It's for this reason that I want to investigate the actual substance of the Islamic Golden Age. Too often, there's a tendency to credit the Arabs with some important discoveries, when in fact it wasn't so.
Most prominent example is the Arabic numerals that were actually invented in India.
And a lot of the scientific achievements that came out of the Arab world came from non Muslims, who were often significant percentages of the populations in Muslim kingdoms.
A good starting point is the book "A Brief History of Afghanistan" by Shaista Wahab. In short the Golden Age was centered in Central Asia and Persia, and was ended by two forces: the invasion of the Mongols and the reactionary Islamists coming out of the Almohads in North Africa purging 'impure' influences of others.
Not particularly, the book discusses the incredible diversity of people mixing in Central Asia: Greeks, Chinese, Jews, Muslims, etc leading to discoveries.
If Wikipedia has become a source of deception on this scale, and its value as a source of information compared with alternatives is small, then maybe it’s time to consider it a failure.
It's already a failure on any topics that are remotely political. There's clear bias that has infiltrated the site which people have been warning about for years. Academics have even written papers on it.
I agree, but for the sake of argument - you could make the point that contentious topics are themselves the driver for biased coverage, and Wikipedia's failure at creating unbiased entries for them does not damn the platform.
I don't feel that this is the case for a single editor manufacturing history across a variety of non-controversial entries, and is therefore a much more damning failure.
The bias exists on topics that wouldn't be considered contentious. For example, one of the most compelling pieces of evidence regarding bias on Wikipedia that I saw was what happened when politicians switch parties from left to right and vice versa. The language used to describe them became more negative when they moved from left to right than right to left. It was very clear that it wasn't the act of switching parties that was the issue, it was the person's change in political orientation.
The key issue for me in both cases is that people need to realize that Wikipedia is far from a neutral source, and its content needs to be verified (doubly so when the topic is political in nature). Unfortunately, far too many people still have a perception of it that is badly out of date.
For other examples of deception one can look at the Wikipedia entry for "Gaza Genocide", or see how transgender ideology is treated. As Mr. Epaminondas pointed out anything remotely political is clearly biased.
They are doing the same thing with Africans. They have convinced many black people that they are the ones who invented everything. That the USA would not exist in its current form if not for Africans that were brought to America.
Interesting study. However, for the sake of academic integrity, I think the piece should also acknowledge the actual inventions and innovations developed by the Muslims. Without that context, the piece could easily be referenced to suggest that Muslims never invented anything at all, and the distinction could end up being conflated.
Except that's not at all what Cremieux said. He has no obligation to try and anticipate every crazy misreading of his concise, clear, and well-supported argument.
Jagged 85 was real and worth exposing. But debunking one guy's inflated "firsts" doesn't make the Golden Age "so-called." Al-Khwarizmi's algebra and Ibn al-Haytham's optics come from actual historians like Sabra and Rashed, not Wikipedia. And some of your examples are exaggerations of real work, not inventions. Avicenna's impetus theory is legit, even if "weight times velocity" isn't. Also, opening with "poverty, violence, and oppression" before any evidence kind of undercuts a post about checking your sources.
Algebra was orginially develop by Greek and others; Indian scholars developed it systematically and added the zero among other additions. Optics came from Greek sources, and also earlier cultures. Persian scholars used them and may have extended them, but again it's an exaggerated claim.
As to the opening, ask the people they conquered. I'm sure the Greeks, Armenians, or Coptics would have opinions.
It was a so-called age because most of it wasn't even islamic, it was plundered findings from christians and polytheists after violently conquering them. Embarrassing imperialist culture and religion that mostly steals and invents little to nothing.
Sad to see that there is no mention of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi I do remember how Islamic apologists and libs did run around with him "inventing the theory of evolution" for a long time....You see back then (2010s) libs were obsessed with "fundie creationists" while also big on Islam. So they were running around with the idea that "Unlike these biblethumpers, real Muslims have no problem with evolution!"
Muslims who did have a problem today were seen as "falling under Christian influence"
To this they did use some Tusi who supposedly "Discovered Evolution"
Proof for this?
He did say that Africans were closer to apes then to humans, hence implying that humans evolved from apes!
Im not making this up!
