A Reply To Eugene Volokh, As Wel As Readers, Disputing My Reading of the Salon Article on Islamic Science
Over at Volokh Conspiracy (link now points to actual post), Eugene Volokh disputes my characterization of the Salon interview with Taner Edis. He finds it to be a fair interview, just asking questions and that sort of thing. (Incidentally, I don't actually see the piece on his blog, and am replying to the piece as it appears in my email... maybe I'm just missing it.)
My response follows. One thing I didn't mention in my email reply, which I now concede: In fact, the interviewer does not make any sort of statement or argument which is explicitly supportive of a creationism, so long as it's of an Islamic sort. That is my gloss on the article, and perhaps an unfair gloss. However, given the rather obvious sympathies the author has for "Islamic science" -- obvious to me, at least -- I would argue the interviewer is arguing on behalf of a a "science" which incorporates important articles of faith (as well as morality). Perhaps it's an unfair reading -- certainly some readers think so -- but I read the interviewer in being open to such ideas, and even arguing in their favor. So long as they're coming from a privileged nonwestern, nonchristian culture, of course. So that's a partial point to Volokh. Only partial, though, because I think that is the general thrust of the questioning. Note that I've added to my initial response to Volokh. Apart from a spelling correction, I've put the new bits in brackets. My Bad! Volokh actually hadn't posted yet-- he was awaiting my response before publishing. So, like a dick, I actually jumped ahead of his response to get my response in first. But his response should be up now, or will be shortly. What can I say? I believe in unilateral preemptive attacks. I cannot abide waiting around for an attack my intelligence-gathering tells me is on the way. You made a deadly mistake, Volokh. You betrayed me but you left me alive.Thanks, Eugene. Some of my commenters also took issue with my characterization. While I take your point, I disagree with you. I've interviewed people (as I'm sure you have) and it's my opinion this is an argument in Q&A format.
Example: But those things were also mixed together in Europe's scientific revolution several centuries later. Isaac Newton was fascinated by alchemy and astrology.... Many historians would disagree with your assessment that what Muslim scholars did during the Golden Age wasn't real science. They point to major discoveries in mathematics, physics and chemistry. And they say later European discoveries owe a direct debt to Muslim scientists. For instance, didn't Copernicus use the mathematical work of Iranian astronomers to construct his theory of the solar system? What isn't asked here is the obvious "explain the distinction you're making between real science and proto-science," which I imagine is the distinction between Greek "science by pure reason" (also known as not-science or philosophical inquiry) and modern European-created empirical science. He skips over this opportunity to ask the interviewer to define his terms in favor of arguing against him (before establishing precisely what his point is). [Volokh seems to believe that the interviewer is suggesting that Islamic science is way back at the time of Newton and that therefore this question is critical of Islamic scientific progress, rather than arguing in favor of the Islamic scientific tradition. I'm sorry, I think that's just an absurd interpretation. When you say that one of the greatest -- perhaps the greatest -- scientific thinker in Western history subscribed (partly) to the pseudoscience practiced by many Muslims, I cannot see how this can be read as anything other than a claim that "Islamic science" can be just as fruitful as, you know, real science. This fun fact is offered as a bit of apologism -- "Even the greatest scientific mind of the West gave credence to these ideas..." I don't see how it can be read in any other fashion. I just find this assertion by Volokh to be verging on Devil's Advocate in its facial erroneousness. You don't claim that Islamic science is similar in some ways to Isaac Freakin' Newton to denigrate it, for crying out loud. Let me ask this: Precisely how much weight does your average MSM secular liberal give to the well-publicized (by creationists) fact that Watson or Crick (forget which) disputes the theory of evolution? Creationists themselves are fond of offering this in their defense, of course; but how frequently does one hear an NPR reporter offering this fun fact in order to suggest that believing in creationism is not incompatible with practicing sound science?] Didn't Western colonialism also contribute to the decline of science in the Islamic world? Colonial rule often marginalized Muslims and dismissed the value of Islamic culture. In Indonesia, the Dutch even closed Islamic institutions and banned Muslims from universities until 1952. No disrespect meant, but I find it hard to believe you don't think this is a question with an agenda and the "answer" already contained within it. [And, like a later question, this one seeks to argue the fault lies with things other than Islam's basic antiscientific impulse.] But this is complicated. Everyone agrees that Western science has been successful at what it does. And yet I'm willing to bet that many Islamic thinkers would say the price of scientific success in the West has been too high. Once science was divorced from religion, you could argue that it was only a matter of time before secular values would triumph, atheism would become a viable option, and the modern world would end up with the rampant materialism and consumerism that we have today. A lot of Islamic thinkers don't want that version of Western science.
Mr. Volokh, this sort of argument could easily be offered on behalf of fundamentalist Christians who see science displacing their faith. But I imagine you'd be hard-pressed to find an NPR science writer, of all people, arguing that such a belief is simply a matter of personal preference. You may say he's not arguing. I say he is. Because I cannot imagine him asking this sort of question with regard to any other group holding to decidedly anti-scientific beliefs. How does this play out in schools? Ultimately, doesn't this come down to what is mandated by governments, either at the national level or the local level? This one seems like a clear argument to me. The interviewee lays this antiscientific impulse upon fundamentalist (or even nonfundamentalist) Islam generally -- the philosophy/ideology itself retards scientific progress. Here he insists that it is merely transitory governments responsible for this. Again, arguing with his interviewee's thesis, which is his right, but it is still arguing with him.
There are some Muslims who talk about the need for an "Islamic science" that's quite distinct from Western science. They say we shouldn't separate knowledge of the physical world from knowledge of the spiritual world because they are interconnected. And they often argue that science should have an ethical dimension. We shouldn't just do science for the sake of knowledge. We should always be concerned about the moral outcomes. Does it make sense to talk about an Islamic science?
