History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 - Lawrence M. Principe, The Great Courses

This post has 10 comments with rating of 5/510

• 
  rawy
  February 16th, 2022
  

  I hope this ones better than other history of science books.

  Copernicus studied in Italy, few years after the fall of the Islamic Sicily, where Arab and Islamic science and philosophy had serious studies.

  Ibn al-Shatir’s model for the appearances of Mercury, showing the multiplication of epicycles using the Tusi couple, thus eliminating the Ptolemaic eccentrics and equant.

  Ibn Al-Shatir inventor of the first astrolabic clock, predicted that the sun instead of the Earth is the center of the universe hundred of years before Copernicus, as they began a systemic critique of Classic cosmology as early as the 11th century.
  In some instance, as in case of the model for the motion of planet Mercury, it was found that Copernicus even made mistakes in his interpretation of the earlier mathematical model that he apparently inherited from the works of the Muslim astronomer Ibn al-Shatir. In other instances he remained faithful to the mathematical formulations that were developed by other astronomers of the Islamic world such as Mu’ayyad al-Din al-’Urdi and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi

  History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 - Lawrence M. Principe, The Great Courses
• 
  caesar963
  February 16th, 2022
  

  

  “predicted that sun instead of Earth is the center of universe 100s yrs before Copernicus”

  Copernicus adopted a heliocentric model while Ibn al-Shatir (& all Muslim astronomers) assumed a geocentric model, as strictly as possible.

  Copernicus followed a clear inductive method while Ibn al-Shatir remained within the Zij (astronomical tables) tradition. Induction is cool.

  Neither Ibn al-Shatir nor any Muslim astronomer accepted, let alone proposed, a heliocentric model.

  Thx, JesusAngelSolana, definitely should listen & learn!

  History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 - Lawrence M. Principe, The Great Courses
• 
  rawy
  February 16th, 2022
  

  >Neither Ibn al-Shatir nor any Muslim astronomer accepted, let alone proposed, a heliocentric model.

  yeah its going to be long but since we like reading and listening to books here I go:

  Expressing a fact is different from proving it!
  To “talk” about a fact is rather a prediction. Insights are of course valuable; It is a great skill to be able to predict that a thought will ultimately lead you to a result.
  ——————————-
  >Aristarchus also mentions heliocentric model
  >The Hellenistic Greek astronomer Seleucus of Seleucia, who advocated a heliocentric model in the 2nd century BC and his work has survived only in Arabic translation, which was later referred to by the Persian philosopher Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi (865–925).

  this is important because muslims knew this was the case.

  >In the late ninth century, Ja’far ibn Muhammad Abu Ma’shar al-Balkhi (Albumasar) developed a planetary model which some have interpreted as a heliocentric model. This is due to his orbital revolutions of the planets being given as heliocentric revolutions rather than geocentric revolutions, and the only known planetary theory in which this occurs is in the heliocentric theory. His work on planetary theory has not survived, but his astronomical data was later recorded by al-Hashimi, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī and al-Sijzi.

  >In his Indica, al-Biruni briefly refers to his work on the refutation of heliocentrism, the Key of Astronomy, which is now lost:[49]

  “The most prominent of both modern and ancient astronomers have deeply studied the question of the moving earth, and tried to refute it. We, too, have composed a book on the subject called Miftah ‘ilm al-hai’ah (Key of Astronomy), in which we think we have surpassed our predecessors, if not in the words, at all events in the matter.”

  >In 1030, Abū al-Rayhān al-Bīrūnī discussed the Indian planetary theories of Aryabhata, Brahmagupta and Varahamihira in his Ta’rikh al-Hind (Latinized as Indica). Biruni stated that Brahmagupta and others consider that the earth rotates on its axis and Biruni noted that this does not create any mathematical problems.[62] Abu Said al-Sijzi, a contemporary of al-Biruni, suggested the possible heliocentric movement of the Earth around the Sun, which al-Biruni did not reject.

  he says: “Rotation of the earth would in no way invalidate astronomical calculations, for all the astronomical data are as explicable in terms of the one theory as of the other. The problem is thus difficult of solution.”

  >Tusi’s student Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi (1236–1311), in his The Limit of Accomplishment concerning Knowledge of the Heavens, discussed the possibility of heliocentrism. Al-Qazwīnī al-Kātibī, who also worked at the Maragheh observatory, in his Hikmat al-’Ain, wrote an argument for a heliocentric model.though he later abandoned the idea

  >Qushji’s work is considered to be a “conceptual revolution” that had no precedent in European astronomy prior to the Copernican Revolution in the 16th century.Qushji’s view on the Earth’s motion was similar to the later views of Nicolaus Copernicus on this issue

  ***However, it is likely that they both may have arrived at similar conclusions due to using the earlier work of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi as a basis. This is more of a possibility considering “the remarkable coincidence between a passage in De revolutionibus (I.8) and one in Ṭūsī’s Tadhkira (II.1[6]) in which Copernicus follows Ṭūsī’s objection to Ptolemy’s “proofs” of the Earth’s immobility
  ——————————–

  Now another good prediction is form the Atom theory !