"Tusi believed that humans were derived from advanced animals. He wrote about the different transition forms between the human and animal world, saying: 'Such humans [probably anthropoid apes] live in the Western Sudan and other distant corners of the world. They are close to animals by their habits, deeds and behavior.' Tusi said that humans are related to all living and inanimate creatures of Nature: 'The human has features that distinguish him from other creatures, but he has other features that unite him with the animal world, vegetable kingdom or even with the inanimate bodies.'"
So basically Tusi said that Blacks were closer to apes
Big deal lots of ppl said this
libs did declare him "Darwin"
"With Google Books this is the quote more like that I found: "Such are the peoples dwelling on the fringes of the inhabited world, like the negroes in the West (175) and others, for the movements and actions of the likes of this type correspond to the actions of animals." link. Note 175 should be (but I'm not sure not being in preview): "mdnand-11 sfidfin-11 maghrib. The reference is, of course, to Africa generally, albeit to North Africa in particular. "link
Nothing about a physical transation/derivation from animals to men."
"Yes, that is the very same note 175. I suppose the weird fi's in "sfidfin" should be u's with macrons, so it reads similar to as-sûdûn [?] maghrib, which means "the black people in/of the West/(North) Africa"."
It' s good to point out weaknesses in Wikipedia's model. Could be improved, but still good that anyone with a bit of patience and time can expose the lies.
Compare this to far more influential information flows from social media.
Also I think most people interested in truth but with limited time will now just ask a summary to AI instead of reading Wikipedia. This could shape up to become a very powerful force for truth in the public mind - or, it could become something that serves the interest of a few. Legislation definitely could influence the outcome here.
" but still good that anyone with a bit of patience and time can expose the lies."
Except they can't in a way that really matters. This will literally stay in the zeitgeist for a very long time, if not forever. Basically third worldist infiltrators ruining us. It's obviously good that Cremieux and others write about it, but the damage is already done and much of it is permanent.
Not sure what's meant by Zeitgeist here. I certainly didn't hear about these particular claims for inventions. There certainly has been important contribution of Muslims to science and tech during the first centuries of their empire, obv. some will exaggerate them and some will minimise them.
As I view it, the zeitgeist is more that some people make a living by screaming around increasingly crazy stuff along the lines of: A) everything bad in the world is because of the west/white/anglos/US, vs others that make a living screaming around that B) everything good comes from west/white/etc. Scandal makers need to make a living too, but we don’t need to fall for them.
That's an important issue: for now we can only "think". We need to be able to "know": as in, precise references.
That runs counter the interest of AI companies, though, because that would give an immediate solution to monetising creators and researchers that feed into AI answers.
Fun fact: in Debt: A 5000 Year History, David Graeber speculates that Adam Smith’s description of the pin factory (1776), one of the most famous illustrations of the division of labor, actually derived from Ibn Khaldun’s (1332–1406) book Muqaddimah.
Smith and Khaldun appear to have arrived at these examples independently as no Arabic books describing pin factories have ever been discovered at the University of Glasgow.
Best part is how it was discovered by gamers because they're far more nerdy and autistic than academics (and in many cases today I'd argue far more intelligent).
Also do we have any reason to assume that this person still isn't doing this crap (and that many others are)? People on wikipedia seem incredibly naive and stupid.
It's for this reason that I want to investigate the actual substance of the Islamic Golden Age. Too often, there's a tendency to credit the Arabs with some important discoveries, when in fact it wasn't so.
Most prominent example is the Arabic numerals that were actually invented in India.
And a lot of the scientific achievements that came out of the Arab world came from non Muslims, who were often significant percentages of the populations in Muslim kingdoms.
I have been wondering about this too. Do you have any sources on this? Would love to explore this. I've been meaning to do a write up on it.
A good starting point is the book "A Brief History of Afghanistan" by Shaista Wahab. In short the Golden Age was centered in Central Asia and Persia, and was ended by two forces: the invasion of the Mongols and the reactionary Islamists coming out of the Almohads in North Africa purging 'impure' influences of others.
Does it talk about which inventions were actually by Arabs as compared to by non-Arabs?
Not particularly, the book discusses the incredible diversity of people mixing in Central Asia: Greeks, Chinese, Jews, Muslims, etc leading to discoveries.
