Correlation does not imply causation - TF and his interlocutors

[eyes21st]

The debate reminds me on this post from (Grupthink Demoracy Mk2)

"For those that don't believe in democracy at all. Our infrastructures are not perfect but they are many years advanced from most troubled countries. Our political & legal systems are very far from perfect, but they usually protected us from the most unpleasant traits in our recent history. We no longer tolerate the burning of those accused of been witches or have ax wielding warring tribes or clans!"

[eyes21st]

The debate remindeds me on this post from (Grupthink Demoracy Mk2)

"For those that don't believe in democracy at all. Our infrastructures are not perfect but they are many years advanced from most troubled countries. Our political & legal systems are very far from perfect, but they usually protected us from the most unpleasant traits in our recent history. We no longer tolerate the burning of those accused of been witches or have ax wielding warring tribes or clans!"

[bellyzbad]

coughlan FTW 

[CaliforniaStratCat]

Excellent. As you point out so well, while Tfoot does use some pretty outrageous and provocative (and often hilarious btw) images and associations in support of his arguments his logic is very sound and backed by solid facts and observation.

Nice job, thanks.

[Not2Sane]

Islam was also responsible for preserving much of the Greek / Roman knowledge. The Catholic Church did this as well, but the only reason we have such an extensive collection of our past is because both these religions had the foresight to preserve the knowledge of our predecessors. For that, I will always be thankful.

[socrates856]

@Not2Sane I completely agree. It's quite clear that developments in Europe own much to the Islamic Golden Age, in fact it's not clear if Europe would have emerged from it's own dark ages without it.

[FiveFootFall]

@MrDustock If you mean Thunderf00t, he doesn't. Typically it is the extreme to which his detractors go. TF says something critical and the haters interpret that to mean he's calling for genocide. TF has a reaction video to one of his first videos criticizing certain aspects of Islam where he talks about how he didn't mention genocide, everyone else did.

[FiveFootFall]

Neil deGrasse Tyson is so awesome!

[MrEpitome22]

Extremely well put together video. Look forward to more of your work :)

[AtheistMidget]

People like coughlan616 treat all muslims as children. Because he thinks they cant defend themselves, so he has to.

That is why coughlan616 always attacks and sabotages all attempts of legitimate criticism of islam.

But anyone who hasnt got his head up his own ass will know that islam is just a compilation of ideas and that muslims are just like everybody else - they can take criticism.

Just ignore coughlan´s attempts to sabotage all criticism of islam. He loves the attention, you know.

[FiveFootFall]

@AtheistMidget Extremist violence says that they might not appreciate it! lol :)

[amet1980]

# coughlan616 ;well every one with 2 bits of sence ,knows what that cretine's game is.

# Anekantavad; as most islamophilles live in their fantasy world in consern to public attitudes. Its difficult to understand why, but they trully beleive that they represent a majoritarian point of view , instead of the 0.1% they trully represent.

[TurboDally]

I was confused about the Al Ghazallli issue as I've heard too often that he was "pro-science" and didn't spread the idea of "math being of the devil", this is what I hear from Muslims. On the other hand I've come across a few atheists who tell me that Al Ghazalli contributed to the downfall of the Golden Age...

[socrates856]

@TurboDally Check out Fakhry's book. He was not against all inquiry. But he said that if observation/reason and faith collided, we should follow faith. This is classical misology. He felt that math for example was no problem, but physics and philosophy was. I'm simplifying so read the book to get the full scoop. Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong in the specifics (math), but right on the broader point (Al Ghazalli being the first to promote misology and it having lasting impact).

[Loathomar]

@TurboDally He seems a complex charity, he called mathematics and medicine praiseworthy, but that seems to imply the other science was less then praiseworthy. He also bitterly denounced Aristotle, Socrates and other Greek writers. His most influential work was on Islamic religious sciences, which was made to be the most important "sciences", it was not so much a condemnation of real sciences, but a movement to religious sciences.

[johnnystorm28]

"Revelation replaced Investigation" = A very big lie

He is ridiculing Avicenna and Averroes, who followed Quran, verse by verse, who were proud to be Muslims.

I don't know what happened to Islamic World which caused this fall of Scientific Period. Maybe I say "Something replaced Revelation which encouraged Investigation"

That something could be anything, economic downfall, flood or drought, dark age etc etc Don't know really.

But Islam or Quran is not anti-Science.

Thunderf00t lied blatantly.

[johnnystorm28]

@johnnystorm28

I once again say

"Revelation replaced Investigation" = A very big lie

Ridicules all Muslim scientists of Islamic Golden Age, even an average Muslim scientist in Islamic Golden Age, whose scientific output was greater than the whole scientific output of whole Europe, maybe even whole world.