... I'm assuming most scientists would say science is science. If it's done well, it doesn't matter who does it. You don't read this follow-up as suggesting that an "Islamic science" would still be science so long as it's "done well"? Because I do. How do you read it? What is the purpose of this follow-up? It seems to be rather absurdly obvious point to make if not for the purposes I assume. The London-based writer and critic Ziauddin Sardar has argued that "Western science is inherently destructive and does not, cannot, fulfill the needs of Muslim societies." He says Western science has become an ideology that's highly efficient but is also dehumanizing. ... There are a lot of people in the United States -- liberal Christians, Jews and Buddhists - who also complain about what they call "scientism" -- the idea that science explains all there is in the world. It obliterates the spiritual life. These people also tend to be fully supportive of evolution, but they say science can only explain so much. Again, agree to disagree. You apparently read this as simply pitching out alternative points of view. I again find these alternative points of view rather antithetical to my own. But more importantly, I know that secular liberals who pride themselves as being members of the Reality Based Community find them antithetical. I find it curious that multiple questions are offered which question, essentially, the very heart and foundation of the western empirical scientific tradition, and ask, implicitly, whether "we have as much to learn from them as they have from us." You are free to disagree, of course. But i doubt very much you'll find an interviewer so determined to offer the arguments of those who would merge science and religion *out of his own mouth.* Perhaps you see this as simply being an interview which is meticulously fair to "the other side" of the religion vs. science controversy. In which case I need to ask you: When have you ever before seen an interviewer being so meticulously fair to the other side in this debate? Another Newton Analogy: In discussing quantum theory and Heisenberg and Schroedinger and all the myriad bizzare ways our universe acts on a nano-nano level, writers are fond of noting that "Even Einstein refused to accept such strange and inelegant behaviors lay at the heart of physical existence." The intent behind such a statement is perfectly obvious. It is to excuse people who either cannot grasp or refuse to accept the truly goofy weirdness that occurs on the quantum scale by noting that even a great thinker like Einstein had trouble with all this. Certainly it is not offered as a criticism! Surely in all the thousands of times this has been noted, it was never the writer's intent to suggest "If you don't understand or believe in quantum mechanics, you are merely at the rather low level of scientific achievement that that idiot Einstein was at. You really need to start cracking those books to advance further than this nitwit neanderthal patent-clerk managed." Please. Such constructions -- "Even Einstein could not accept Heisenberg's uncertainty principle...", "Even Newton was taken with astronomy..." -- are offered only to excuse away antiscientific thinking (as in Newton's case) or trouble accepting what is now utterly uncontroversial in science (as in Einstein's case) by, in either case, offering an indisputably brilliant figure who either believed things we now know to be bunk or disbelieved things we now know (?) to be correct.* It is never intended to suggest backwardness, as Volokh suggests it was meant.
* Actually, I'm kind of with Einstein on this one, though I don't know why. I used to have a theory that time was itself quantum, and that could somehow explain most of the quantum strangeness... I've read other people suggesting this too, though whether they know what they're talking about or are complete maniacs I don't know. All I can say in my defense is: "Even Einstein had problems with this..." And note that is in my defense, and certainly not offered to denigrate myself as being an all-around moron on the level of Albert Einstein. One Last Point... I find it a point in my favor that the interviewer spends so much time asking, essentially, whether or not a uniquely "Islamic science" can be as good as (if different than) real science. He spends a fair amount of time addressing the fact that Islamic science is woefully behind western science -- hardly the sort of thing that could be argued against. But while he is interested in why this is so, he is eager to offer other explanations for the sorry state of Islamic science other than Islamism itself -- colonialism, transitory Muslim governments. Further, he asks what is to my mind an inordinate number of questions suggesing the possibility of a successful scientific tradition based partly on the western (real) scientific tradition and partly upon Islam's distinctive "demon-haunted" (as Carl Sagan would say) religious culture. Several questions -- at least one or two more than needed -- postulate that perhaps there could be a "fusion science" incorporating genuine science and Islamic religiously-shaped not-science. Again, maybe it's just me, but I tend to think someone who was scientifically minded would not bother asking more than one question about this rather far-fetched proposition. Could a type of Islamic-Western "fusion science" actually produce advances like real Western science? I think the answer to that was offered by a scientist answering the question "Could our universe be teeming with advanced intelligent life-forms capable of long-range communications and even travel?" His answer to that? "Sure. But in that case, where are they?" This is why I think it is so unproductive to keep asking if a more mature form of a uniquely "Islamic science" could produce the miracles of real science. Sure, it could. But in that case, where are they? The fact that they -- in this case, the advances and breakthroughs of Islamicized science -- have not yet shown up is good evidence that perhaps we shouldn't keep postulating their arrival. People who talk too much about aliens are dismissed as cranks. Why shouldn't this guy be dismissed as a crank for his idee fixe of the just-around-the-corner Islamicized Scientific Revolution? Ask one obligatory question about it, sure, why not. But ask repeated questions about this? Why? Does he similarly hold open much hope for a fusion "science" blending genuine science with Christian Biblical literalism? Allow me to play mind-reader and say No, he definitely harbors no such hopes whatsoever. If this is "scrupulous fairness," fine, but I'll note it's a sort of scrupulous fairness which I have never before seen from the liberal secular MSM in such issues. In which case I'd have to ask -- why is such scrupulous fairness of such a highly selective nature? This is far more characteristic of media fairness as regards political/scientific disputes, non?
Comments
Well said.
If Eugene Volokh genuinely believes that the interviewer is merely just throwing out questions in a neutral, probing way - well bless his heart, he's kinder than I am.