The Seljuq “feudalisation” and endowment of madrassas was also a factor.
https://events.bse.eu/live/files/4663-chaneyscience2722023pdf
You crazy for this one Cremieux
Do we have no idea who jagged_85 is?
“A train of camels is led by an ass.”
This is the comment of an old academic during a discussion of uncritical following of published research.
If Wikipedia has become a source of deception on this scale, and its value as a source of information compared with alternatives is small, then maybe it’s time to consider it a failure.
It's already a failure on any topics that are remotely political. There's clear bias that has infiltrated the site which people have been warning about for years. Academics have even written papers on it.
I agree, but for the sake of argument - you could make the point that contentious topics are themselves the driver for biased coverage, and Wikipedia's failure at creating unbiased entries for them does not damn the platform.
I don't feel that this is the case for a single editor manufacturing history across a variety of non-controversial entries, and is therefore a much more damning failure.
The bias exists on topics that wouldn't be considered contentious. For example, one of the most compelling pieces of evidence regarding bias on Wikipedia that I saw was what happened when politicians switch parties from left to right and vice versa. The language used to describe them became more negative when they moved from left to right than right to left. It was very clear that it wasn't the act of switching parties that was the issue, it was the person's change in political orientation.
The key issue for me in both cases is that people need to realize that Wikipedia is far from a neutral source, and its content needs to be verified (doubly so when the topic is political in nature). Unfortunately, far too many people still have a perception of it that is badly out of date.
For other examples of deception one can look at the Wikipedia entry for "Gaza Genocide", or see how transgender ideology is treated. As Mr. Epaminondas pointed out anything remotely political is clearly biased.
I agree, but for those the controversy doesn't start at Wikipedia
They are doing the same thing with Africans. They have convinced many black people that they are the ones who invented everything. That the USA would not exist in its current form if not for Africans that were brought to America.
Interesting study. However, for the sake of academic integrity, I think the piece should also acknowledge the actual inventions and innovations developed by the Muslims. Without that context, the piece could easily be referenced to suggest that Muslims never invented anything at all, and the distinction could end up being conflated.
Except that's not at all what Cremieux said. He has no obligation to try and anticipate every crazy misreading of his concise, clear, and well-supported argument.
Agreed, but calling it "the so-called Islamic Golden Age" above the fold was overstepping IMO
Jagged 85 was real and worth exposing. But debunking one guy's inflated "firsts" doesn't make the Golden Age "so-called." Al-Khwarizmi's algebra and Ibn al-Haytham's optics come from actual historians like Sabra and Rashed, not Wikipedia. And some of your examples are exaggerations of real work, not inventions. Avicenna's impetus theory is legit, even if "weight times velocity" isn't. Also, opening with "poverty, violence, and oppression" before any evidence kind of undercuts a post about checking your sources.
Algebra was orginially develop by Greek and others; Indian scholars developed it systematically and added the zero among other additions. Optics came from Greek sources, and also earlier cultures. Persian scholars used them and may have extended them, but again it's an exaggerated claim.
As to the opening, ask the people they conquered. I'm sure the Greeks, Armenians, or Coptics would have opinions.
The original poster ironically makes Cremieux's point for him.
It was a so-called age because most of it wasn't even islamic, it was plundered findings from christians and polytheists after violently conquering them. Embarrassing imperialist culture and religion that mostly steals and invents little to nothing.
Sad to see that there is no mention of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi I do remember how Islamic apologists and libs did run around with him "inventing the theory of evolution" for a long time....You see back then (2010s) libs were obsessed with "fundie creationists" while also big on Islam. So they were running around with the idea that "Unlike these biblethumpers, real Muslims have no problem with evolution!"
Muslims who did have a problem today were seen as "falling under Christian influence"
To this they did use some Tusi who supposedly "Discovered Evolution"
Proof for this?
He did say that Africans were closer to apes then to humans, hence implying that humans evolved from apes!
Im not making this up!
