argue about economics- not my area, though clearly there was capitalism before Britain became any sort of power in the late 16th century.
But you are way off with science and maths. For starters we use Arabic numerals which have allowed more complex arithmetic. Islamic astronomy was several centuries ahead of Western observation. Islamic science was the first to truly use evidence based medicine and described the circulatory system several hundred years ahead of Harvey. Arabs practiced what we would now recognise as A form of vaccination based , as was Jenner’s use of cowpox, around observation of protection and exposure.
I did not claim that the Islamic Golden Age did not have it's achievements, I merely pointed out that a lot of these achievements have been exaggerated...they have been largely exaggerated by Western scholars.
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 00:27 - Jul 7 by londonlisa2001
“ I don't question whether Britain invented modern capitalism”
Not really invented, more extended. Adam Smith was a driver in what is often called industrial capitalism, but to be honest it’s really an extension of the mercantile capitalism which preceded it which was an extension of the traders that preceded that and so on and so on. Much of the base of it, banking, bookkeeping etc, came from the Arab countries as did the notion of free trade. The Italian traders who traded goods with the Arabs then brought ideas back to Europe and the Dutch were also huge innovators (the first publicly owned company was the Dutch East India Company). Globalisation drove it forward (technical advances like the telegraph, telephone, transport advances, the gold standard - all pushed capitalism as we now think of it forward with Britain at the forefront of much of that).
We have moved past industrial capitalism now of course. Ironically the technical advances that drove ndustrial capitalism may bring an end to capitalism altogether. Not that it’s ever really existed in a pure form. Countries even like the US or UK despite the desires of the real anarcho-capitalists operate a mixed economy.
Banking was taking place all over the ancient world; China, India, Sumeria (pre-Islam), Assyria (pre-Islam), Greece, the Roman empire.
When Merchant banks took off in Italy it was the Italians, Jews and Greeks who got into banking in a big way and innovated. The Jews in particular were trailblazers on account of usury not being a sin in their religion. The Italian Catholics passed new laws and told lies to themselves to get around the fact that their God forbade them to charge interest. Islam was not involved at all as charging interest is a sin in their religion.
It is literally ridiculous that you put forward banking as an achievement of the Islamic Golden Age (which is what we were discussing)
...and as for your assertion that the Arabs invented free trade(!), what information are you basing that on.
The notion of a free trade system encompassing multiple sovereign states originated in a rudimentary form in 16th century Imperial Spain. American jurist Arthur Nussbaum noted that Spanish theologian Francisco de Vitoria was
"the first to set forth the notions (though not the terms) of freedom of commerce and freedom of the seas".
Vitoria made the case under principles of jus gentium. However, it was two early British economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo who later developed the idea of free trade into its modern and recognizable form. Economists who advocated free trade believed trade was the reason why certain civilizations prospered economically. For example, Smith pointed to increased trading as being the reason for the flourishing of not just Mediterranean cultures such as Egypt, Greece and Rome, but also of Bengal (East India) and China. The great prosperity of the Netherlands after throwing off Spanish Imperial rule and pursuing a policy of free trade made the free trade/mercantilist dispute the most important question in economics for centuries. Free trade policies have battled with mercantilist, protectionist, isolationist, socialist, populist and other policies over the centuries.
The Ottoman Empire had liberal free trade policies by the 18th century, with origins in capitulations of the Ottoman Empire, dating back to the first commercial treaties signed with France in 1536 and taken further with capitulations in 1673, in 1740 which lowered duties to only 3% for imports and exports and in 1790. Ottoman free trade policies were praised by British economists advocating free trade such as J. R. McCulloch in his Dictionary of Commerce (1834), but criticized by British politicians opposing free trade such as Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, who cited the Ottoman Empire as "an instance of the injury done by unrestrained competition" in the 1846 Corn Laws debate, arguing that it destroyed what had been "some of the finest manufactures of the world" in 1812.
Average tariff rates in France, the United Kingdom and the United States Trade in colonial America was regulated by the British mercantile system through the Acts of Trade and Navigation. Until the 1760s, few colonists openly advocated for free trade, in part because regulations were not strictly enforced (New England was famous for smuggling), but also because colonial merchants did not want to compete with foreign goods and shipping. According to historian Oliver Dickerson, a desire for free trade was not one of the causes of the American Revolution.