  Jabir bin Hayyan was the first scientist to say that 1000 years before the atomic bomb was produced, the atom could be split, and as a result a great power would emerge.

  There is an intense energy in “el-juz’ü la yetecezza”, which is the smallest part of matter. It cannot be said that it cannot be disintegrated, as the Greek scholars said. Atoms can also be split. When it is destroyed, such a power emerges that it can turn Baghdad upside down in an instant. This is Allâhu ta’âlâ’s insignia of power.”

  The French historian of science, M. Berthelot, says this about Cabir bin Hayyan: “Jabir bin Hayyan’s place in the science of chemistry is the same as Aristotle’s place in the science of logic. Just as Aristotle is accepted as the founder and master of logic, Jabir bin Hayyan is also the founder and master of chemistry.”

  History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 - Lawrence M. Principe, The Great Courses
• 
  rawy
  February 16th, 2022
  

  >Neither Ibn al-Shatir nor any Muslim astronomer accepted, let alone proposed, a heliocentric model.

  Expressing a fact is different from proving it!
  To “talk” about a fact is rather a prediction. Insights are of course valuable; It is a great skill to be able to predict that a thought will ultimately lead you to a result.
  ——————————-
  >Aristarchus also mentions heliocentric model
  >The Hellenistic Greek astronomer Seleucus of Seleucia, who advocated a heliocentric model in the 2nd century BC and his work has survived only in Arabic translation, which was later referred to by the Persian philosopher Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi (865–925).

  >In the late ninth century, Ja’far ibn Muhammad Abu Ma’shar al-Balkhi (Albumasar) developed a planetary model which some have interpreted as a heliocentric model. This is due to his orbital revolutions of the planets being given as heliocentric revolutions rather than geocentric revolutions, and the only known planetary theory in which this occurs is in the heliocentric theory. His work on planetary theory has not survived, but his astronomical data was later recorded by al-Hashimi, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī and al-Sijzi.

  -Biruni stated that Brahmagupta and others consider that the earth rotates on its axis and Biruni noted that this does not create any mathematical problems.[62] Abu Said al-Sijzi, a contemporary of al-Biruni, suggested the possible heliocentric movement of the Earth around the Sun, which al-Biruni did not reject.

  he says: “Rotation of the earth would in no way invalidate astronomical calculations, for all the astronomical data are as explicable in terms of the one theory as of the other. The problem is thus difficult of solution.”

  >Tusi’s student Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi (1236–1311), in his The Limit of Accomplishment concerning Knowledge of the Heavens, discussed the possibility of heliocentrism. Al-Qazwīnī al-Kātibī, who also worked at the Maragheh observatory, in his Hikmat al-’Ain, wrote an argument for a heliocentric model.though he later abandoned the idea

  >Qushji’s work is considered to be a “conceptual revolution” that had no precedent in European astronomy prior to the Copernican Revolution in the 16th century.Qushji’s view on the Earth’s motion was similar to the later views of Nicolaus Copernicus on this issue

  ***However, it is likely that they both may have arrived at similar conclusions due to using the earlier work of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi as a basis. This is more of a possibility considering “the remarkable coincidence between a passage in De revolutionibus (I.8) and one in Ṭūsī’s Tadhkira (II.1[6]) in which Copernicus follows Ṭūsī’s objection to Ptolemy’s “proofs” of the Earth’s immobility

  History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 - Lawrence M. Principe, The Great Courses
• 
  iangel
  February 18th, 2022
  

  Thank you so much

  History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 - Lawrence M. Principe, The Great Courses
• 
  caesar963
  February 19th, 2022
  

  (That’s peculiar, I couldn’t even see my own comment until today, never mind the reply. Something up with comment registry & visibility, I’ll warrant.)

  That’s all rather thin & nebulous compared to the actual record. It remains the case that Copernicus adopted a heliocentric model while Ibn al-Shatir (& all Muslim astrons) assumed a geocentric model, as strictly as possible.

  Copernicus followed a clear inductive method while Ibn al-Shatir remained within the Zij (astronomical tables) tradition. These are very different approaches. Almost galactically different.
  Muslim writers did compose many commentaries on the Greeks & their achievements, of course.

  Bertrand Russell’s assessment that “Mohammedan” writers (as he calls them) contributed nothing of any value or merit, being solely commentators, is entirely dismissive & a superior judgment.

