![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Comment The third sentence in the lede contradicts the Continuity thesis.
I removed that part on the grounds of WP:Scope, WP:Synthesis, WP:Undue, that is
I am ready to engage in any discussion of the cited sources, and, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability (footnote 2), I invite the original creator to talk them through with me, one by one if necessary. I start with Hill and Hassan which were quoted as proponents of a so-called "Muslim scientific revolution" (Ahmad Y Hassan and Donald Routledge Hill (1986), Islamic Technology: An Illustrated History, p. 282, Cambridge University Press):
While Islamic religion was the main impulse behind the renaissance of science at the zenith of Muslim Arab civilisation, it was partly the post-sixteenth century rise of clerical faction which froze this same science and withered its progress. Western Christendom had similar religious set-backs, apostatic movements which tried to hinder the scientific revolution in the West. But the triumph of religious fanaticism over science in Muslim lands would not have succeeded had there been sufficient economic prosperity to generate a demand for science and technology. For Islam, as we have mentioned, was the driving force behind the Muslim scientific revolution when the Muslim state had reached its peak. In the ages of decadence, however, the movement of religious fanaticism against science was no other than an outstanding symptom of political and economic disintegration. (p. 282)
So, while the duo indeed uses once the phrase of a "Muslim scientific revolution", the context within they provide it stresses very much the limitations of this phenomenon; it is important to notice that neither here nor elsewhere in their book (which deals with technology through and through) they described, defined or justified such a revolution. Thus, it is obvious that they do not mean to advance a concept comparable to the Scientific Revolution, but merely one of a significance mainly limited to Islamic civilization (if at all). Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 21:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Grant
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hill
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Salam
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Briffault
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Comment The third sentence in the lede contradicts the Continuity thesis.
I removed that part on the grounds of WP:Scope, WP:Synthesis, WP:Undue, that is
I am ready to engage in any discussion of the cited sources, and, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability (footnote 2), I invite the original creator to talk them through with me, one by one if necessary. I start with Hill and Hassan which were quoted as proponents of a so-called "Muslim scientific revolution" (Ahmad Y Hassan and Donald Routledge Hill (1986), Islamic Technology: An Illustrated History, p. 282, Cambridge University Press):
While Islamic religion was the main impulse behind the renaissance of science at the zenith of Muslim Arab civilisation, it was partly the post-sixteenth century rise of clerical faction which froze this same science and withered its progress. Western Christendom had similar religious set-backs, apostatic movements which tried to hinder the scientific revolution in the West. But the triumph of religious fanaticism over science in Muslim lands would not have succeeded had there been sufficient economic prosperity to generate a demand for science and technology. For Islam, as we have mentioned, was the driving force behind the Muslim scientific revolution when the Muslim state had reached its peak. In the ages of decadence, however, the movement of religious fanaticism against science was no other than an outstanding symptom of political and economic disintegration. (p. 282)
So, while the duo indeed uses once the phrase of a "Muslim scientific revolution", the context within they provide it stresses very much the limitations of this phenomenon; it is important to notice that neither here nor elsewhere in their book (which deals with technology through and through) they described, defined or justified such a revolution. Thus, it is obvious that they do not mean to advance a concept comparable to the Scientific Revolution, but merely one of a significance mainly limited to Islamic civilization (if at all). Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 21:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Grant
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hill
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Salam
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Briffault
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).