"The idea that the basic mercantile practices of the eighteenth century were wrong", wrote Dickerson, "was not a part of the thinking of the Revolutionary leaders".
Free trade came to what would become the United States as a result of American Revolutionary War. After the British Parliament issued the Prohibitory Act, blockading colonial ports, the Continental Congress responded by effectively declaring economic independence, opening American ports to foreign trade on 6 April 1776. According to historian John W. Tyler, "free trade had been forced on the Americans, like it or not".
In March 1801, the Pope Pius VII ordered some liberalization of trade to face the economic crisis in the Papal States with the motu proprio Le più colte. Despite this, the export of national corn was forbidden to ensure the food for the Papal States. In Britain, free trade became a central principle practiced by the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. Large-scale agitation was sponsored by the Anti-Corn Law League. Under the Treaty of Nanking, China opened five treaty ports to world trade in 1843. The first free trade agreement, the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty, was put in place in 1860 between Britain and France which led to successive agreements between other countries in Europe. Many classical liberals, especially in 19th and early 20th century Britain (e.g. John Stuart Mill) and in the United States for much of the 20th century (e.g. Henry Ford and Secretary of State Cordell Hull), believed that free trade promoted peace. Woodrow Wilson included free-trade rhetoric in his "Fourteen Points" speech of 1918: The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, all we see it, is this: The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.
According to economic historian Douglas Irwin, a common myth about United States trade policy is that low tariffs harmed American manufacturers in the early 19th century and then that high tariffs made the United States into a great industrial power in the late 19th century. A review by the Economist of Irwin's 2017 book Clashing over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy notes:
]Political dynamics would lead people to see a link between tariffs and the economic cycle that was not there. A boom would generate enough revenue for tariffs to fall, and when the bust came pressure would build to raise them again. By the time that happened, the economy would be recovering, giving the impression that tariff cuts caused the crash and the reverse generated the recovery. Mr Irwin also methodically debunks the idea that protectionism made America a great industrial power, a notion believed by some to offer lessons for developing countries today. As its share of global manufacturing powered from 23% in 1870 to 36% in 1913, the admittedly high tariffs of the time came with a cost, estimated at around 0.5% of GDP in the mid-1870s. In some industries, they might have sped up development by a few years. But American growth during its protectionist period was more to do with its abundant resources and openness to people and ideas.
According to Paul Bairoch, since the end of the 18th century the United States has been "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism". In fact, the United States never adhered to free trade until 1945. For the most part, the Jeffersonians strongly opposed it. In the 19th century, statesmen such as Senator Henry Clay continued Alexander Hamilton's themes within the Whig Party under the name American System. The opposition Democratic Party contested several elections throughout the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s in part over the issue of the tariff and protection of industry.[39] The Democratic Party favoured moderate tariffs used for government revenue only while the Whigs favoured higher protective tariffs to protect favoured industries. The economist Henry Charles Carey became a leading proponent of the American System of economics. This mercantilist American System was opposed by the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. The fledgling Republican Party led by Abraham Lincoln, who called himself a "Henry Clay tariff Whig", strongly opposed free trade and implemented a 44% tariff during the Civil War, in part to pay for railroad subsidies and for the war effort and in part to protect favoured industries. William McKinley (later to become President of the United States) stated the stance of the Republican Party (which won every election for president from 1868 until 1912, except the two non-consecutive terms of Grover Cleveland) as thus: Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral [...]. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, 'Buy where you can buy the cheapest'…. Of course, that applies to labour as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: 'Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labour wins its highest rewards.
During the interwar period, economic protectionism took hold in the United States, most famously in the form of the Smoot—Hawley Tariff Act which is credited by economists with the prolonging and worldwide propagation of the Great Depression.:33 From 1934, trade liberalization began to take place through the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 00:35 - Jul 7 by Kerouac
I did not claim that the Islamic Golden Age did not have it's achievements, I merely pointed out that a lot of these achievements have been exaggerated...they have been largely exaggerated by Western scholars.