Quran and Islam is not anti-Science

The people who say they follow Quran, maybe Anti-Science

What does Thunderf00t(liar) has to say about this?

[socrates856]

@johnnystorm28 Thanks for your contribution. Clearly you are the one who wants to say what's right or wrong and what is worse, you are now spamming. One more repetitive post and you'll be my first ever blocked commenter. Not a big loss, because clearly you are not interested in honest debate, but being right.

[johnnystorm28]

@socrates856

My statements don't seem honest, even if they are, there is something known as

"Freedom of Speech", come on, prove me wrong

You are censoring my points. If all you want is to agree with what you say, then get a parrot, why did you post this video in first place, with an opinion comes criticism too.

Criticism=is the judgement of the merits and faults of the work or actions of one individual by another (the critic).

[johnnystorm28]

@socrates856

I say "An average Muslim scientist in Islamic Golden Age, had scientific output was greater than the whole scientific output of whole Europe, maybe even whole world."

This statement seems the way in which TF said his calculations(wrong)

But my above point is right, please prove me wrong as you have proved Thunderf00t wrong.

[socrates856]

@johnnystorm28 I have no interest in disproving your claim. And it's totally irrelevant to the debate. Noone argues against the Islamic Golden Age having been great. So drop inserting irrelevant assertions.

Read the book and learn to reflect critically on your own position. You'll be better for it.

[johnnystorm28]

Wiki article title: Timeline of Historic Inventions

/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inv­entions

Islamic World was dominant in Science from early 8th century to mid 15th century.

Islamic Golden Age:8th-11th

Islamic Absolute Caliphate rule with Sharia:8th-11th

Would it be correct to say that Sharia and teachings of Quran has caused such Age of Science ?

Maybe Al-Ghazali caused a decline in scientific progress in the Muslim World

[socrates856]

@johnnystorm28 If you are serious to contemplate this topic, I would suggest you get a copy of Fakhry's book. Currently you are just trying to stitch together sources to give credence to your case. But that is not sound arguing.

[johnnystorm28]

@socrates856

Okay, I will read the book,

I was applying a logic that Thunderf00t used.

But condemning a religion is Anti-Science is just plain wrong, you cannot judge a religion which has 1400 years of history and is a faith of 1.57 bn humans in one weekend which TF did, take some time, do some more research. My statements sound sane and correct to some extent or a large extent.

[johnnystorm28]

Emilie Savage-Smith has also shown that Ghazali was a source of encouragement for the study of medicine in medieval Islam, and that his support for the study of anatomy was influential in the rise of dissections carried out among Muslim physicians in the 12th and 13th centuries.

Source:

Savage-Smith 1995, pp. 83, 94–5

To say Islam is anti-Science is ridiculous.

Quran revealed in 7th century served as an inspiration to investigate which caused Islamic Golden Age from 8th to 11th.

[socrates856]

@johnnystorm28 It is correct that Al'Ghazali was not anti-mathematics, which is why I issued the correction in the video. He was anti-platonist, broadly anti-philosophy, and placed scripture above physics and metaphysics and introduced the notion that if there is conflict between the two, scripture takes precedence (hence advocating misology). All this is discussed in detail in Fakhry's book. I fear you are quote mining and jumping to conclusions that are convenient for you.

[johnnystorm28]

@socrates856

I am not here to argue with you. :-)

I just stated some of my points nothing more. Don't take seriously, I may be wrong, it is your wish to decide whats correct or wrong.

[socrates856]

@johnnystorm28 It isn't my wish to decide what's correct or wrong at all. It's my wish to have sound discussion and well-researched and reasoned sources.

[johnnystorm28]

@socrates856

"it is your wish to decide whats correct or wrong" is what Thunderf00t did.

Please come with some real stuff or statistics, that proves me wrong.

[socrates856]

@johnnystorm28 Clearly you don't get it. You quote mine things to affirm your assertions. That's not debate. I understand what you are saying and more importantly what you are omitting. Read the book and have an honest representation of what it says when you come back to debate it.

This is not about disproving you either. It is about showing that what TF says is not that far from what Fakhry says. But rather than inform yourself you have to keep repeating accusations. It's not interesting.

[johnnystorm28]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy consider the period between the 11th and 14th centuries to be the "Golden Age" of Arabic and Islamic philosophy, initiated by Ghazali's successful integration of logic into the Islamic seminary Madrasah curriculum.

Source:

Tony Street (July 23, 2008). "Arabic and Islamic Philosophy of Language and Logic". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2008-12-05.

