Why did the muslims fail to keep up in science ?

[Kanastrous]

It's not chosen as in chosen-to-be-showered-with-favors.

It's chosen as in chosen-to-execute-a-specific-mission. Mostly, according to legend, because nobody else wanted to.

Weren't they the smart ones.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

At the risk of repeating what I said in the other thread, the Muslims failed to keep up in science and all other areas because they didn't have the near-limitless funding that some European powers enjoyed by their access to the New World's riches. It just so happened that there were excellent routes from Europe to the Americas and back and from the Americas to Asia and back that nobody else had access to. If Muslim powers had that kind of access, we would be wondering why the Christians failed to keep up in science and coming up with all sorts of ideas about qualities intrinsic to Islam that propelled them forward, when it really had nothing to do with their society, traditions, or with them at all. When your society is awash in wealth, you can afford for more people to be thinkers, tinkerers, and experimenters. When it's not, well... you can't. This is why the people of Papau New Guinea never made it out of the stone age. The poor nutritional content of the local crops meant that virtually everyone had to spend their waking hours producing crops just for everyone to eat.

[Darth Wong]

At the risk of repeating what I said in the other thread, the Muslims failed to keep up in science and all other areas because they didn't have the near-limitless funding that some European powers enjoyed by their access to the New World's riches. It just so happened that there were excellent routes from Europe to the Americas and back and from the Americas to Asia and back that nobody else had access to. If Muslim powers had that kind of access, we would be wondering why the Christians failed to keep up in science and coming up with all sorts of ideas about qualities intrinsic to Islam that propelled them forward, when it really had nothing to do with their society, traditions, or with them at all. When your society is awash in wealth, you can afford for more people to be thinkers, tinkerers, and experimenters. When it's not, well... you can't. This is why the people of Papau New Guinea never made it out of the stone age. The poor nutritional content of the local crops meant that virtually everyone had to spend their waking hours producing crops just for everyone to eat.

Are you saying that the Muslims from 1500 onward were so impoverished that they were living a subsistence lifestyle and could not afford to pay people to do anything other than farming or industry?

[Patrick Degan]

At the risk of repeating what I said in the other thread, the Muslims failed to keep up in science and all other areas because they didn't have the near-limitless funding that some European powers enjoyed by their access to the New World's riches. It just so happened that there were excellent routes from Europe to the Americas and back and from the Americas to Asia and back that nobody else had access to. If Muslim powers had that kind of access, we would be wondering why the Christians failed to keep up in science and coming up with all sorts of ideas about qualities intrinsic to Islam that propelled them forward, when it really had nothing to do with their society, traditions, or with them at all. When your society is awash in wealth, you can afford for more people to be thinkers, tinkerers, and experimenters. When it's not, well... you can't. This is why the people of Papau New Guinea never made it out of the stone age. The poor nutritional content of the local crops meant that virtually everyone had to spend their waking hours producing crops just for everyone to eat.

Are you saying that the Muslims from 1500 onward were so impoverished that they were living a subsistence lifestyle and could not afford to pay people to do anything other than farming or industry?

Would certainly have come as news to the Europeans who had to spend another two centuries paying blackmail to the Barbary States to keep their ships from getting raided every time they went into the Mediterranean.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

At the risk of repeating what I said in the other thread, the Muslims failed to keep up in science and all other areas because they didn't have the near-limitless funding that some European powers enjoyed by their access to the New World's riches. It just so happened that there were excellent routes from Europe to the Americas and back and from the Americas to Asia and back that nobody else had access to. If Muslim powers had that kind of access, we would be wondering why the Christians failed to keep up in science and coming up with all sorts of ideas about qualities intrinsic to Islam that propelled them forward, when it really had nothing to do with their society, traditions, or with them at all. When your society is awash in wealth, you can afford for more people to be thinkers, tinkerers, and experimenters. When it's not, well... you can't. This is why the people of Papau New Guinea never made it out of the stone age. The poor nutritional content of the local crops meant that virtually everyone had to spend their waking hours producing crops just for everyone to eat.