  History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 - Lawrence M. Principe, The Great Courses
• 
  rawy
  February 28th, 2022
  

  > caesar963 AYY LMAO

  here just one example

  Jabir bin Hayyan was the first scientist to say that 1000 years before the atomic bomb was produced, the atom could be split, and as a result a great power would emerge.

  There is an intense energy in “el-juz’ü la yetecezza”, which is the smallest part of matter. It cannot be said that it cannot be disintegrated, as the Greek scholars said. Atoms can also be split. When it is destroyed, such a power emerges that it can turn Baghdad upside down in an instant. This is Allâhu ta’âlâ’s insignia of power.”

  The French historian of science, M. Berthelot, says this about Cabir bin Hayyan: “Jabir bin Hayyan’s place in the science of chemistry is the same as Aristotle’s place in the science of logic. Just as Aristotle is accepted as the founder and master of logic, Jabir bin Hayyan is also the founder and master of chemistry.”

  Abu Musa Câbir bin Hayyan, known as the founder of chemistry, is a versatile scientist who lived in the 8th century (721-815). Known as “Geber” in the West, Cabir bin Hayyan was born into a family of pharmacists.

  When we consider all the technical and scientific infrastructure in the field of chemistry, we can say that almost everything belongs to him.

  History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 - Lawrence M. Principe, The Great Courses
• 
  caesar963
  March 4th, 2022
  

  (comment registry a bit sticky at my end.)

  Again, diverting stuff, but oddly off the point (Jabir or Câbir?).
  Original ref still too thin & nebulous compared to the actual record. Remains the case that Copernicus adopted a heliocentric model while Ibn al-Shatir (& all Muslim astrons) assumed a geocentric model, as strictly as possible.

  Copernicus followed a clear inductive method while Ibn al-Shatir remained within the Zij (astron tables) tradition. These are very different approaches.
  Muslim writers did compose many commentaries on the Greeks & their achievements, however.

  This drew Russell’s rather dismissive evaluation that “Mohammedan” writers contributed nothing of any value or merit, being solely commentators.

  History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 - Lawrence M. Principe, The Great Courses
• 
  Shariif
  April 20th, 2022
  

  caesar963

  Why can’t I see any fact based argument from your end? You’re just repeating the same thing and how a drew Russell (of whom we know nothing about) thought about the muhamammadan writers. Show references and proof your argument and don’t just repeat what you hear others say or write. Thank you sir

  History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 - Lawrence M. Principe, The Great Courses
• 
  caesar963
  April 20th, 2022
  

  

  My estimable friend, Shariif: we don’t know anything about Bertrand Russell? What do you mean? That’s a new one, he is far from being an eldritch enigma. And who are “we?” The reasonably well-known Russell’s dismissal, as I observed, was a little discourteous & insensitive.

  You can’t see how Rawy repeatedly attempted distractions, and then revealingly completely abandoned his attempts to co-opt Copernicus’ superlative achievements? This abandonment exposes the contrived effort, of course. You didn’t notice this? P’haps you did not read the full sequence of comments, for fuller understanding. Russell was referenced earlier as well.

  I had to draw him back to the point at issue - the point which he himself had raised, before he amusingly abandoned it. (This necessitated repeating the established factual record.) And then he tried the transparent tactic of introducing wholly extraneous & irrelevant matter to divert from the actual issue.

  You regard the established, recorded & attested to fact that Copernicus demonstrably adopted a heliocentric model while al-Shatir assumed a geocentric model, as not being fact-based? In what respect? This being the key fact, as detailed above.
  His inductive approach over against the barren & ineffective Zij tradition, facilitated Copernicus’ great achievements & breakthrough. Unless the argument here is that geocentrism is more the valid & viable model, which I hope nobody is contending here!

  At any rate, it sounds as though you might even share my fascination for the hx & philosophy of science, and the sublime hx of ideas, generally.

  To the sources concerning the contrasting astronomical approaches; and some helpful references which you ought to read in this specific connexion, to gain insight: T.S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought (Harvard U Press), 1985
  F.J. Ragep, Hist Sci, 45, 65, 2007. (Also, Sci in Context, 14, 145, 2001.)
  I. Fernini, A Bibliography of Scholars in Medieval Islam (Cult Foundation, Abu Dhabi), 1998, 381.
  E.S. Kennedy & V. Roberts, Isis, 50,227, 1959.
  O. Gingerich, Scientific Amer, 254, 1986.

  Also, superb bks on this domain: Owen Gingerich’s book, The Book Nobody Read; The Copernican Question by Robert Westman; On the Shoulders of Giants, 2002, ed by Hawking. And many more, of course.

  Please explore, my dear Shariif, a fascinatingly enriching area of study.

  History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 - Lawrence M. Principe, The Great Courses

Add a comment (please log in before commenting)