Fascinating. Over at our discussion board, Zameel actually cited "Aydin Sayili (1987). "Ibn Sīnā and Buridan on the Motion of the Projectile", Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences" as proof impetus was an Islamic idea. The article exposes this as false. Glad I never bothered chase the reference down.
Building on the mythology of conflict of 'science-and-all-that-is-good against the evil-patriarchal-childabusing-antiscientific-witchburning-catholic-church'
It seems deeply unfortunate that medieval science (in both Europe and Arabia) appears at times to be surrounded by a smokescreen of ideology. From what little I've read, it seems both the standard "everything happened earlier in Arabia" and "everything happened later in the European Renaissance" are both grossly simplistic. What we need is more objective analysis and less of the whitewashing that seems to be going on at Wikipedia.
Fascinating. Over at our discussion board, Zameel actually cited "Aydin Sayili (1987). "Ibn Sīnā and Buridan on the Motion of the Projectile", Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences" as proof impetus was an Islamic idea. The article exposes this as false. Glad I never bothered chase the reference down.
ReplyDeleteHi, James
ReplyDeleteI'm a big fan of your blog, and keep 'God's Philosophers' to hand at all times.
Sorry to diverge from the topic, but there's a particularly daft article on the Telegraph site which I thought you'd like to comment on:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/7833070/Michelangelo-hid-anatomical-sketches-in-Sistine-Chapel-in-Church-attack.html
Building on the mythology of conflict of 'science-and-all-that-is-good against the evil-patriarchal-childabusing-antiscientific-witchburning-catholic-church'
It seems deeply unfortunate that medieval science (in both Europe and Arabia) appears at times to be surrounded by a smokescreen of ideology. From what little I've read, it seems both the standard "everything happened earlier in Arabia" and "everything happened later in the European Renaissance" are both grossly simplistic. What we need is more objective analysis and less of the whitewashing that seems to be going on at Wikipedia.
ReplyDelete