[johnnystorm28]

DOn't forget DLandonCole's response.

[socrates856]

@johnnystorm28 I have a lot of respect for how DLandonCole has engaged in the debate. Also straightd0pe had a well argued position.

The intent of my video was not to give a comprehensive review of all positions. I specifically wanted to address the merit of the core argument, independent of the concerns with wording/framing etc.

[neotruekaiser]

yes while a religious view can hinder science.

to say thunderfoot did not commit a fallacy in attributing it as the /sole/ cause of the lack of science coming from islamic country is wrong. People in the west are blinded and or ignorant of the sheer amount of social structure that needs to be in place to allow modern scientific research to flourish. most of the west has this and science flourishes on a whole despite religious nuts who hate it. Most islamic nations don't..

[vertigate2]

Only one comment: No Coughlan does NOT have a point with Iran. First of all it should be clear that short term growth spurts don't equate to catching up yet. Publishing 3 papers instead of 1 doesn't mean you are yet catching up to the guy producing 100 papers a year steadily. But more to the point on Iran, their entire growth was based on nuclear research. That's cause they're building NUKES. Deny it or not, idc, but this does not indicate there is a general long term improvement coming.

[vertigate2]

Much less does it indicate, that Islam is not an impediment to scientific development, because for obvious reason this state sponsored effort TEMPORARILY supercedes the ideological purity. Another fact, if you crunch the numbers in the sources Coughlan listed, you'll see that the growth in nuclear fields came at the expense of other disciplines. Most likely the whole growth spurt will come to an end once they have the nukes, and the other fields will continue to be neglected. Watch it!

[vertigate2]

What you have is outliers with regards to the Islamic world and with regards to Iran's history itself. At least that's what it is so far. No cause for hyperbole yet.

[Shundra]

Actualy the Islam Golden Age did NOT collapse because of the rise of Islam fundamentalist: "one can see the weakness and intellectual laziness of the argument that the decline should be blamed on an anti-science backlash from a more conservative Islam. " (In the paper of Al-Khalili, that TF use in his video). What make the collapse was the invasion ( Mongol, Crusade) , Plague and the weakening of the states. It's way too easy to blame fundamentalist. Today scholar still debate the decline,

[socrates856]

@Shundra Yes there is debate. Check out the book I cite in the description bar.

[eldadevata]

@Shundra It’s not easy at all, one of the reason being that fundamentalism does not welcome criticism not to mention that it tends not to practice self-criticism. The debate or controversy you are mentioning is just like the controversy between evolution and creationism. On one side we can establish a pretty well documented relationship, on the other hand we have assumptions that might have had a role or not. It is rather absurd to call the Mamluks weak.

[eldadevata]

@Shundra The Mongol invasion was both fast and short lived, the Islamic world has re-emerged even more powerful militarily and economically speaking than before the 13 century. To blame the plagues which were fairly common all over the globe periodically, or the change in a military conflict for the resistance to scientific research and discovery, without understanding the obvious and most powerful populist religious element, is pure ignorance.

[Shundra]

@eldadevata Source? Article? What i have said is what i have read on several articles on the subject, if you have better sources please send them.

After all, Invasion+military conflicts+ the plague+ weak politics destroyed the state and institution, give rise to instability which is what in my sense destroyed the stability that once permitted the rise of scientific knowledge (the same reason that brought down the roman empire or the rise of knowledge in some actual states)....

[eldadevata]

@Shundra What state are you talking about? Instead of reading articles maybe you should buy a simple history book. There was no such thing as one specific Islamic empire. Just like in any other geographical area, dynasties replaced each other, and on several occasions co-existed. The Mongol invasion was repelled soon after the invasion. And like I said plagues were fairly common, they came and go, even between the 8th century and the 11th. The only thing persistent was religion.

[Shundra]

@eldadevata When I talk of article it's what SCHOLAR on the field say about the collapse: "The decline of the east.

Why didn't Eastern science go forward as well? ''Nobody has answered that question satisfactorily,'' said Dr.

Sabra of Harvard. Pressed, historians offer up a constellation of reasons. Among other things, the Islamic

empire began to be whittled away in the 13th century by Crusaders from the West and Mongols from the East."

[Shundra]

@eldadevata Christians reconquered Spain and its magnificent libraries in Córdoba and Toledo, full of Arab learning. As a result, Islamic centers of learning began to lose touch with one another and with the West, leading to a gradual erosion in two of the main pillars of science -- communication and financial support. " ( How Islam Won, and Lost, the Lead in Science : New York Times). At no time religious fundamentalist is cited in the historical part, in the contemporary yes but not alone.