Are you saying that the Muslims from 1500 onward were so impoverished that they were living a subsistence lifestyle and could not afford to pay people to do anything other than farming or industry?

Certainly not, the New Guinea comparison was simply to further illustrate the point about how progress is made possible by wealth. Many Muslim states of the time were fantastically wealthy, with access to massive trade networks, indeed the Ottomans continued to keep up with the European states for centuries after 1500. But they didn't have exclusive access to the world's second largest landmass that had just been depopulated and was chock full of mineral riches and new plants that could grow on previously unsuitable land, generating population explosions and enough wealth to send armies across the world.

[Zor]

The reason why was not so much religion related as that there was no drive to improve things inside the Ottoman empire

The reason why is because there was no imputus for development was because of the sucsess of the Ottoman Empire. It managed to conquer most of the Muslim World and held it under it's grasp before finally being stopped at Austria. The Ottoman higher ups grew complacient, they had their estates and their peasants and slaves and Harems and their empire was seen as secure from conquest due to sheer size. Not having to one up a foe kept their military technology and tactics backwards. The middle classes that emerged in Europe during the enlightenment in shipping, banking and commerce did not emerge in the ottoman empire, who desired to immitate the opulance of the nobility and were willing to take risks to do so and the Nobles saw machines that could improve production as a waste of money. There was no drive to develop things that laid the path to the Industrial Revolution like Seed Drills and Small Wind/Water powered cottage industry producing thread with spinning Jennies and outside ideas were often seen as unsavory. This kept up until it became blaringly ovious that they had been left in the dirt by Europe, and even still they had alot of social issues that slowed things down in terms of the class situation.

Zor

[Omeganian]

At the risk of repeating what I said in the other thread, the Muslims failed to keep up in science and all other areas because they didn't have the near-limitless funding that some European powers enjoyed by their access to the New World's riches.

Unlimited riches are the surest path to decay known to humanity. The people don't have to struggle. Look at what the petroleum does today. Muslim countries. The Soviet Union held for decades only because of the petroleum. And the Texas pseudoscience thread is not yet cold on this forum.

[The Grim Squeaker]

At the risk of repeating what I said in the other thread, the Muslims failed to keep up in science and all other areas because they didn't have the near-limitless funding that some European powers enjoyed by their access to the New World's riches.

Unlimited riches are the surest path to decay known to humanity. The people don't have to struggle. Look at what the petroleum does today. Muslim countries. The Soviet Union held for decades only because of the petroleum. And the Texas pseudoscience thread is not yet cold on this forum.

What evidence do you have that the decline of the USSR was only due to petroleum, as opposed to the more commonly accepted theories of excessive military spending, gentrification, an increasingly slow and problematic beurucracy, corruption and less competitive industries (And Western culture being seen as superior by even many of the citizens).
The case could be mad for modern Russia & Putin, but it's rather shaky for the USSR.

[Rye]

At the risk of repeating what I said in the other thread, the Muslims failed to keep up in science and all other areas because they didn't have the near-limitless funding that some European powers enjoyed by their access to the New World's riches.

Unlimited riches are the surest path to decay known to humanity. The people don't have to struggle. Look at what the petroleum does today. Muslim countries. The Soviet Union held for decades only because of the petroleum. And the Texas pseudoscience thread is not yet cold on this forum.

No, a tiny elite geting control over large resources is the surest path to what we see in the middle east, the USSR and soforth. Unlimited resources spread equally would be a post-scarcity economy.

[Omeganian]

At the risk of repeating what I said in the other thread, the Muslims failed to keep up in science and all other areas because they didn't have the near-limitless funding that some European powers enjoyed by their access to the New World's riches.

Unlimited riches are the surest path to decay known to humanity. The people don't have to struggle. Look at what the petroleum does today. Muslim countries. The Soviet Union held for decades only because of the petroleum. And the Texas pseudoscience thread is not yet cold on this forum.

What evidence do you have that the decline of the USSR was only due to petroleum, as opposed to the more commonly accepted theories of excessive military spending, gentrification, an increasingly slow and problematic beurucracy, corruption and less competitive industries (And Western culture being seen as superior by even many of the citizens).
The case could be mad for modern Russia & Putin, but it's rather shaky for the USSR.