Perhaps it is simply a matter of interpretation, and perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I'm with you on this one Ace.
Posted by: Rocketeer at August 13, 2007 03:37 PM (GFaLW)
Anyway, Muslim civilization was the most advanced and intellectually active in the world during those centuries, producing geniuses such as Avicenna, al-Ghazali, and Averroes. But all that ended, along with Islamic cosmopolitanism, in the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1248. NOT from Western colonialism.
Posted by: Jason at August 13, 2007 03:40 PM (+HOzK)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 13, 2007 03:48 PM (Gz4Wf)
So even though I feel the interview was a fair one, I think it is a sad and upspoken commentary that such a fair interview is rarely (if ever, anymore) given to a Christian perspective.
To witness the gullibility and enthusiasm with which the media embraces any minority or foreign cultural influence is terribly revealing about the (lack of) reverence with which said media has for that which gave it respectability and influence.
The left and its media has judged Western society and found it wanting, but it refuses to judge the alternatives with any scale of values. Ironic that a community that relies so much on 'nuance', views the schism between the haves and the have-nots in such black and white clarity.
Posted by: krakatoa at August 13, 2007 03:48 PM (n+ZaI)
Anyway, while I mostly agree with you, especially with the last paragraph, I read the "Islamic science" part the way Volokh (presumably) did: that if the work meets scientific standards, that constitutes good scientific work.
Posted by: JSinger at August 13, 2007 03:52 PM (EqFh0)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 13, 2007 04:00 PM (mImtA)
Everyone agrees that Western science has been successful at what it does. And yet I'm willing to bet that many Islamic thinkers would say the price of scientific success in the West has been too high. Once science was divorced from religion, you could argue that it was only a matter of time before secular values would triumph, atheism would become a viable option, and the modern world would end up with the rampant materialism and consumerism that we have today.
It was at this point in the interview when I realized that liberals have officially thrown atheism overboard and are now actively seeking conversion to Islam. As long as Western Civilization is the devil, they're happy.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at August 13, 2007 04:03 PM (V6Vjq)
You will likely have heard it argued that Christians don't require (read:deserve) such deference in these situation because Christians are a powerful majority in the West.
Islam needs to be afforded the benefit of the doubt because they are a powerless minority. See, if you're a leftist, the controlling question is "Who?", not what. If the answer to Who? is someone they percieve as powerless or funny colored, you see the kind of treatment this interviwer affords Islamic "science".
The rest of us call it "making excuses".
Posted by: spongeworthy at August 13, 2007 04:05 PM (uSomN)
Posted by: ace at August 13, 2007 04:11 PM (1UCRY)
Posted by: Insightfulnow at August 13, 2007 04:14 PM (AQj/2)
I like to keep science and religion separate, and I am inclined to agree with the theory of evolution. However, it would be interesting how the lefties will treat creationism, now that Islam seems to support it.
Now the lefties will be forced to reconcile their two tenets: oppose everything in Christianity, and blindly accept everything in Islam. If this plays out, the creationism debate will become like a badly behaved puppy for the left: if you catch it, it bites. If you release it, it runs away.
Posted by: Tushar D at August 13, 2007 04:23 PM (IlgNp)
For a while Native Americans were the repository of all wisdom and good. Then as reality began to leak in people found out that NA's weren't environmentalists who took care of the land and were mean, torturing SOB's. That's not to say they were horrible. They were just humans like the rest of us.
Before that it was Africans and Timbuktu as the great civilization, until it leaked out that Timbuktu was in fact an Arab-lackey, slave-trading empire.
Now it's the muslims turn.
Ace is right. Listen to this a guy ask about thee way muslim scientists blend ethical behavior, morality and science. It's like Bill Clinton's 3rd way crap.
It's clear, like insightfulnow says, leftards just don't understand the scientific method.
Posted by: rinseandspit at August 13, 2007 04:35 PM (fsZu0)
"Even Newton was taken with astronomy..." -- are offered...
I think you meant to write "Newton was taken with alchemy" [or astrology] in your rebuttal, Ace.
Didn't Western colonialism also contribute to the decline of science in the Islamic world?
The Mideast was the last place on Earth where Westerners instituted colonialism, mostly post-WW1 after the Ottoman collapse or at earliest the late-19th Century elsewhere, like North Africa.
Frankly, I didn't care for either interviewer or interviewee as both seem to think that real science starting and flourishing in Christian Europe was a fluke unrelated to Christian philosophical outlooks.
Posted by: andycanuck at August 13, 2007 04:44 PM (YZqIa)
I think Eugene is viewiing this as a normal MSM piece, and in that context it all seems reasonable.
But that's precisely the problem.
Replace the words "Islamic" with "Christian" and try to imagine the interview is with Pat Robertson. Not a chance in hell the interview would unfold this way with these questions -- and if somehow it did, there'd be a torrent of angry email about it.
Posted by: TallDave at August 13, 2007 04:55 PM (r1Ip+)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at August 13, 2007 04:57 PM (tVbxd)
"Could a type of Islamic-Western "fusion science" actually produce advances like real Western science?"
The correct answer is "Hell no." Same for Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion. Science is empirical, religion is mystical, dogmatic or both
Posted by: TallDave at August 13, 2007 04:57 PM (r1Ip+)
Not at all. In fact, you'll typically find that, at least superficially, they are very positive about science. Even many devout Muslim apologists say Islam is supposed to be a scientific religion -- a religion that supports science down to the last detail. But this notion of a science-positive Islam is often combined with ignorance about the details of science and an openness to some deeply pseudoscientific ideas.