[eldadevata]

@Shundra Not to mention the Ottoman empire, who was to become more powerful than any of its predecessors. It emerged at the end of the 13th century, and although compared to its previous relatives or those who co-existed with it, it was fairly “modern” on many levels, it was never able to reach the same scientific level as Bagdad before the fundamentalist Muslim erosion. But due to its international expansion, Turkey is what it is today, different from all other “Muslim” countries.

[Shundra]

@eldadevata Interestingly the article say about ottoman: "In the East [science] remained dependent on the patronage and curiosity of sultans and caliphs.

Further, the Ottomans, who took over the Arabic lands in the 16th century, were builders and conquerors, not thinkers, said Dr. El-Baz of Boston University, and support waned. ''You cannot expect the science to be excellent while the society is not,'' he said." I have read articles and papers, that's the one who resume the best the ideas...

[eldadevata]

Yep! Its rather interesting to see people accusing some for being fascist just because they point out the obvious. Just like when you try to compare integrated societies to excluding ones, or gender mainstreaming societies to chauvinistic ones. Its rather obvious that a society that integrates, offers equal opportunities for all regardless of their natural background and supports R&D do better both from an economical point of view as well as from a human rights point of view.

[socrates856]

@eldadevata Open pluralistic societies are good indeed. After all diversity of ideas is a big plus for research and progress, and it's also more fun.

[eldadevata]

@socrates856 I was born in a rather religious family, my parents having only a basic education. I know how horribly difficult it is to “emancipate” from such a background even if you are ambitious and talented. And I grew up in a communist country where science was both misunderstood as well as supported. It must be even more difficult if an entire society thinks that questioning old beliefs, doing research and developing new ways is inherently bad.

[socrates856]

@eldadevata I can imagine. I hope that we speak honestly does help in a little way.

[eldadevata]

@eldadevata I feel sorry for all those living in oppressive societies and communities. I feel for the women for not having the opportunity to live up to their full potential, and for all those talented and intelligent children who don’t have the opportunity to understand the world as it is, closer to reality. Just think about it, how much human resource is wasted by discouraging people from thinking rationally. And what a horrible effect it has on the global economy and social welfare.

[eldadevata]

@eldadevata And I agree with the “experts” on the basic issue here. Just imagine what those societies could have had accomplished if they wouldn’t have mutilated the female gender, and wouldn’t have tried to silence those with a rational intellect. If they would have strived for diversity and inclusion. If they would have abandoned their compulsive nationalistic and irrational religious fears. Just imagine how many talented brains were “wasted” by primitive indoctrination.

[xXBlackxRebelXx]

@eldadevata I agree with your comments here.

"devata"? Are you a Hindu?

[eldadevata]

@xXBlackxRebelXx No, but the word “devata” is a Sanskrit word written with Latin alphabet.

[heloizyjhenifer]

This whole TF affair made me regret some of my subscriptions who went along with the mob lynching him...

[chilleffect]

According to nationmaster punto com, Iran's technological achievements are #45 in the world. They are tied with Jamaica. No offense to Jamaicans. Iran is NOT even in the top 100 in the worlds technological readiness index.

[SwineNahNah]

The only thing missing here is this - do we count people who have escap... oh, sorry, I mean "emigrated" to the West, became scientists an published their works as contributors to Muslim science still or as Western ones?

[FiveFootFall]

@SwineNahNah If you have to leave your nation to pursue scientific achievement, I'd hope you'd be a credit to your new home rather than attributing your successes to where you had to run from.

[DeePhlat]

Islam may have an effect on scientific output, but it doesn't hold a candle to poverty.

[socrates856]

@DeePhlat I'm all up for eradicating poverty for sure.

[RomeoGrrl]

I love Tyson's simple explanation - "revelation replaced investigation."

[Saukko31]

So coughlan's argument was, thunderf00t said that islamic world produces fraction of science compared to its numbers, so I use that fraction to prove him wrong?

[JustACopyCat]

@Saukko31

he tried to basically copy the way tf presented his arguments to show it's flaws.

[xXBlackxRebelXx]

coughlan is an emo bitch.

[edd77]

@xXBlackxRebelXx

Noes, you mean Childish Emo Whore

[yasminevinck]

Who cares what Coughlan616 says? He's the Kassi Dill of the atheists. There are a lot of people who have subscribed to his channel. Because they want to laugh with that CLOWN!