That's my point. If not for petroleum, the path of all the things you mention could have never lasted for seventy years. A faster collapse, or a radical change of the course. Maybe nobody would have dared to take the path. With the petroleum, the path was taken, and the decay was drawn out.

[CJvR]

One important point IMPO is that the Europeeans broke the Islamic trade monopoly with India and China. The trade that earlier had to go through Islamic nations, and get taxed naturally, were instead shipped straight to the markets in Europe. This shift was not enough to bankrupt the Islamic world but I suspect it was very costly in the long run, take a few % out of the economy and end outside influences by reduced trade with the outside world and you are not likely to get a wealthier state. Consider the enormous fortunes built by the East India trade.

[Stuart]

Untill 1500s the muslims were at a relative parity with the Europeans. After this the Europeans rapidly advanced scientifically and after the industrial revolution became undisputed leaders of the world. The islamic world never experienced anything like this. Why is that ? Why did not the muslims of 16th century feel the rapid changes going on in the world and need to keep up to avoid being marginalized later ? Plus even if the islamic world did not produce any contemporaries to Newton, Descartes etc pioneers why did not they at least use their work and adopt the new maths and science that was going to create the foundations of modern world ? It seems the European education system had no parallel in the islamic world. While the muslims had European equivalents of monastic learning they had no serious universities doing research or transferring knowledge to future pioneers. Maybe this is the reason the muslims lagged behind ?

I'd suggest there is a much simpler reason, one that can be summed up ina single word. In'shallah. If you're riding on an aircraft in the Middle East and the flight schedule is announced, the arrival time is always followed by In'shallah "God Willing". Everything happens or does not happen because God wills it. And that's a perfectly good enough explanation.

Why does an apple fall to earth? Because God wills it. Next question.

Why does light break up into pretty colors after passing through a prism?Because God wills it. Next question.

Why does wood burn and stone doesn't? Because God wills it. Next question.

If the answer is always "Because God wills it." why bother asking questions?

That has a tremendously stultifying effect on the development of science and technology. It hammered the Western world as well but it was never quite so deeply entrenched and about the 16th century, people started asking "why?" and expecting a decent answer. That's when the science revolution started. Human progress is directly proportional to people's ability to jeer at religiously-inspired ex-cathedra "explanations".

[Guardsman Bass]

I don't think that's entirely fair. You have strong movements in the Middle East in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century (such as the Jadids and Jadidism) who explicitly tried to promote science and Islam at the same time (specifically, a type of Islam that wasn't dependent on the class of scholars in Central Asia), and even the Iranian Revolution included the promotion of science as part of its mandate, which is why you get weirdness like the Supreme Leader of Iran, otherwise a fundie theocrat in almost every area, being a strong supporter of stem cell research.

Simply saying that "science failed in the Islamic world because of Islam" is grossly over-simplistic, and doesn't take into account factors like strong disincentive structures in the way innovations were rewarded in the period in question (which also dogged the European states for several centuries into the 2nd Millenium CE, but which they overcame), and the lack of an economic environment that would necesitate technological development. Technological advance doesn't just grow naturally, like some type of tree; you need the right conditions.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Let me add my two cents here in support of Sidewinder's theory.

As I understand the situation, the major body of 'scientific thought' to be accessed was the inheritance from the classical Greco-Roman period.

As I understand it, Christ actually preached a form of reformist Judaism that was not overwhelmingly different from a lot of similar rhetoric floating around at the time.
To make this acceptable to the Roman hierarchy and win converts, a fair hatchet job was done on the theology by the early church itself, crossbreeding with classical ideas, resulting in a certain in-built kinship with the old ideas (and a large smear of literary fallout known as the Apocrypha and the lost gospels).

It was never a particularly easy relationship and had some damned odd results- the famous line about angels dancing on the head of a pin is actually from John Duns Scotus, in a passage where he's mocking his fellow scholastics for irrelevance and obtuseness. It did preserve the texts and the collective memory, for later rediscovery in the "little"- 12th century- and proper Renaissance.