A series of videos that expand on the exaggeration of the achievements of the Islamic golden age;
[Post edited 7 Jul 2020 1:24]
Wikipedia and videos are not evidence. Anyone can post these. They often have no basis in fact. Plenty of medical discoveries in the 16th to early 19th century were already known in older Islamic science. Not being in a modern European language or Latin left them in Arabic texts. As I said, Much like Western science until the reformation, they study had limitations as work was always in the context of the Quran.
0
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 07:30 - Jul 7 with 1090 views
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 07:27 - Jul 7 by Professor
Wikipedia and videos are not evidence. Anyone can post these. They often have no basis in fact. Plenty of medical discoveries in the 16th to early 19th century were already known in older Islamic science. Not being in a modern European language or Latin left them in Arabic texts. As I said, Much like Western science until the reformation, they study had limitations as work was always in the context of the Quran.
That YouTube video quotes numerous historians, you'd know that if you had watched it.
If I posted a video of somebody reading out Charles Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' would the content be invalidated because it was a 'YouTube' video?
I am sick of posters attacking the source instead of the content. It is stupid. Imagine the counter, you support your argument by quoting some academic text and I responded; "but she would say that, she's a post-modern feminist" (therefore I don't have to read it and I don't have to engage with the argument and have my ideas challenged.) It is anti-intellectual.
Fair play, boys, there is more economic history and theory discussed in this thread than I ever managed when I did my economics degree back in 1977. I salute you all.
Who says football fans are thick?
1
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 08:47 - Jul 7 with 1067 views
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 08:33 - Jul 7 by Kerouac
That YouTube video quotes numerous historians, you'd know that if you had watched it.
If I posted a video of somebody reading out Charles Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' would the content be invalidated because it was a 'YouTube' video?
I am sick of posters attacking the source instead of the content. It is stupid. Imagine the counter, you support your argument by quoting some academic text and I responded; "but she would say that, she's a post-modern feminist" (therefore I don't have to read it and I don't have to engage with the argument and have my ideas challenged.) It is anti-intellectual.
The reliability of the source is vital. You clearly fail to understand this. Yes, videos may be very good. A Wikipedia entry may be excellent. However, these are not considered to be a source in academia or industry as they have no filter, review and are often very subjective.
Use these sources with me and you get marked down in assessment unless you state these are an opinion. That’s what you and others on here don’t get - They are not reliable.
0
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 09:27 - Jul 7 with 1050 views
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 08:33 - Jul 7 by Kerouac
That YouTube video quotes numerous historians, you'd know that if you had watched it.
If I posted a video of somebody reading out Charles Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' would the content be invalidated because it was a 'YouTube' video?
I am sick of posters attacking the source instead of the content. It is stupid. Imagine the counter, you support your argument by quoting some academic text and I responded; "but she would say that, she's a post-modern feminist" (therefore I don't have to read it and I don't have to engage with the argument and have my ideas challenged.) It is anti-intellectual.
If you think scientific research works through 'academic texts' based around an individual you are even more deluded than I thought. Books mean very little in science beyond undergraduate studies, they are a nice thing to be involved with and great for a bit of hubris. Other than a few huge reference works or the legendary "Maniatis' molecular biology handbook published by Cold Spring Harbor Labs, it uses primary publication-scientific papers that are peer-reviewed. We are judged (and will be across the UK in REF next year) on quality (0-4*) and within our institutions on numbers of these publications and research grant income. We are also assessed now on research impact-how the work we do plays a role in society, the economy, professional practice etc.
Evolutionary biology has moved on a bit since Darwin's time, and although his ideas around natural selection are still the basis of understanding, it would be more regarded as a valuable historical piece these days. You may see it cited in the introduction of a PhD, but not in the main literature now. Just to be clear
[Post edited 7 Jul 2020 9:27]
0
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 09:42 - Jul 7 with 1040 views
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 08:47 - Jul 7 by Professor
The reliability of the source is vital. You clearly fail to understand this. Yes, videos may be very good. A Wikipedia entry may be excellent. However, these are not considered to be a source in academia or industry as they have no filter, review and are often very subjective.
Use these sources with me and you get marked down in assessment unless you state these are an opinion. That’s what you and others on here don’t get - They are not reliable.
Can you point me to the archaeological evidence and the Arabic texts that support your arguments (and the arguments of other posters) that the Islamic 'Golden Age' significantly advanced human progress?