[gimmethegepgun]

Though correlation does not imply causation, it does imply that the two are related. In fact, even the FSM's pirate vs global warming thing actually is related in a roundabout way. Global warming is caused by CO2, which we made a ton of due to industrializing. Due to industrializing, it is significantly more difficult for pirates to operate, since its hard to get the best equipment as an illegal entity, and there's much better communication and the like

[socrates856]

@gimmethegepgun Yarrr, matey. ;)

[Loathomar]

@gimmethegepgun Not necessarily, you can find any number of things if you look hard enough that can look completely correlation but to completely unrelated. The number of times someone uses the bathroom in a month may be the same as the number of deaths from lighting in a month. The two have no relation to each other, but the numbers can match perfectly. The likelihood of this is very low, but if you look for a correlation between something and all things unrelated you will find one sometime

[gimmethegepgun]

@Loathomar Yes, you're right, though for statistics purposes 2 data sets that stay stagnant can't be compared anyway, since there's no actual information to contrast. Finding correlation would require them to change at some point, and change together, rather than both staying flat

[HegelianDialectic]

A discussion on these comments is relatively pointless. The numbers, while not ultimately conclusive seems to favor TF's argument.

Facile liberalism is the pathetic motivation behind these attacks; the same that produced the modern "political correctness" culture and under whose umbrella religious figures demand safety from criticism.

Go read Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance."

[socrates856]

@HegelianDialectic Thanks, I appreciate the pointer. I have read some of Marcuse's work but wasn't aware of this one. More to add to the pile of interesting ideas to read up on.

[sofiarune]

Is it not possible that there are underlying factors that lead to both hyper-religiousity AND scientific stagnation?? We know for a fact that other countries that are not majority Muslim are stagnating scientifically so there is a definite possibility that something else is going on. I just think the source TF used to justify himself was really terrible. If he had used something more convincing this probably wouln't be an issue for at least some people, myself included.

[socrates856]

@sofiarune I think you are right on sourcing, but then the critique should have been on that not on the broader point. I certainly can see many factors that on the face of it are not overtly religious that stifle open inquiry. For example a secular dictator that tries to control the kinds of ideas that are allowed to emerge surely could contribute to a stifling of inquisitive culture overall. "What questions and explanations are allowable?" That is not overtly referring to religion.

[sofiarune]

@socrates856 Well my specific critique did address the sourcing which knocked the foundations out from under the broader point (if you wish to see my critique it's on my channel). This is just too complicated and cannot be reduced to modern Islam = bad for science.

[socrates856]

@sofiarune I'll have watch your video to get a better clue. I certainly don't have objections if people have objections with his sourcing. I basically just say that there is, what I think is sound sourcing that give some credence to his clearly too simple argument.

[sofiarune]

@socrates856 This first half is me showing I can't replicate the results of his source and the second half goes into why such an analysis is fundamentally problematic anyway. Let me know what you think. I don't doubt that fundamentalist Islam plays a role but I think that fundamentalism became popular for very different reasons and that the factors that led to its popularity are what need to be addressed, not Islam itself.

[socrates856]

@sofiarune I think you might enjoy the book I cite in the description box on the philosophical history in Islam. History certainly doesn't tell is where to go, but it tells us how we got here. I certainly wouldn't assume to has the answer what "should" happen. But I am interested in having a sound basis for discussion if we try to think about it. I'll try to watch your video tonight, when I have more disposable time, I'll comment on the video when I get to it. Thanks for pointing it out!

[sensori]

@sofiarune "This first half is me showing I can't replicate the results of his source" except you don't have the other half of the data and you dismiss the findings because you cannot get access to it.

[sofiarune]

@sensori Right so why should I assume the data says what is implied if I can`t find it? Or if I don`t know what their methods were? Man you really don`t get it. The point wasn`t the data, the fact that you can`t replicate it is a big problem but there are other more serious underlying issues. I pointed that out to you in the comments section of my own video but you`ve conveniently ignored it.

[sensori]

@sofiarune Why do you even comment on the validity of the research if you're missing half the data?

[sofiarune]

@sensori So if you see a published statistic but don't know what specific things (in this case, countries) were analyzed and you don't know where the original data came from, would you consider it valid? I commented on it because TF has fundamentally been against this kind of approach in the past and has driven home the concepts of skepticism and source checking. Besides, the sources listed were UNESCO and World Bank. I went to those sources and there's no data. It's not reasonable.

[sofiarune]

@sensori And you're STILL skirting around the fact that I pointed out major flaws in the analyses in general. So what if you don't like my stats? I myself said there were fundamental problems with them and those problems apply both to my stats AND the ones TF referenced. The first half was to show that the stats are not repeatable because of flaws in reporting methodology. The second half is to show that the stats would be misleading even if they were accurate.