Islam, on the other hand, on the southern littoral of the Med had an actually physically richer share of the inheritance of the past, but not even a back-door, parasitic share of the thinking.
As long as Islamic civilisation was healthy and self- confident it could permit itself the luxury of being open to the ideas of the classical period- and I'm brushing over a hell of a lot of detail by speaking of it as a coherent whole, I know, but I don't need more than a broad brush yet.

When things started to go badly for Islam as a whole, "the gates of effort are closed"- they moved increasingly on to the back foot and became increasingly closed- minded. The burning of Baghdad, and more especially the Battle of Ain Jalat, 1260- the very first successful defensive battle against a Mongol army since Genghis' early campaigns of assimilation- were pretty much the end of public respect and acceptability for scientific thought in Islam.
Especially as the battle at the Springs of Goliath (Ain Jalat) was won with the rallying- cry "Allahu Akhbar".

[Adrian Laguna]

I think people are overestimating just how far the Muslim world fell behind. Need I remind everyone that at Çanakkale the Turks took on, with second-line troops no less, some of the best men the British Empire could throw at them, and won? Yeah, they lost the war, the point is that they didn't get reamed like the Brits were expecting. Nor did they get reamed after they lost the war, Turkey still holds all Turkish territory. Despite it's title as "the sick man of Europe", the Ottoman Empire was, at the time just prior to its fall, approximately as strong and advanced as some other second rate European powers like Spain, Portugal, and Italy. And since I mentioned Spain, maybe I should bring-up the fact that up until the late 1600s or early 1700s, they practically owned Europe. Surely we can't blame religious differences for their fall, not when France was the one which next dominated the continent.

[Darth Wong]

I think people are overestimating just how far the Muslim world fell behind. Need I remind everyone that at Çanakkale the Turks took on, with second-line troops no less, some of the best men the British Empire could throw at them, and won? Yeah, they lost the war, the point is that they didn't get reamed like the Brits were expecting. Nor did they get reamed after they lost the war, Turkey still holds all Turkish territory. Despite it's title as "the sick man of Europe", the Ottoman Empire was, at the time just prior to its fall, approximately as strong and advanced as some other second rate European powers like Spain, Portugal, and Italy. And since I mentioned Spain, maybe I should bring-up the fact that up until the late 1600s or early 1700s, they practically owned Europe. Surely we can't blame religious differences for their fall, not when France was the one which next dominated the continent.

Does it not seem, however, that beyond a certain point, all of the major scientific discoveries were coming from Western Europe? I don't see how military victories are necessarily compelling or even relevant in a thread about scientific progress. It's as if you took a thread asking about scientific progress and somehow converted it into "why did the Muslims lose" in your mind: a question which necessarily involves a lot more factors than pure scientific progress does.

[Patrick Degan]

The question is easily enough answered by pointing out the last major scientific advancement to originate out of the Muslim world and how long ago it occurred.

The Ottoman example does not point to scientific innovation or technological progress sufficient to enable Muslim culture to match their rivals, as demonstrated by the fact that their empire got dismembered by the Entente. Despite Gallipoli, they could not prevent the Europeans divvying up their realm. Holding Turkey is hardly significant in this regard or in terms of the overall question before the bar.

[Darth Wong]

I used to subscribe to the idea that religion had nothing to do with it myself, but that was largely because I found the prevailing argument to be rather unconvincing: namely, the idea that Islam is an inherently irrational religion, and is naturally hostile to science. I found it unconvincing because Christianity is also an inherently irrational religion, and is also naturally hostile to science. In short, the argument was unconvincing because it was framed in terms of factors which were common to both Islam and Christianity. It didn't help that it was usually being made by Christians who believed that Christianity should be credited with creating the scientific revolution: an absurd proposition.

But if one flips the conventional assumption on its head and examines the question in terms of the failings of Christianity rather than its supposed strengths or Islam's failings, then it makes a lot more sense. The failings of Christianity opened up gaps which permitted the sneakily atheistic modern scientific method to flourish, while the solidity of Islam did not.