They may not perceive themselves as being hostile to science, but they are hostile to many popular scientific theories. I know an Arab in the biological sciences who told me that in his country they only teach evolution at the university level and even there discussion of human evolution is taboo. The nuttiest of the Islamic creationists is probably this Turkish clown named Harun Yahya.
It probably doesn't help that since the Islamic Golden Age in science and mathematics, Islamic theology has taken a decidedly anti-rationalist turn. There is no need to explore the world around you when you assume that Allah hasn't necessarily left any underlying laws or patterns in the natural world and when you chalk everything up to divine will. That is a little like scientists simply dismissing things as brute facts and not inquiring any further. It isn't a very helpful approach if you're trying to advance science.
Posted by: Mike Z. at August 13, 2007 05:00 PM (GLMrI)
An opinion piece by Pervez Hoodbhoy, professor and chairman of the Department of Physics at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan, I found his lecture format to be far more useful for discussion than the Salon interview. The reader will find tables and other references to support Professor Hoodbhoy's arguments.
Posted by: mrp at August 13, 2007 05:02 PM (QOTYh)
I hope Professor Volkh knows he's getting into an argument with a moronBlogger! I'm pretty sure he's unfamiliar with your... um... ouvre, since he refers to you as "The" Ace of Spades!
You may have slipped pretty badly out of character if he's treating you like the sort of policy wonk he usually likes to get into well-mannered blogwars with!
Oh, and answer your email about advertising on your damned blog some time!
Posted by: Doug Winship at August 13, 2007 05:21 PM (hcQ3t)
Posted by: Francesco Poli at August 13, 2007 05:26 PM (uJRAD)
This 'graph jumped out at me:
In the 1980s an imagined "Islamic science" was posed as an alternative to "Western science." ... Those attempts led to many elaborate and expensive Islamic science conferences around the world. Some scholars calculated the temperature of Hell, others the chemical composition of heavenly djinnis. None produced a new machine or instrument, conducted an experiment, or even formulated a single testable hypothesis.
Reminds me of the Global Warming activists with their new-fangled Gaia Science.
Posted by: krakatoa at August 13, 2007 05:26 PM (n+ZaI)
This Islamic Golden Age crap is likely a farce. They seem to have pretty much just conquered and then taken credit for everything produced by non-Islamic Assyrians.
http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm
Posted by: Rip at August 13, 2007 05:34 PM (q2HEf)
Posted by: rinseandspit at August 13, 2007 05:36 PM (fsZu0)
Oh, wait? The inventor of the catflap? Yeah, that was impressive. Seems obvious now, but most great inventions do.
Posted by: Gekkobear at August 13, 2007 05:36 PM (X0NX1)
Sorry Ace, but you are being far too sensitive. I read your article and thought I was going to post a link to your on one of my own mailing lists. But I made the mistake of reading the link. As such articles go, it is fairly inane.
One of the problems in the discussion between left and right is that there is a crazed level of sensitivity. In such an environment, no reasoned dialog can take place. It is merely people preaching to their respective choirs. While I do enjoy a good sermon. No one's mind is changed.
Posted by: Rick at August 13, 2007 05:45 PM (iaV9O)
Please address this:
There are some Muslims who talk about the need for an "Islamic science" that's quite distinct from Western science. They say we shouldn't separate knowledge of the physical world from knowledge of the spiritual world because they are interconnected. And they often argue that science should have an ethical dimension. We shouldn't just do science for the sake of knowledge. We should always be concerned about the moral outcomes. Does it make sense to talk about an Islamic science?
...
I'm assuming most scientists would say science is science. If it's done well, it doesn't matter who does it.
You don't read this follow-up as suggesting that an "Islamic science" would still be science so long as it's "done well"? Because I do. How do you read it? What is the purpose of this follow-up? It seems to be rather absurdly obvious point to make if not for the purposes I assume.
Posted by: ace at August 13, 2007 05:48 PM (1UCRY)
Thus, the "science" of say, 900 AD was unlikely to violate principles in the koran.
This is the same reason a giant like Newton could still find alchemy fascinating. Who knew? He'd just spelled out principles of gravity. What other discoveries might be out there?
The muslims are in a quandry because the koran is the direct word of allah. Thus, when it says, as it does, that the sun sets in a puddle of mud every night- well, who are you gonna believe? Allah or your lying eyes?
Posted by: rinseandspit at August 13, 2007 05:51 PM (fsZu0)
That is half-true. Many things we attribute to Muslims were, in fact, the products of subject peoples or people in contact with Muslims . For example, Muslim architecture was heavily influenced by the Byzantines. The Dome of the Rock was even built by Byzantine craftsmen. Muslims also made contributions of their own: cryptanalysis was first developed by Muslims and a graphical solution to cubic equations was first discovered by Omar Khayyam. (An algebraic solution would have to wait until the Renaissance.) They also helped transmit ideas from other civilizations such as Arabic (actually Hindu) numerals and the number zero.
Posted by: Mike Z. at August 13, 2007 06:05 PM (GLMrI)
ace,
After reading mrp's link, and particularly the bit I quoted, I think it could be interpreted that the interviewer who had apparently studied the topic well (given his other references) was giving his subject another opportunity to pick off low-hanging fruit.
An example were I interviewing a scientist who recognized inconsistencies in the current GW crowd's dogma: Al Gore will say that the science is settled on Global Warming, and that temperature data clearly show 1998 to be the hottest year on record... does it make sense to debate Climate Change science?
I'd expect the scientist to knock it out of the park. And if he didn't, I'd probably follow up with the contrary data and give him another chance.
Again, I didn't witness the interview, and verbal tenor goes a long way to inferring intent, so I'm willing to concede the benefit of doubt on this one, despite my loathing of NPR.
