![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
BrownStud.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lolbud0,
Díkopos. Peer reviewers:
Vera0101,
Clayerone.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Since I started editing this page I've preserved the statement that al-Shatir "eliminated entirely the epicycle in the solar model, the eccentrics and equants in the planetary models, and the eccentric, epicycles and equant in the lunar model", but have not confirmed that this is an accurate or adequate summation of the reference cited. It doesn't sound right, particularly the lunar model, which is left by that description as an elementary circle, even though al-Shatir could not possibly explain changes in the Moon's distance/apparent size with a circular orbit, and the literature always compares the difficulties in the lunar model to that of mercury, as particularly troublesome, be it Ptolemy or al-Tusi. Furthermore, Saliba (Islamic Science...p123) clarifies that Ptolemy explicitly allowed that the epicycle and the eccentric were mathematically and observationally equivalent, an observation repeated often in the literature, so one could trade one for the other. In at least hindsight this is also true of the equant. Al-Shatir's model is, in this sense, just the first demonstration of Hanson's famous paper (1960) on the utility of the epicycle. Also, did al-Shatir use the same solution as Ptolemy for the latitudinal motions/axial tilt? What else justifies the statement, left here before me, that al-Shatir's work might be considered a "Scientific Revolution before the Renaissance"? He rectified Aristotelian physics with Ptolemaic cosmology, and that is a very great achievement, but an entirely different one than what followed Copernicus, who had no particularly good reason or observation for his model, AFAIK, until Galileo's observations of Jupiter's moons cast a shadow on Aristotle that hypothetical epicycles never could.
Also, isn't that a cute turn of phrase? "Galileo's observations of Jupiter's moons cast a shadow on Aristotle that hypothetical epicycles never could". With a little polish that might even become pretty damned fantastic. I must be ripping somebody off.
buermann ( talk) 05:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
If this is not intended to give the impression that Ibn Shater deserves credit for heliocentrism in place of Copernicus, then it is very badly worded indeed. If it is, it is not supported by any of the works cited.
Ibn al-Shatir did important astronomical work, and his solution for removing equants was also used at one time by Copernicus, though not in his final formulation. There is no sort of evidence that Copernicus knew of the earlier work, and opinions are divided. Nor was al-Shatir's system heliocentric. (See the Gingerich citation.)
Why is it better to make misleading or false assertions than to give al-Shatir the credit he deserves? I'm undertaking to fix this, but we need (as I have said so many times before) someone who knows Islamic science to do it right. The lashings-out of partisans are not useful in Wikipedia, even when they are in behalf of historically neglected areas. -- Dandrake 00:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Could someone document the claim that Ibn al-Shatir was responsible for the separation of astronomy from natural philosophy? The separation of the two was already clear at the time of the philosopher Aristotle, who clearly differentiated the role of astronomy as providing knowledge of the fact (scientia quia), from that of philosophy which provided knowledge of the cause of the fact (scientia propter quid); and the astronomer Ptolemy, who wrote of mathematical astronomy in his Almagest and Handy Tables, and of physical cosmology and the causes of celestial motions in his Planetary Hypotheses. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC); revised 04:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.
Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup5. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.
A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.
Johnuniq ( talk) 11:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ibn al-Shatir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
BrownStud.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lolbud0,
Díkopos. Peer reviewers:
Vera0101,
Clayerone.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Since I started editing this page I've preserved the statement that al-Shatir "eliminated entirely the epicycle in the solar model, the eccentrics and equants in the planetary models, and the eccentric, epicycles and equant in the lunar model", but have not confirmed that this is an accurate or adequate summation of the reference cited. It doesn't sound right, particularly the lunar model, which is left by that description as an elementary circle, even though al-Shatir could not possibly explain changes in the Moon's distance/apparent size with a circular orbit, and the literature always compares the difficulties in the lunar model to that of mercury, as particularly troublesome, be it Ptolemy or al-Tusi. Furthermore, Saliba (Islamic Science...p123) clarifies that Ptolemy explicitly allowed that the epicycle and the eccentric were mathematically and observationally equivalent, an observation repeated often in the literature, so one could trade one for the other. In at least hindsight this is also true of the equant. Al-Shatir's model is, in this sense, just the first demonstration of Hanson's famous paper (1960) on the utility of the epicycle. Also, did al-Shatir use the same solution as Ptolemy for the latitudinal motions/axial tilt? What else justifies the statement, left here before me, that al-Shatir's work might be considered a "Scientific Revolution before the Renaissance"? He rectified Aristotelian physics with Ptolemaic cosmology, and that is a very great achievement, but an entirely different one than what followed Copernicus, who had no particularly good reason or observation for his model, AFAIK, until Galileo's observations of Jupiter's moons cast a shadow on Aristotle that hypothetical epicycles never could.
Also, isn't that a cute turn of phrase? "Galileo's observations of Jupiter's moons cast a shadow on Aristotle that hypothetical epicycles never could". With a little polish that might even become pretty damned fantastic. I must be ripping somebody off.
buermann ( talk) 05:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
If this is not intended to give the impression that Ibn Shater deserves credit for heliocentrism in place of Copernicus, then it is very badly worded indeed. If it is, it is not supported by any of the works cited.
Ibn al-Shatir did important astronomical work, and his solution for removing equants was also used at one time by Copernicus, though not in his final formulation. There is no sort of evidence that Copernicus knew of the earlier work, and opinions are divided. Nor was al-Shatir's system heliocentric. (See the Gingerich citation.)
Why is it better to make misleading or false assertions than to give al-Shatir the credit he deserves? I'm undertaking to fix this, but we need (as I have said so many times before) someone who knows Islamic science to do it right. The lashings-out of partisans are not useful in Wikipedia, even when they are in behalf of historically neglected areas. -- Dandrake 00:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Could someone document the claim that Ibn al-Shatir was responsible for the separation of astronomy from natural philosophy? The separation of the two was already clear at the time of the philosopher Aristotle, who clearly differentiated the role of astronomy as providing knowledge of the fact (scientia quia), from that of philosophy which provided knowledge of the cause of the fact (scientia propter quid); and the astronomer Ptolemy, who wrote of mathematical astronomy in his Almagest and Handy Tables, and of physical cosmology and the causes of celestial motions in his Planetary Hypotheses. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC); revised 04:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.
Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup5. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.
A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.
Johnuniq ( talk) 11:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ibn al-Shatir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)