[Adrian Laguna]

Does it not seem, however, that beyond a certain point, all of the major scientific discoveries were coming from Western Europe?

Yes, and the reason is because Western Europe was the most powerful and prosperous area in the world. During the Cold War the world leaders in scientific advancement were the United States and the Soviet Union; before that it was the United States, Germany, and the British Empire; before that it was the British Empire and France. If you go back far enough the Ottomans get the honour, coincidentally at the same time they are the local top dog.

I don't see how military victories are necessarily compelling or even relevant in a thread about scientific progress. It's as if you took a thread asking about scientific progress and somehow converted it into "why did the Muslims lose" in your mind: a question which necessarily involves a lot more factors than pure scientific progress does.

The Ottoman Empire's performance in the First World War is relevant because of the type of war it was, an industrial total war. Put simply, the Turks would have been rolled over if they did not have a fairly high level of advancement in terms of industry, infrastructure, engineering sophistication, and scientific advancement.

[Darth Wong]

Does it not seem, however, that beyond a certain point, all of the major scientific discoveries were coming from Western Europe?

Yes, and the reason is because Western Europe was the most powerful and prosperous area in the world. During the Cold War the world leaders in scientific advancement were the United States and the Soviet Union; before that it was the United States, Germany, and the British Empire; before that it was the British Empire and France. If you go back far enough the Ottomans get the honour, coincidentally at the same time they are the local top dog.

If you go back that far, you are predating the modern scientific method and the scientific revolution we're talking about, which happened entirely outside the confines of the Muslim world. I don't think you're grasping the parameters of this discussion.

I don't see how military victories are necessarily compelling or even relevant in a thread about scientific progress. It's as if you took a thread asking about scientific progress and somehow converted it into "why did the Muslims lose" in your mind: a question which necessarily involves a lot more factors than pure scientific progress does.

The Ottoman Empire's performance in the First World War is relevant because of the type of war it was, an industrial total war. Put simply, the Turks would have been rolled over if they did not have a fairly high level of advancement in terms of industry, infrastructure, engineering sophistication, and scientific advancement.

Are you mentally retarded or something? This is SPECIFICALLY about pure scientific progress, not all of those other factors you are trying to bundle into the discussion. Do you understand that red-herrings are actually considered a BAD thing?

[Cecelia5578]

I think people are overestimating just how far the Muslim world fell behind. Need I remind everyone that at Çanakkale the Turks took on, with second-line troops no less, some of the best men the British Empire could throw at them, and won? Yeah, they lost the war, the point is that they didn't get reamed like the Brits were expecting. Nor did they get reamed after they lost the war, Turkey still holds all Turkish territory. Despite it's title as "the sick man of Europe", the Ottoman Empire was, at the time just prior to its fall, approximately as strong and advanced as some other second rate European powers like Spain, Portugal, and Italy. And since I mentioned Spain, maybe I should bring-up the fact that up until the late 1600s or early 1700s, they practically owned Europe. Surely we can't blame religious differences for their fall, not when France was the one which next dominated the continent.

Europe so concerned about the balance of power that they allied on occasion to stop Russia from dismembering the Ottomans. That surely added a few years onto the Empire. Plus, from the perspective of the British and French, it wasn't as if the Ottomans were the main front of the war. And didn't wasn't the Ottoman performance against the Russians mixed?

[Adrian Laguna]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! [/VADER]

I lost my post and have to rewrite it.
Ah well, the new version is better.

If you go back that far, you are predating the modern scientific method and the scientific revolution we're talking about, which happened entirely outside the confines of the Muslim world.

Did it? Surely the revolution happened in Europe first but that's different from it bypassing the Muslim world. You can't industrialize a country without the scientific method.

Are you mentally retarded or something? This is SPECIFICALLY about pure scientific progress, not all of those other factors you are trying to bundle into the discussion. Do you understand that red-herrings are actually considered a BAD thing?

The point I am trying to make is two fold.