[TheMemeReplicator]

@sofiarune Yes, there could be other factors that are affecting the other nations that are stagnating. But, in the case of the Islamic World the stagnation appears to be the extreme religiosity. If your religion denounces science, then science has a hard time progressing. It's possible that there are also other factors in the Islamic world, but they are not as evident as religiosity.

[sofiarune]

@TheMemeReplicator That specific argument is knocked down by Iran and Turkey. If the "Islamic world" truly cannot scientifically progress because of religious teachings then no "Islamic" countries should be showing scientific progress (I use "Islamic" just as loosely as TF did here). The problem can't be reduced to modern Islam = Scientific stagnation. What is modern Islam anyway? There are just so many problems with this assertion on a broad scale.

[TheMemeReplicator]

@sofiarune Not necessarily. I accepted that there are a lot of factors in the situation. Turkey is one of the least extreme Islamic nations, so their religious beliefs don't interfere with scientific growth. Iran on the other hand is developing scientifically to meet their perceived needs to compete with the rest of the world. It is undeniable that in other countries the religious extremism has hampered the growth of scientific inquiry.

[sofiarune]

@TheMemeReplicator You can split hairs all you want but Turkey was included in the article as a member of the "Islamic" world. Have you considered that there may be a third (or fourth, fifth, sixth etc) factor that led to the rise of extremist Islam as well? Is it really the prime cause or are there a number of factors that have led to it. There are too many questions that are not properly addressed which leads me to suspect that TF's position lacks real backing or explanative power.

[sofiarune]

@TheMemeReplicator Another thing to consider is that the question wasn't "Why are some Islamic countries not scientifically stagnating". It doesn't matter why, all that matters is if they are which they clearly aren't. If modern Islam was truly the only factor impeding science then those countries shouldn't have scientific progress. There's more going on here and TF has butchered it by being too simplistic, something he really should know better than to do.

[Afterthoughtbtw]

Good video.

I have to admit I've been really disappointed with the reactions to Tf00t's recent videos on Islam. Very, very few of the responses have been anything other than strawmen, (some have been such outright fabrications they couldn't even be considered strawmen), and of those that haven't been, they've often concentrated on his tone rather than the issues.

Sure he could perhaps have phrased things better, but then he isn't a professional public speaker.

[guyhill2]

@socrates856: Thank you for posting one of the most rational responses to Thunderf00t's videos I have seen.

[socrates856]

@guyhill2 Thanks, I'm glad it comes across the way I intended it.

[mjh012363]

I would disagree with you on one point. You say TF is over the top with Islam but that would only be true if he didn't use precisely the same language about ALL religions. I think his wording on Islam should be taken into context with what he has said about all religions in his other videos and see that TF is simply using Islam as another sad example of how religion and faith is harmful to society.

[socrates856]

@mjh012363 I tried to footnote that part of my criticism. What we see as too much or just enough is subject to interpretation. For me content is more important than form. So if there is a core idea that is interesting or has merit in content, I'm happy to give a critique of form, but that should not trump the content.

[Loathomar]

While I don't think TF gave a causation argument for Islamic retardation of science in the modern era. There are likely some other large causes to why Islamic counties produce such small amount of scientific work, namely that most that most Islamic counties are very poor countries. Almost 2/3 of Muslims population are in south Asia, an area that is poor with any religious or lack there of. But there is enough wealth in enough Islamic countries to doing far better in sci then they are.

[socrates856]

@Loathomar It certainly is complicated. One could actually try this. Normalize publications per capita and per normative income. Would be interesting. But while there are very poor islamic countries there are also very rich islamic countries. So should be interesting to see what the distribution is and a significance pops up.

[Loathomar]

@socrates856 I would be shocked if the negative effect of poverty on science does not far out way the negative effect of religious of any main stream verity. Impoverished countries will have a minimal education system, and spend far far less on R&D as a % of GDP then the western world. Africa spend 1/10th of the % of GDP then the western world, and has a GDP/capita that is less the 1/10th, meaning the spend less the 1/100th per capita then the west. You would need to go 1 county at a time.

[Loathomar]

What you would need to do is, look at an Islamic country, like Indonesia and compare it to other counties with similar GDP/capita. So, how does Indonesia (GDP/capita of 2200) compare with Honduras (1,823) or Ukraine (2,542)? How does Saudi Arabia compare with Slovakia? Iran with Jamaica or Colombia? If the Islamic countries are all worse then you can say that Islamic country does seem to have a negative effect on scientific output are compared to other counties with similar economics.

[Marcus21999]

@Loathomar Coming from an statistics background, that theory is likely to be flawed. There's more likely a dually-causal relationship between religion and poverty , so however you worked that out wouldn't work.