Regardless, I don't think it's an issue worth investing emotionally in for those with either interpretation.
Posted by: krakatoa at August 13, 2007 06:06 PM (n+ZaI)
Hey, it's the "Volokh CONSPIRACY". What did you expect?
-----------------------
Posted by: Arthur at August 13, 2007 06:27 PM (GKwPX)
"In Indonesia, the Dutch even closed Islamic institutions and banned Muslims from universities until 1952."
The Dutch were displaced from power and either driven into exile or interned in camps by the Japanese in 1942. After the war, they waged an unsuccessful war to retake most of Indonesia until 1949 (holding on to western New Guinea until 1963). How in the hell did they manage to keep up this ban until 1952?
Just wondering.
Posted by: Nick Byram at August 13, 2007 06:45 PM (ujg0T)
I really take Volokh's side on this one. I think you have to work overtime to believe that the questioner is asserting the truth of the statements in his questions; to me, he's begging for them to be shot down.
As to the "Islamic Enlightenment" or whatever you want to call it, it was indeed the result of Islamic appropriation of Greek science and ideas, a result of the Arab conquest of most of the former East Roman (Byzantine) Empire during the seventh century. In fact, in its early days the Arab/Moslem empire left a lot more room for reasoned discourse than the rigidly ideological Byzantines did. That changed fast, as the pace of Muslim conquest slowed and then retreated. Empires on the defensive are less open to new ideas and heterodoxy than vigorous ones on the move.
For more, see the history of the so-called Murtazili sect of Islam, rationalists persecuted and destroyed by the Caliphs as a threat to religious orthodoxy, imperial unity, and the Koran.
Finally, I'd dispute your characterization of Greek science as '"science by pure reason" (also known as not-science or philosophical inquiry)' and as distinct from 'modern European-created empirical science.' Aristotle is the father of the empirical method, and all modern science is in his debt.
Posted by: Reginal Perrin at August 13, 2007 06:53 PM (/HHAn)
One thing that intrigues me in all this: We are constantly fed the propaganda that non-Western, particularly Islamic, civilizations are responsible for this, that, and the other foundation of science. More and more inventions and theories are "outed" over time. So this implies that science is good, it's just that, when you strip away the trimmings, it turns out that we stole everything.
On the other hand, according to other schools of Multiculturalism, science is distinctly Western, and therefore it is a form of cultural imperialism to force it on officially-endorsed victim populations within the West. According to this line of thinking, there are other, non-Western (read non white male) methods of thinking and analyzing. Who's to say that empirical analysis is superior? There are other kinds of intelligence, etc., etc. So we need to tailor our curricula to fit the needs of these alternate-thinking populations in our midst.
Yet another example of the deep contradictions within political correctness.
Posted by: AWOL Civilization at August 13, 2007 07:15 PM (Cf5Et)
I'd give the NPR interviewer the benefit of the doubt if this occurred absent the broader context you discuss. In fact, I think the interview is rather well done. Sure, it sometimes looks like the question will be asked until the "right" answer is given, but it is equally valid to suggest that the interviewer is allowing Edis to elucidate his ideas further via historical events.
However, while I certainly don't see this as "combative apologism", I think it is clear that the NPR guy(?) is guilty on two counts:
1. A show-offy need to vomit all his research onto the reader. You know, "so-and-so has noted (some piece of arcana)..." This signals the interviewer belongs to the smart set. I.e., the he's the type of person who "chuckles knowingly" and just loud enough to make sure those in the vicinity are aware that he already was familiar with the work/anecdote/event/etc. in question before the presenter/interviewee/docent/etc. revealed it to us plebes.
In other words, typical NPR.
2. Bias, not necessarily FOR Islam, but against the usual NPR shitlist. Money quote that gives the game away (emphasis mine):
"There are a lot of people in the United States -- LIBERAL Christians, Jews and Buddhists - who also complain about what they call "scientism" -- the idea that science explains all there is in the world. It obliterates the spiritual life. These people also tend to be fully supportive of evolution, but they say science can only explain so much."
You see, LIBERAL Christians who attack scientism are among the anointed. Those other Christians who do the same? Not even worthy of mention in a science interview.
I'll go so far as to say that this evidence of bias is so obvious that it suggests the bias is probably unconscious.
Posted by: mrobvious at August 13, 2007 08:17 PM (8Y/fG)
If Islam is so helpful to and loving of Science, where are the herds of scientists from Islamic countries?
There is no way Islam can co-exist with Science. Heck, Islam can't co-exist with anything unless it pretends huge chunks of itself do not exist or can be interpreted in a more benign way.
The first element of science is not hydrogen, it is skepticism. Skepticism comes from the workings of an open mind, a mind that says "I am ready to believe you, convince me." Islam has no room for that.
Islam's connection to Science is sparse, random, and unimportant. Islam's menace to Science is quite the opposite.
Posted by: eman at August 13, 2007 08:46 PM (F/DIG)
Naturally, he would have a spare copy or two (paperback, of course) on hand to give out in such emergencies, wouldn't he? I never leave home without it . . .
Posted by: Jim Addison at August 13, 2007 08:53 PM (uqc7t)
The correct answer is "Hell no." Same for Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion. Science is empirical, religion is mystical, dogmatic or both
Sometimes the most obvious facts are the easiest to overlook. Here is one that ought to be stunningly obvious: science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in the history of Earth. Where was that? Although other civilizations have contributed technical achievements or isolated innovations, the invention of science as a cumulative, rigorous, systematic, and ongoing investigation into the laws of nature occurred only in Europe; that is, in the civilization then known as Christendom. Science arose and flourished in a civilization that, at the time, was profoundly and nearly exclusively Christian in its mental outlook.