"Tusi believed that humans were derived from advanced animals. He wrote about the different transition forms between the human and animal world, saying: 'Such humans [probably anthropoid apes] live in the Western Sudan and other distant corners of the world. They are close to animals by their habits, deeds and behavior.' Tusi said that humans are related to all living and inanimate creatures of Nature: 'The human has features that distinguish him from other creatures, but he has other features that unite him with the animal world, vegetable kingdom or even with the inanimate bodies.'"
https://www.salon.com/2014/04/05/richard_dawkins_is_so_wrong_it_hurts_what_the_science_vs_religion_debate_ignores/
So basically Tusi said that Blacks were closer to apes
Big deal lots of ppl said this
libs did declare him "Darwin"
"With Google Books this is the quote more like that I found: "Such are the peoples dwelling on the fringes of the inhabited world, like the negroes in the West (175) and others, for the movements and actions of the likes of this type correspond to the actions of animals." link. Note 175 should be (but I'm not sure not being in preview): "mdnand-11 sfidfin-11 maghrib. The reference is, of course, to Africa generally, albeit to North Africa in particular. "link
Nothing about a physical transation/derivation from animals to men."
"Yes, that is the very same note 175. I suppose the weird fi's in "sfidfin" should be u's with macrons, so it reads similar to as-sûdûn [?] maghrib, which means "the black people in/of the West/(North) Africa"."
Its so comical it cant be real....but it is real!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_al-Din_al-Tusi
Damn they removed it from WIki!
https://jameshannam.proboards.com/thread/1465/islamic-origins-theory-evolution
Great article
It' s good to point out weaknesses in Wikipedia's model. Could be improved, but still good that anyone with a bit of patience and time can expose the lies.
Compare this to far more influential information flows from social media.
Also I think most people interested in truth but with limited time will now just ask a summary to AI instead of reading Wikipedia. This could shape up to become a very powerful force for truth in the public mind - or, it could become something that serves the interest of a few. Legislation definitely could influence the outcome here.
" but still good that anyone with a bit of patience and time can expose the lies."
Except they can't in a way that really matters. This will literally stay in the zeitgeist for a very long time, if not forever. Basically third worldist infiltrators ruining us. It's obviously good that Cremieux and others write about it, but the damage is already done and much of it is permanent.
Not sure what's meant by Zeitgeist here. I certainly didn't hear about these particular claims for inventions. There certainly has been important contribution of Muslims to science and tech during the first centuries of their empire, obv. some will exaggerate them and some will minimise them.
The vast majority vastly exaggerate them because there's a fetishization of (what is in fact mostly vile) third worldism, that is the zeitgeist.
As I view it, the zeitgeist is more that some people make a living by screaming around increasingly crazy stuff along the lines of: A) everything bad in the world is because of the west/white/anglos/US, vs others that make a living screaming around that B) everything good comes from west/white/etc. Scandal makers need to make a living too, but we don’t need to fall for them.
Where do you think AI takes its data from?
That's an important issue: for now we can only "think". We need to be able to "know": as in, precise references.
That runs counter the interest of AI companies, though, because that would give an immediate solution to monetising creators and researchers that feed into AI answers.
Therefore, legislation should nudge.
It would be helpful to address how systematic errors like this will (or will not) be rooted out by LLMs.
These errors multiply massively with LLMs.
I would think so, initially, but I would also hope they would eventually be corrected after they are questioned and corrected enough times.
The problem is critical examination is much less common than credulous repetition. So the critics will simply be outweighed and discarded.
I thought women and American slaves created everything...
Fun fact: in Debt: A 5000 Year History, David Graeber speculates that Adam Smith’s description of the pin factory (1776), one of the most famous illustrations of the division of labor, actually derived from Ibn Khaldun’s (1332–1406) book Muqaddimah.
Smith and Khaldun appear to have arrived at these examples independently as no Arabic books describing pin factories have ever been discovered at the University of Glasgow.
"the Lying Poet" in your name certainly fits. What you're claiming is false.
You sound like a bot. Do you have any source? Or are you just gonna call me a liar without any backing?
Best part is how it was discovered by gamers because they're far more nerdy and autistic than academics (and in many cases today I'd argue far more intelligent).
Also do we have any reason to assume that this person still isn't doing this crap (and that many others are)? People on wikipedia seem incredibly naive and stupid.
What do you think of these books? The author is extremely popular here in England. Seems to be counting Persians as arabic as well.
https://www.jimal-khalili.com/books/the-house-of-wisdom-how-arabic-science-saved-ancient-knowledge-and-gave-us-the-renaissance
https://www.jimal-khalili.com/books/pathfinders-the-golden-age-of-arabic-science
That's a hugely comprehensive article, thank you.