A Tunisian PhD student's submitted thesis claims the Earth is flat

[SoulMonster]

Backwards Islam being integrated into every aspect of muslim culture and society is holding countries back.

http://m.gulfnews.com/amp/opinion/thinkers/phd-thesis-the-earth-is-flat-1.2009202

No wonder muslim countries are doing so poorly in science and research:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worlds-best-countries-science/

[Len Cnut]

I remember being little in Qu'ran classes and some matey pointing out some vague verse in the Qu'ran where it says something like 'did Allah not create the sun and the moon and make the earth revolve around the sun' or some vague reference thereof, and this guy goin' SEE SEE?!?!?!  The Qu'ran knew it before science!'

Edited August 23, 2017 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

Islam actually led the way scientifically between the collapse of Rome and circa the 16th century, so - yet again - you are completely incorrect about something.

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Islam actually led the way scientifically between the collapse of Rome and circa the 16th century, so - yet again - you are completely incorrect about something.

I suppose you are talking to me? I never said that islamic countries before 1000 AD weren't leading the world in science and exploration. I was obviously talking about today.

Back in pre-medieval times ALL coutries were hopeless in this regards, but islamic countries -- because of tolerance, an inkling for inquiry, wealth and a fondness for learning -- was just less bad than the others.

[soon]

Speaking of science: way to have a sample group of one to demonstrate your hypothesis.

[Graeme]

My colleagues who use satellites to gather digital elevation data on volcanoes are in for a shock when this thesis proves that they all operate under a shared delusion.

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, soon said:

Speaking of science: way to have a sample group of one to demonstrate your hypothesis.

I wasn't attempting to prove a hypothesis, really, I was presenting one example of how bad has become in most muslim countries when it comes to science. To further that point I also presented a link to a graph that actually proves it. Here you have it again: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worlds-best-countries-science/

[soon]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

I wasn't attempting to prove a hypothesis, really, I was presenting one example of how bad has become in most muslim countries when it comes to science. To further that point I also presented a link to a graph that actually proves it. Here you have it again: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worlds-best-countries-science/

That graph states that its not easy to tell why one country is doing better.  At no time does it suggest Islam has a role.  Did you read it?

You're the one who put forward that Islamic countries are producing less successful science because of the faith, based on one example.  So since you said that, this is what Im speaking to.

 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, soon said:

That graph states that its not easy to tell why one country is doing better.  At no time does it suggest Islam has a role.  Did you read it?

You're the one who put forward that Islamic countries are producing less successful science because of the faith, based on one example.  So since you said that, this is what Im speaking to.

I think it is pretty clear that muslim countries do less well in science compared to Western countries. If you look at the chart you will see they publish less scientific articles in peer-reviewed papers and educate less doctors. This is really not controversial and you can read more about it here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/321/5890/745 and here https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/how-can-muslim-countries-revive-interest-in-the-sciences/

Then I would argue that this is at least partly due to the negative influences of islam. Islam is after all one of the distingushing characteristics of these countries, so it makes sense. And as an Abrahamic religion, islam is often opposed to scientific findings when it contradicts their religious teachings. In Europe we have been through much of the same, but luckily, in the end, the religious people here have adopted this idea that the religious realm is somehow apart from the scientific realm and thus they can both coexist peacefully. This hasn't happened in most muslim countries, yet, so you have large tracts of people there who actually believe that the quran and hadith verses are more trustworthy than scientific findings.

Edited August 23, 2017 by SoulMonster

[soon]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I think it is pretty clear that muslim countries do less well in science compared to Western countries. If you look at the chart you will see they publish less scientific articles in peer-reviewed papers and educate less doctors. This is really not controversial and you can read more about it here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/321/5890/745

Then I would argue that this is at least partly due to the negative influences of islam. Islam is after all one of the distingushing characteristics of these countries, so it makes sense. And as an Abrahamic religion, islam is often opposed to scientific findings when it contradicts their religious teachings. In Europe we have been through much of the same, but luckily, in the end, the religious people here have adopted this idea that the religious realm is somehow apart from the scientific realm and thus they can both coexist peacefully. This hasn't happened in most muslim countries, yet, so you have large tracts of people there who actually believe that the quran and hadith verses are more trustworthy than scientific findings.

Your sample group to demonstrate this is one person.  again.

 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, soon said:

Your sample group to demonstrate this is one person.  again.