There are deep reasons for that, and they are inherent in the Judeo-Christian view of the world which, principally in its Christian manifestation, formed the European mind. As Stark observes, the Christian view depicted God as "a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as his personal creation, thus having a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting human comprehension."
That was not true of belief systems elsewhere. A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever, and is just "what happens to be" does not suggest that it has fundamental principles that are rational and discoverable. Other belief systems have considered the natural world to be an insoluble mystery, conceived of it as a realm in which multiple, arbitrary gods are at work, or thought of it in animistic terms. None of these views will, or did, give rise to a deep faith that there is a lawful order imparted by a divine creator that can and should be discovered.
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.phpid=tqm4xd5mqkk5px43d968m19qmf4w3g5y
Posted by: taba at August 13, 2007 09:00 PM (lftai)
Posted by: david at August 13, 2007 09:22 PM (DHJuY)
Posted by: Aaron at August 14, 2007 03:43 AM (ixJmT)
Posted by: Mike G in Corvallis at August 14, 2007 05:29 AM (uZ0g+)
The idea of an "old guard" defending against classic ideas is not only well documented, but part of post Popper scientific historical theory.
Posted by: JJ in NY at August 14, 2007 07:33 AM (N4N2l)
They also seem to be mired in vindictiveness. Example: at one of those "Islamic science" conferences in the 1980s, the attendees burned a set of works by Paracelsus, because back in the 16th Century Paracelsus once burned a set of books by Geber in public. Paracelsus, of course, was doing that to illustrate his notion that medieval medicine was a bunch of nonsense. Of course, modern Western medicine views Paracelsus's work as a bunch of nonsense, too -- but that made no difference to the Muslim "scientists." Their boy had been dissed, and they had to respond.
Posted by: Trimegistus at August 14, 2007 07:42 AM (DP6iH)
<blockquote>You don't read this follow-up as suggesting that an "Islamic science" would still be science so long as it's "done well"? Because I do. </blockquote>
This perspective is, um, rather strange. An interviewer asking a question does not mean they are actually advocating the point contained within the question. Read some Playboy interviews and you'll see what I mean.
<blockquote>1. A show-offy need to vomit all his research onto the reader. You know, "so-and-so has noted (some piece of arcana)..." This signals the interviewer belongs to the smart set. I.e., the he's the type of person who "chuckles knowingly" and just loud enough to make sure those in the vicinity are aware that he already was familiar with the work/anecdote/event/etc. in question before the presenter/interviewee/docent/etc. revealed it to us plebes.
In other words, typical NPR.</blockquote>
It's pretty funny to read this rant against the snobby, book-reading, <i>researching</i> NPR poindexter while we're talking about the anti-intellectualism of Muslims vis-a-vis science.
Posted by: Hubris at August 14, 2007 08:16 AM (oHmsT)
HTML fixed, my apologies:
You don't read this follow-up as suggesting that an "Islamic science" would still be science so long as it's "done well"? Because I do.
This perspective is, um, rather strange. An interviewer asking a question does not mean they are actually advocating the point contained within the question. Read some Playboy interviews and you'll see what I mean.
1. A show-offy need to vomit all his research onto the reader. You know, "so-and-so has noted (some piece of arcana)..." This signals the interviewer belongs to the smart set. I.e., the he's the type of person who "chuckles knowingly" and just loud enough to make sure those in the vicinity are aware that he already was familiar with the work/anecdote/event/etc. in question before the presenter/interviewee/docent/etc. revealed it to us plebes.
In other words, typical NPR.
It's pretty funny to read this rant against the snobby, book-reading, researching NPR poindexter while we're talking about the anti-intellectualism of Muslims vis-a-vis science.
Posted by: Hubris at August 14, 2007 08:21 AM (oHmsT)
This is actually the opposite of Ace's critique. The interview subject himself holds the position that Islam hinders scientific advancement, and Ace is complaining that the interviewer is overly resistant to that thesis.
Posted by: tps12 at August 14, 2007 08:57 AM (FBKx0)
Fair enough. I hope, though, that you realize that my post was not against research or intellectualism. In fact, I'm sure you do. Anyone who gets Playboy for the articles must of necessity be a, um (love that um) "close" reader.
Posted by: mrobvious at August 14, 2007 11:38 AM (8Y/fG)
"Knowledge" of the physical world is so-called because all of it's characteristics, premises etc can be and are quantified and open to challenge by anyone.
This term therefore doesn't apply when we are talking about the spiritual world aka religion.
E.g. if I say the earth is flat, you can disprove me easily. If I say God exists, you can't prove me wrong anymore than I can prove myself right.
As regards religion, you can prove what is listed in your scriptures - that's it. In doing so you have in no way proven aspect one of your religion's spiritual entities, planes of existence or any of the other mystical elements of your religion.
That's the point of religion - it's ultimately a matter of faith. Faith by definition is the opposite of knowledge.
So when a person says science and spiritual beliefs should be interconnected, what exactly does that mean? It has kind of a nice multi-culti ring to it, but what about specifics? The only way I can see it going is for religion to get back into the business of monitoring and checking science, since we've already established that the tenets of religion are impervious to science - which gets us back to the world that tried very hard to quash any attempts at convincing us that the earth was round or that the universe did not in fact revolve around it.
Only this time with an imam (or more likely a feuding global collection of them) calling the shots rather than the Pope.
But maybe someone can envision (in specific terms) a different way that science and spiritualism could be "interconnected"?
Posted by: Scott at August 14, 2007 01:29 PM (FAHM2)
But maybe someone can envision (in specific terms) a different way that science and spiritualism could be "interconnected"?