[Loathomar]

@Marcus21999 Well clear would not be perfect but it would give a better idea that just comparing populations. The largest factor would likely be GDP/capita for science publication/capita, so you remove that factor and see how it compares.

[AntiCitizenX]

Someone tell Coughlan to clean the sand out of his damn vagina.

[pinochet222]

Ancient Egypt, Greece had also become Muslim? I didn't fucking know this.

Civilizations come and go, you can blame the spread of Christianity for the fall of Rome just as easily. But a more likely explanation would be the unfortunate external and internal destabilizing events, like the Mongolian invasion of Baghdad.

People looking for easy and trivial causal explanations of brutally complex dynamics should get a lobotomy. Because we just know that it solves all your problems, don't we?

[socrates856]

@pinochet222 Have a look at the book by Majid Fakhry I cite in the description box. Surely there is complexity. But complexity is not the same as absence. Why did intellectual curiosity not reemerge after the mongols adopted Islam, for example? To ignore things is no more intellectually sound than simplifying them. Or replacing one simple factor with another.

[pinochet222]

@socrates856 well,what about the rest of the world, how many religions are there? According to your logic every single religion in the world is detrimental to scientific progress, except maybe for Christianity? But then we know about the dark ages and how much time it took to even partially recover after the fall of Rome

Similarly, in the light of all this, the fact that Islam was capable of advancing our scientific progress that much proves exactly how exceptionally conducive it is to science.

[socrates856]

@pinochet222 I have provided no such logic. All I am saying is that historic scholars who looked in detail at the history of intellectual traditions within Islam affirm the simplified strands of stories found in deGrasse Tyson and TF. That means nothing about any other religion, but there is interesting discussion to be ahd on that too.

Islam is not static as Majid Fakhry discusses. So to say that it is "exceptionally conducive" is an a-historic claim.

[pinochet222]

@socrates856 you clearly suggested 'intellectual curiosity' as a metric to measure something about a _religion_.

But now you want to backtrack and single out Islam, again. As if it existed in a vacuum.

Oh Islam is not static? And I wonder what can cause changes in a religion like that? And how about you take this precious thought and expand it not just in time but in space too? That would help everybody a lot.

[AtheistMidget]

Coughlan616 constantly tries to sabotage all legitimate criticism of Islam. I have no idea why this drama-queen has this irrational fear of criticism of islam, but it´s stupid.

If thunderf00t would make a video critical of islam, that coughlan liked, then he would need to make a 4 hour video in which TF listed all the thousands of muslim groups who arent 100% into the quran.

Pussies like him would love to change the world into a big kinder garten where you could not say anything.

[socrates856]

@AtheistMidget I think lots of people have nuggets of interesting perspectives. I actually enjoyed what Coughlan616 had to say. But yes there is also emo, and he has to stick to his name, so. Less drama would be better, but alas. Drama is the implied stunt double of comedy, so it's bound to be there.

I'm trying to make it less about people and more about ideas, maybe I'm not fully successful yet.

[rdubwiley]

There is some legitimacy to say that religious states can adversely affect science, but Thunderf00t ignored all of the other factors involved that ended the golden age of Islam, such as wars, economic factors, and political factors. I am worried that Thunderf00t's ideas are based in orientalism.

[socrates856]

@rdubwiley I think we are fine to be worried, but there is lots of detailed ideas and discussion on the matter out there. I would suggest that you read the book I mention in the description box, if you want to get a more detailed perspective.

[rdubwiley]

@socrates856 I will try to read it once I get back from MSU. I at least think Thunderf00t is being intellectually dishonest by framing the debate as:

religion is the only factor that impacts science, and if you think otherwise, you're wrong.

His videos have disappointed me lately, and I wish he would research a little more before he puts things up.

[socrates856]

@rdubwiley I agree that he could have given a more nuanced argument. I don't think he's dishonest. Really I think a discussion culture is better if we can be wrong without being also dishonest. Certainly I think there is lots of space for honest disagreement here.

I think you'll enjoy the book. It's a challenging book but it does bring lots of detail and nuance to it.

[t3nGu666]

Man, as if it is such a big deal to assume the religion to be the cause. Is it not supported by experience? Can't you understand why this might be the cause, if you think about it logically? Yes, TF didn't give any evidence and he just assumed something based on correlation, but who would not come to this conclusion? I think his video was good and he posted a valid question.

I would bet, if he made the same video about christianity, giving the data from the dark ages, no one would give a shit...

[gellymatos]

@t3nGu666 And if people didn't give a shit, and I actually know a few peopel that would, how would that change how flawed the argument is? You seem to also be defending him saying, "who wouldn't come to this conclusion"? Well, anyone who had a basic understanding statistics. And since thunderf00t is supposedly known for his scientific outlook, he has no excuse. No evidence? You don't care that he gave no evidence? Are you an atheist by chance, because the irony there would be hilarious.