What are you talking about? I am demonstrating that muslim countries are poor at science by presenting data on their publication and PhD rates. I am also pointing out that this is not really controversial. You can read even more about it here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/how-can-muslim-countries-revive-interest-in-the-sciences/

Then I am making a case for this being at least partly due to the negative influence of islam. I am not presenting any statistical evidence (hence your strange comment about sampling group), I am arguing by pointing to comparative history and sociology.

Also, looking at comparative religion, there has been less movement in islam to re-interpret religious texts. Hence it is harder for them to accept that parts of the quran and hadith should be considered parables and written for an earlier time. Christians, as an example, have for the most part become quite good at dismissing and reinterpreting bible verses that are outdated and ridiculous today and clash with scientific findings. This means that the poor lady doing her PhD in Tunisia would not be met with reasonable opposition from her supervisors and peers when she argued that the Earth is flat because that's what it says in the quran. That they the quran much more at face value than goddicts here in Europe.

[DieselDaisy]

Absolute rubbish Soul. And I thought you were interested in the history of science? You should know that Newton wrote religious tracts?

You do know that when heliocentricism was conceived, Europe was a profoundly religious place? When the laws of motion were conceived, Europe was a religious place? When potassium was isolated, Europe was a religious place? When Darwin wrote on evolution he chucked it in a draw for years because - lo and behold - Europe was a religious place.

Practically all of Europe's scientific achievements, which is to say those occurring before the 20th century, occurred in an environment which was either intensely religious, or in which religion still held sway.

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

In Europe we have been through much of the same, but luckily, in the end, the religious people here have adopted this idea that the religious realm is somehow apart from the scientific realm and thus they can both coexist peacefully.

PS I was replying to this

[soon]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

What are you talking about? I am demonstrating that muslim countries are poor at science by presenting data on their publication and PhD rates. I am also pointing out that this is not really controversial. You can read even more about it here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/how-can-muslim-countries-revive-interest-in-the-sciences/

Then I am making a case for this being at least partly due to the negative influence of islam. I am not presenting any statistical evidence (hence your strange comment about sampling group), I am arguing by pointing to comparative history and sociology.

Also, looking at comparative religion, there has been less movement in islam to re-interpret religious texts. Hence it is harder for them to accept that parts of the quran and hadith should be considered parables and written for an earlier time. Christians, as an example, have for the most part become quite good at dismissing and reinterpreting bible verses that are outdated and ridiculous today and clash with scientific findings. This means that the poor lady doing her PhD in Tunisia would not be met with reasonable opposition from her supervisors and peers when she argued that the Earth is flat because that's what it says in the quran. That they the quran much more at face value than goddicts here in Europe.

that part is true.

you've made a mockery of science.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Absolute rubbish Soul. And I thought you were interested in the history of science? You should know that Newton wrote religious tracts?

You do know that when heliocentricism was conceived, Europe was a profoundly religious place? When the laws of motion were conceived, Europe was a religious place? When potassium was isolated, Europe was a religious place? When Darwin wrote on evolution he chucked it in a draw for years because - lo and behold - Europe was a religious place.

Practically all of Europe's scientific achievements, which is to say those occurring before the 20th century, occurred in an environment which was either intensely religious, or in which religion still held sway.

PS I was replying to this

Nothing I said contradicts what you here say. Nowhere did I say science cannot coexist with religion. The enlightenment came and science prevailed even IF it had to coexist with theism. Luckily, today, religion has been marginalized here and science can work in a secular environment. That's why we today live in the golden age of science. At no time in history have we so efficiently explored the natural work as we do today. Andn that is largely because the shackles of religious superstition have been replaced by rational thought and the scientific method. But unfortunately that is not the case in many muslim countries, yet.

9 minutes ago, soon said:

that part is true.

you've made a mockery of science.

My argument wasn't based on provided statistical evidence for islam's negative influence on science in muslim countries, so I am not really sure what confuses you so much. Not every argument in the world needs to rely on statistics, you know?

[soon]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

My argument wasn't based on provided statistical evidence for islam's negative influence on science in muslim countries, so I am not really sure what confuses you so much. Not every argument in the world needs to rely on statistics, you know?

Uh huh?  Sure.  You pointed to statistics numerous times.  And you held up only one example that was not supported by those statistics.  In fact the stats you pointed to contradicted your point in the first sentence.