Many of the trailblazing scientists of that period when science came into full bloom were devout Christian believers, and declared that their work was inspired by a desire to explore God's creation and discover its glories.
Posted by: taba at August 14, 2007 01:43 PM (lftai)
Anyone who gets Playboy for the articles...
...I gotta switch to the unsoiled pages at some point, brother.
must of necessity be a, um (love that um) "close" reader.
It is a popular rhetorical device!
Posted by: Hubris at August 14, 2007 02:28 PM (qFBSk)
Posted by: Chimaxx at August 14, 2007 03:34 PM (+JG14)
I have very feet
[URL=http://number-one-xxx.org]Fun SEX videos[/URL]
[url=http://barsonter.info]Finance[/url]
[url=http://jonnson.info]Gambling[/url]
[url=http://online-ppc.org]Travel[/url]
[url=http://search-town.orgBusiness[/url]
[url=http://searchtown.org]Health[/url]
Posted by: Funnypcz at September 05, 2007 04:17 AM (t8DdI)
Posted by: FLV Converter at January 06, 2008 07:28 AM (0H4cx)
[url= http://toplop.com/?idAff=143]Russian brides[/url]
[url=http://russianbride.blogsboom.com/]Russian brides blog[/url]
Posted by: adpqajb at January 08, 2008 11:52 PM (a+Jrb)
Posted by: tagafa at May 14, 2008 04:18 AM (1gNqf)
Posted by: video2flv at May 17, 2008 11:16 AM (1LVn3)
Posted by: john at July 16, 2008 12:17 PM (D2SpB)
Posted by: Mac Software at July 19, 2008 06:04 AM (ipVgs)
Posted by: love at July 21, 2008 06:00 PM (D2SpB)
Posted by: 出 mtcmtmail= at August 15, 2008 10:20 AM (URIJq)
i am looking for discount airline tickets
Contour Pillow Travel For You
Do you want renters insurance
All kinds of insurance sample cancellation letter
how much does life insurance cost
Automobile Insurance Rules All Kinds
All about cheap california auto insurance
What Is The Average Price Of Life Insurance Now
Whole Life Insurance Pictures
" >
" >
" >
" >
" >
Posted by: Bad Credit Student Loans at November 06, 2008 12:17 PM (ep4c6)
I like this new dumb blonde jokes
3d Porn Now
kim possible porn
My First Sex Teacher Great
pinay sex scandal download
All kinds of celebrity sex tapes
Pamela Anderson Sex Tape Now
britney spears sex tape
Now family guy porn
Posted by: Big Tits Round Asses at November 15, 2008 09:51 AM (J6EFL)
Posted by: dressshoes at November 21, 2008 03:18 AM (bYVeT)
Information about no credit check student loan
Discount high risk personal loans
replica rolex watches
1000 loan payday
Airline Discount Student Ticket All Kinds
Good airline discount ticket military
Free Kim Possible Sex Comic Online
Real pamela anderson sex tape
Pictures of very short skirts
Posted by: No Credit Check Car Loans at November 21, 2008 07:33 PM (f0229)
Brilliant free sample sex xxx
Ebony Free Sex Thumbnail In Internet
Film Free Hilton Paris Sex Information
Clip Free Movie Sex Stocking For You
asian free porn sex
Do you want black free porn sex
Information about free free porn sex
Cheapest free jjj porn sex xxx
Forum Free Indian Sex Story Information
Posted by: Film Free Porn Sex at December 03, 2008 01:42 PM (FSK4L)
Keeley Hazell Sex Tape Here
I like this paris hilton sex tape
kim kardashian sex tape
No Credit Check Loans All Kinds
Very Short Skirts Online
Knock Off Coach Purses Information
Super Cheap Airplane Tickets All Here
Short Skirt Gallery Here
Greatest high risk personal loans
Posted by: Pamela Anderson Sex Tape Online at December 04, 2008 08:06 PM (dtGS8)
interracial sex
her first anal sex
Lindsay Lohan Sex Tape Information
I like this keeley hazell sex tape
Good knock off designer purses
fake designer purses
Nice replica coach purses
Chanel Purses In Internet
Purse Organizer Yeah
No Credit Check Student Loans Great
insurance sample cancellation letter
Posted by: Web Cam Sex at December 05, 2008 10:38 AM (mF1ls)
Prepaid Visa Travel Card In The World
Brilliant xanax online overnight shipping
transparent bikini
Groping Train In The World
First knock off designer purse
gas powered scooters
asian sex
gay sex stories
Great sex in the shower
Posted by: Cheap Cigarettes at December 12, 2008 12:24 PM (JiJF3)
Now military loans
Information about prepaid visa travel card
Do you want mortgage rates predictions
gas powered scooters
groping train
canadian national debt clock
very short skirts
Simple Interest Loan Calculator Online
debt cures
Posted by: Cheap Cigarettes Online at December 22, 2008 02:58 PM (ieIA3)
Price of lindsay lohan sex tape
Now paris hilton sex tape
Best pamela anderson sex tape
keeley hazell sex tape
knock off coach purses
Bad Credit Student Loans - Best Decisions
I like this high risk personal loans
Great no credit check loans
very short skirts
Posted by: Kim Kardashian Sex Tape Online at December 23, 2008 02:44 PM (+BNQU)
Lindsay Lohan Sex Tape In Internet
Paris Hilton Sex Tape All Here
pamela anderson sex tape
knock off coach purses
keeley hazell sex tape
Bad Credit Student Loans Pictures
insurance sample cancellation letter
Information about very short skirts
Pictures of no credit check loans
Posted by: Kim Kardashiansex Tape Online at December 29, 2008 04:56 PM (mEQ9V)