If you can't produce this are we to dismiss your opinions?
You do accept now that the numerals we use today came from India don't you?
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 09:42 - Jul 7 by Kerouac
Can you point me to the archaeological evidence and the Arabic texts that support your arguments (and the arguments of other posters) that the Islamic 'Golden Age' significantly advanced human progress?
If you can't produce this are we to dismiss your opinions?
You do accept now that the numerals we use today came from India don't you?
My son was studying this in Religious Studies so got me a bit curious as knew little beyond vaccines (which is well known in science). Came across a review in a medical journal:
These are both based on the available arabic texts.
I've not watched this but there is also Jim Al-Khalil's BBC documentary series which may be on the iPlayer. He is usually good value (for a physicist-less annoying than Cox at least)
Numerals may have been developed in India, but their widespread use was developed by islamic mathematicians who introduced them into Western culture. We still call them Arabic of course.
0
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 10:26 - Jul 7 with 1013 views
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 10:04 - Jul 7 by Professor
My son was studying this in Religious Studies so got me a bit curious as knew little beyond vaccines (which is well known in science). Came across a review in a medical journal:
These are both based on the available arabic texts.
I've not watched this but there is also Jim Al-Khalil's BBC documentary series which may be on the iPlayer. He is usually good value (for a physicist-less annoying than Cox at least)
Numerals may have been developed in India, but their widespread use was developed by islamic mathematicians who introduced them into Western culture. We still call them Arabic of course.
You are asking me to take a physicist called Jim Al-Khalil's word as gospel on Islamic history. I see.
The videos that I linked to, mention Jim and his claims several times, and take his opinions apart with historical evidence (a lot of the historians quoted in the video are Arabic).
Re: Indian Numerals Yes, the numerals were invented by Indians in India and were appropriated by the Arabs, many in the West are idiotic enough to continue claiming that they are Arabic...are you clinging to the idea that they are an Arabic achievement just because some people say they are despite the evidence to the contrary that you are aware of? Is it possible for you to admit that you were wrong when you called them Arabic numerals?
Re: your links to an article on Islamic medicine (I will do you the courtesy of not dismissing he source) I did not claim that the Arabs had no achievements. At no point in any of my posts did I make that claim. I asked you to point us in the direction of the source evidence that the Islamic Golden Age greatly advanced human civilisation.
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 10:26 - Jul 7 by Kerouac
You are asking me to take a physicist called Jim Al-Khalil's word as gospel on Islamic history. I see.
The videos that I linked to, mention Jim and his claims several times, and take his opinions apart with historical evidence (a lot of the historians quoted in the video are Arabic).
Re: Indian Numerals Yes, the numerals were invented by Indians in India and were appropriated by the Arabs, many in the West are idiotic enough to continue claiming that they are Arabic...are you clinging to the idea that they are an Arabic achievement just because some people say they are despite the evidence to the contrary that you are aware of? Is it possible for you to admit that you were wrong when you called them Arabic numerals?
Re: your links to an article on Islamic medicine (I will do you the courtesy of not dismissing he source) I did not claim that the Arabs had no achievements. At no point in any of my posts did I make that claim. I asked you to point us in the direction of the source evidence that the Islamic Golden Age greatly advanced human civilisation.
I said I had not watched the series- just said it was there.
Islamic society has probably done more to advance civilisation than we had by the. 13 th century. Western Christianity was then the dominant force of the world. Soon it will be China and India. That’s just an opinion. I also have the opinion you are a bigot and narcissist, but I don’t know that either. I could stick a video on you tube or make a wiki entry though. And this is the point you fail to see.
0
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 10:40 - Jul 7 with 996 views
Mount Rushmore (looks like it's going to kick off on 10:34 - Jul 7 by Professor
I said I had not watched the series- just said it was there.
Islamic society has probably done more to advance civilisation than we had by the. 13 th century. Western Christianity was then the dominant force of the world. Soon it will be China and India. That’s just an opinion. I also have the opinion you are a bigot and narcissist, but I don’t know that either. I could stick a video on you tube or make a wiki entry though. And this is the point you fail to see.
OK
So you can't point to any authentic sources that back up your argument. So you restate your opinion and resort to insults.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