And while every argument may not need to be based on statistics; the one you put forward would need to be.  You know?

 

[Dazey]

8 minutes ago, soon said:

Uh huh?  Sure.  You pointed to statistics numerous times.  And you held up only one example that was not supported by those statistics.  In fact the stats you pointed to contradicted your point in the first sentence.

And while every argument may not need to be based on statistics; the one you put forward would need to be.  You know?

Is it really so hard to accept that religion and science are inherently incompatible and that overtly theocratic nations therefore tend to be shit at science?

[SoulMonster]

Just now, soon said:

Uh huh?  Sure.  You pointed to statistics numerous times.  And you held up only one example that was not supported by those statistics.  In fact the stats you pointed to contradicted your point in the first sentence.

And while every argument may not need to be based on statistics; the one you put forward would need to be.  You know?

I used a graph only to demonstrate that science is not faring well in muslim countries, not to argue for islam being a reason for this (that graph only present correlation, not causality). Is it the fact that it is one graph that bothers you? You think that when presenting data in graphs, it is not the data that actually go into the graphs that needs to be statistically significant, but that you need to present a statistically significant amounts of graphs? Oh please tell me it is so.

Again, I didn't think I needed to prove that science is not exactly flowering in muslim countries. I thought that was something that was obvious to everyone. I kinda reserved my energy for arguing why islam is one of the reasons behind this sad state. But sure, if you need to be convinced that muslim countries tend to be poorer at science than Western countries before we can embark on discussing the reasons, then we can go through that exercise together. First, did you actually read the two articles I posted to you?

[soon]

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Backwards Islam being integrated into every aspect of muslim culture and society is holding countries back.

http://m.gulfnews.com/amp/opinion/thinkers/phd-thesis-the-earth-is-flat-1.2009202

No wonder muslim countries are doing so poorly in science and research:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worlds-best-countries-science/

this is what you said.  And you have failed to prove that, while drifting into a different point.

[Ace Nova]

You mean the Earth isn't flat?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, soon said:

this is what you said.  And you have failed to prove that, while drifting into a different point.

I never intended to prove that muslim countries are really poor at science because they are islamic, because I don't think that can really be proven, as such. I have presented a case for it, by arguing that islam tends to be less flexible when it comes to re-interpreting religious texts when they crash with scientific findings. I can expand upon this argument by pointing out that religiosity in muslim countries tends to be higher than in most other countries, hence whatever detrimental effect a religion has is even more devastating. Additionally, modern interpretation of islam has created, in some states at least, an almost hostile relationship to Western ideas and thought, and unfortunately this means that to some muslims, science is considered nothing more than a foreign heresy.

You can be persuaded by my argumentation or not. That's fine. If you don't think islam is at fault, or less at fault, then please join the discussion by presenting your own theory for why muslims are really bad at science. Personally, I would point to poverty, collapsing states, warfare, etc as additional causes, but then again some of these will at least partly be caused by religion. So it is complex.

[soon]

well, you havent convinced me about your original point

[The Glow Inc.]

I don't see how any groundbreaking theory on the nature of reality could come out of any country where openly questioning religious authorities, muslims scholars and politicians, can get you in prison.

Do you think honestly think such countries, that have a tendency of intermingling religion and politics, actually value and fund this type of scientific research ?

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, soon said:

well, you havent convinced me about your original point

Can you tell me what my original point was, without quoting me but actually rephrasing it, so I can see we are actually talking about the same thing?

[Graeme]

Flat Earth Lunar Eclipse:

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Nothing I said contradicts what you here say. Nowhere did I say science cannot coexist with religion. The enlightenment came and science prevailed even IF it had to coexist with theism. Luckily, today, religion has been marginalized here and science can work in a secular environment. That's why we today live in the golden age of science.

Are you discounting scientific discoveries made before the Enlightenment?

Here, let us summarise thus far,

- You admit that scientific brilliance occurred under the Caliphates?

- You admit scientific achievement occurred when Europe was a more fervently religious place?

- I hope you are going to admit that scientific achievement occurred in Europe before the Enlightenment, unless you disregard Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon and Descartes?

Your argument, that religion impedes scientific growth, is looking flakier by the second!

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

At no time in history have we so efficiently explored the natural work as we do today.

...standing on the shoulder of giants, religious giants in fact.