Posted by: High risk personal loans at January 13, 2009 07:47 PM (KWuMb)
Posted by: 家出少女 at January 30, 2009 07:47 AM (hXNNS)
, >
D, Pamela Anderson Sex Tape For Everybody,
P, groping train, %[[, Paris Hilton Sex Tape All Kinds
, 607, no credit check loans
, %-),
Posted by: rimshot at February 10, 2009 06:30 PM (xG+/v)
, 36197, Kristin Davis Sex Tape All Kinds
, >:-[[, kim kardashian sex tape
, >:-))), Real vanessa hudgens sex tape
, pfzzl, Noelia Sex Tape All Here
, qkygu,
Posted by: satronaut at March 14, 2009 03:02 AM (OAc2K)
, 8663, Keeley Hazell Sex Tape For You
, hvld, Greatest jenni rivera sex tape
, %-[[[, paris hilton sex tape
, 11040, R Kelly Sex Tape Here
, crg,
Posted by: ramanasia at March 14, 2009 12:38 PM (HQbna)
Posted by: Robert at March 14, 2009 07:30 PM (tUE8B)
, mhtojl, unsecured personal loans
, =-]]], mortgage rates predictions
, pvla, Dirt Cheap Airline Tickets Yeah
, 98550, Consumer Credit Counseling Now
, 8DD,
Posted by: gunzone at March 16, 2009 09:24 AM (ybSp8)
,
, adriana lima sex tape, 8-[, alyson hannigan sex tape
, dwj, Brilliant very short skirts
, 61931, Pictures of verne troyer sex tape
, 630250,
Posted by: mikey at March 16, 2009 04:08 PM (1Rxd/)
, >
, Good pamela anderson sex tape, zcgf, All about kim kardashian sex tape
, zabtaz, Vanessa Hudgens Sex Tape All Here
, oomtrm, Noelia Sex Tape In The World
, eacka,
Posted by: sdfipoipw at March 18, 2009 03:19 AM (0MedG)
, ery, Brilliant no credit check loans
, 168, Best high risk personal loans
, =-D, Greatest no credit check student loans
, oco, Nice 1000 loan payday
, >:-[,
Posted by: tranzostor at March 19, 2009 11:54 AM (0F3rl)
, 6934, verne troyer sex tape
, 9678, Do you want adriana lima sex tape
, 547245, cheap cigarettes
, %[[[, Very Short Skirts Photos
, >:-))),
Posted by: gunar4sin at March 21, 2009 02:50 PM (KrOaM)
, %-(((, Pamela Anderson Sex Tape In Internet
, bba, All kinds of vanessa hudgens sex tape
, tbi, kim kardashian sex tape
, 93628, All about noelia sex tape
, %-)),
Posted by: rindonaziz at March 21, 2009 10:14 PM (KSd6R)
, tgc, Buy adriana lima sex tape
, %], Alyson Hannigan Sex Tape Real
, 80464, Very Short Skirts For You
, >:], verne troyer sex tape
, >:-DDD,
Posted by: paul at March 23, 2009 04:28 AM (OJZUC)
, 8-)), No Credit Check Loans Real
, >
D, super cheap airplane tickets, 8-]], Knock Off Coach Purses Now
,
(, All kinds of bad credit student loans, 6007,
Posted by: dssweow at March 23, 2009 01:14 PM (CgUR0)
Posted by: Isabel at July 21, 2009 11:41 PM (O7ANZ)
Posted by: Christian Louboutin at July 31, 2009 03:19 AM (gPhKU)
Posted by: google排名 at August 19, 2009 08:43 PM (4P9QF)
I thought that you should be a very fashionable attractive person, then
I suggested that you want buy rolex watches or buy beautiful omega watch, In here everyone have one replica watches in our young
people.Because, the fashion and the quality will be equal to the
replica watches , but the price will not actually the omega watch .
to be expensive, it is very cost-effective
Posted by: omega watches at August 20, 2009 02:34 AM (E9lCL)
Posted by: NFL jerseys at August 30, 2009 11:47 PM (IOLnZ)
Posted by: wedding dress factory at September 15, 2009 08:49 PM (YEHDM)
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!
Posted by: hair straighteners at October 25, 2009 01:05 AM (MtGwJ)
tiffany rings
discount tiffany jewellery
tiffany ring
tiffany pendants
tiffany jewelry
tiffany jewellery
tiffany earrings
tiffany earring
cheap bags
wallets
breitling watch
tiffany rings
discount tiffany jewellery
tiffany ring
cheap bags
wallets
Posted by: Alexis Suen at October 27, 2009 03:49 AM (+f/Gw)
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping
Posted by: airforceoneshop at November 01, 2009 09:15 PM (wMYD4)
Posted by: ttrtrtrert at November 05, 2009 10:18 PM (wYEI1)
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force one
UGG Boots
UGG Australia
UGG Shoes
UGG Sale
Cheap UGG
mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt saleform usa
Posted by: airforceoneshop at November 09, 2009 07:41 AM (pEyMs)
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping
Posted by: ugg boots at November 14, 2009 10:50 AM (s7MB5)
Posted by: Gucci Womens Shoes at November 16, 2009 07:46 PM (7ECvT)
Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 03:52 AM (xpuiO)
Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 08:57 PM (xpuiO)
Posted by: christian louboutin sale at November 17, 2009 09:43 PM (amVaT)
Posted by: jerry at November 17, 2009 10:28 PM (u4JJm)
Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 04:44 AM (C/zDM)
Processing 0.1, elapsed 0.0959 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.011 seconds, 111 records returned.
Page size 162 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.
Dale's ECB
Election Projection
Federal Review
Real Clear Politics
Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
Zogby
FoxNews Polls
Sabato/Crystal Ball
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)