[t3nGu666]

@gellymatos Awww look at you, how could I be an atheist, if YOU of all people disagree with me? Yawwn... No, I don't need anymore evidence, that religion is a problem to science, I kind of already figured that out on my own. It shouldn't be a surprise, THAT is my point.

[gellymatos]

@t3nGu666 I was only asking about your religious position for the fact of the potential irony. Otherwise, I really don't care. And how are your subjective experiences evidence? Especially negative ones? There is no evidence that says religion and science oppose each other. There are plenty of theist scientists. Much of science as been developed by the religious. So, it seems to me that neither whole concepts really oppose or support each other.

[gimmethegepgun]

@gellymatos And there's a vast amount MORE non-theist scientists, butchering the religious demographics of the country in question and the world as a whole

[t3nGu666]

@gellymatos And where is the irony, if it has been already proven to me, personally, that religion opposes science, and one would assume that many atheists think likewise? Is it impossible for a real atheists to come to this conclusion, or am I magically believing in god this way? Because that would really be irony, nothing else.

[t3nGu666]

And really? There is no evidence that religion opposes science or there is no evidence that religion necessarily opposes science? Of course not necessarily for each individual, but I think there is plenty of evidence that religion practised in it's fundamentalist form does. And now guess what, religion is much more important and taken literally in the middle east, than in 'the west'. All thunderf00t did, was a 1:40 video asking what one could do about it. Is that really a problem?

[gellymatos]

@t3nGu666 Look, forget the attempt at irony. It wasn't about science opposing religion, but when you said something about "not needing evidence". It's really irrelevant at this point, especially due to the confusion of what I meant.

[gellymatos]

@t3nGu666 Nothing suggests that as concepts, one opposes the other. If we're talking about fundementalism, that's not religion as a whole, and the beliefs aren't absolutes of religion. And Religion is important in all parts of the world, not somehow more so than anywhere else. Even in the case of literal interpretation of holy books, how do you know that's always taken in the middleast? There are many different stances and sects within Islam. Different Scholars with different opinions.

[DontBendOverForAllah]

This video addresses the sub-morons who did not understand Thunderf00t's videos. I am afraid they still won't understand them even after this excellent explanation. You can't teach a (Ken) Ham.

However since you are into philosophy, have you any ideas as to how to help the reformers in Islam (they do exist) bring about the reformation that Christianity managed to achieve? That was part of Thunderf00t's original question.

[socrates856]

@DontBendOverForAllah It's an impossible question for me to answer. I like honesty about facts, but who knows. It's history we are talking about. It's complex. But yes, if youtubers gave reformers more of a voice rather than make it hard to speak about the topic...

[DontBendOverForAllah]

@socrates856 There is a debate about enabling Islamic reform going on on this channel watch?v=KuZ7Cx0ZkCU

Join in, as philosophy is currently the subject under discussion, so your perspective would be interesting.

[schlimazzel]

DeGrasse Tyson is an astronomer,  isn't it Obvious?

[THEHARMONIKZ]

@schlimazzel Just merely pointing out the fact that NDT is not an expert on Cultural History,which one might assume from the video.

I kmow that may come across as irrelavant-but still worth mentioning as you may not have noticed,it isn't that obvious.

[socrates856]

@THEHARMONIKZ Majid Fakhry "A History of Islamic Philosophy", see description box.

[THEHARMONIKZ]

And Neil Degrasse Tyson is an expert in what exactly?

The only difference I see between TF and His commentators is that TF hasn't tried to apologise when he gets things wrong.His ego is far to inflated,as we have seen through his attempts to justify his aguments whilst's back peddling at supersonic speed.

[socrates856]

@THEHARMONIKZ He is a popularizer. Did you read the description box and pay close attention to the video. What he says is based on what Majid Fakhry says, who is an expert. NdGT is an expert in science popularizing. Your psychoanalysis of NdGT really doesn't anything to the discussion.

[THEHARMONIKZ]

@socrates856 Opps! my bad.however I was not addressing NdGT in my anaysis just TF-which you may have ment.:)

My apologies i very rarely check the description bar.

[socrates856]

@THEHARMONIKZ I realize that it's easy to miss, so let me actually add a description box to the video.

[socrates856]

@lolwuthomes Anytime :D

[socrates856]

@lolwuthomes Didn't even see the original comments, but we are fine to get angry at times. The video is definitely not meant to make people angry, but it's a difficult topic for sure.