Firstly that the Muslim world did not fall that far behind. Not any more than, say, the Spanish did. The only innovation they have to their name in the last 300 years is the torpedo boat destroyer. Yet I don't see anyone arguing Catholicism was the reason, a difficult argument to hold given that it didn't seem to bother the French in the 18th century.

Secondly, that there are many factors that affect scientific progress, as demonstrated by the fact that most of it is consistently done in the States with the most wealth and power. The philosophical underpinnings of the the State's society is certainly important, and I do not contest that Islam's construction is a considerable disadvantage that hinders progress, but there are also other factors that must be considered. Case in point, US vs. UK in the second half of the 20th century. One a leader of in the sciences, the other... not. Yet there are few social differences between the two, if anything the US is the more backward. So why the difference? I think it's in the GDP.

Thus, the Muslim world fell behind (though not that much) in scientific progress because they fell behind in everything else. It's all interrelated.

[Patrick Degan]

The Ottoman Empire's performance in the First World War is relevant because of the type of war it was, an industrial total war. Put simply, the Turks would have been rolled over if they did not have a fairly high level of advancement in terms of industry, infrastructure, engineering sophistication, and scientific advancement.

Um, nope. Germany was their main arms supplier. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire did not have the industrial or scientific infrastructure of Europe and had to be propped up by their partners in the Central Powers alliance to be effective at all. As it was, they did get rolled over. The British took Baghdad, Damascus and Constantinople while stage-managing the Arab Revolt and the Russians invaded Anatolia. Gallipoli was one of the few Ottoman victories, but notwithstanding the war went very badly for the sultanate. Had it not been for Russian political chaos in 1917 which resulted in their withdrawal from the war altogether the empire wouldn't even have made it to the Armistice.

[Darth Wong]

You can't industrialize a country without the scientific method.

Wrong. You can industrialize a country by simply purchasing and copying other peoples' methods. It doesn't mean you need to adopt the scientific method.

Firstly that the Muslim world did not fall that far behind. Not any more than, say, the Spanish did. The only innovation they have to their name in the last 300 years is the torpedo boat destroyer. Yet I don't see anyone arguing Catholicism was the reason, a difficult argument to hold given that it didn't seem to bother the French in the 18th century.

The torpedo boat destroyer was a scientific discovery now? You honestly don't understand the distinction between science and technology, do you?

Secondly, that there are many factors that affect scientific progress, as demonstrated by the fact that most of it is consistently done in the States with the most wealth and power. The philosophical underpinnings of the the State's society is certainly important, and I do not contest that Islam's construction is a considerable disadvantage that hinders progress, but there are also other factors that must be considered. Case in point, US vs. UK in the second half of the 20th century. One a leader of in the sciences, the other... not. Yet there are few social differences between the two, if anything the US is the more backward. So why the difference? I think it's in the GDP.

See above.

Thus, the Muslim world fell behind (though not that much) in scientific progress because they fell behind in everything else. It's all interrelated.

See above. You CONTINUOUSLY try to replace science with something else, be it warmaking ability or industry. Honestly, what is your fucking brain damage?

[PainRack]

Does it not seem, however, that beyond a certain point, all of the major scientific discoveries were coming from Western Europe? I don't see how military victories are necessarily compelling or even relevant in a thread about scientific progress. It's as if you took a thread asking about scientific progress and somehow converted it into "why did the Muslims lose" in your mind: a question which necessarily involves a lot more factors than pure scientific progress does.

If that was so, wouldn't the economic wealth and prosperity of Western Europe play a part? The steam engine and other factors emerged primarily due to the increase in production from agricultural changes, brought about by global warming as well as the potato from the New World. Increased access to resources and the need and ability to exploit them led to increased incentive to improve technology, and thus science to use them. Similarly, increased wealth led to countries being better able to concentrate resources into scientific pursuits. Britain ruling the waves also isolated her from military threats, and the concert of power in Europe prevented any nation from being able to utterly wipe each other out, thus allowing them to concentrate resources into scientific progress as opposed to the military.

The religious backlash against knowledge and technology in the Muslim world also concided with the period when their wealth had declined and become concentrated in the hands of a ruling elite.