Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1

The big question
Finetooth:

Thanks for your recent comments. But the big question remains: did Islamic science really discover so many things before the West?

Difficult question since what we need is someone knowledgeable of both, Western science and Islamic science.

I wonder if there is a peer-reviewer familiar with both?

—Cesar Tort 05:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You might check through the lists at WP:PRV and approach one or two people directly. Finetooth (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Here is a small sample of the many sentences in the article that merit PR consideration by specialists:


 * "The study of experimental physics began with Ibn al-Haytham,[143] a pioneer of modern optics, who introduced the experimental scientific method and used it to drastically transform the understanding of light and vision in his Book of Optics, which has been ranked alongside Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica as one of the most influential books in the history of physics,[144] for initiating a scientific revolution in optics[145] and visual perception.[146]"


 * "The experimental scientific method was soon introduced into mechanics by Biruni,[147] and early precursors to Newton's laws of motion were discovered by several Muslim scientists. The law of inertia, known as Newton's first law of motion, and the concept of momentum were discovered by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen)[148][149] and Avicenna.[150][151] The proportionality between force and acceleration, considered 'the fundamental law of classical mechanics' and foreshadowing Newton's second law of motion, was discovered by Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi,[152] while the concept of reaction, foreshadowing Newton's third law of motion, was discovered by Ibn Bajjah (Avempace).[153] Theories foreshadowing Newton's law of universal gravitation were developed by Ja'far Muhammad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir,[154] Ibn al-Haytham,[155] and al-Khazini.[156] Galileo Galilei's mathematical treatment of acceleration and his concept of impetus[157] was enriched by the commentaries of Avicenna[150]"


 * "Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī stated an early version of the law of conservation of mass, noting that a body of matter is able to change, but is not able to disappear.[109] Alexander von Humboldt and Will Durant consider medieval Muslim chemists to be founders of chemistry.[72][70]"


 * "Ibn al-Nafis laid the foundations for circulatory physiology,[133] as he was the first to describe the pulmonary circulation[134] and coronary circulation,[135][136] which form the basis of the circulatory system, for which he is considered 'the greatest physiologist of the Middle Ages.'[137]"

—Cesar Tort 16:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The approximate answer to the big question is "yes". I'm not an expert on the history of science in general or mathematics in particular, but the mathematics section of the article roughly matches my understanding of the importance of the contribution of medieval islamic scholars to mathematics: arabic numerals were a vital innovation, algebra is arabic, and algorithm is named after Al-Khwārizmī. In detail it isn't so good: for instance, the non-Euclidean/parallel postulate story seems to me to be primarily about spherical trigonometry and elliptical geometry. I'm also surprised this section is so short, given the high quality of Mathematics in medieval Islam.
 * The physics material you quote is very thoroughly referenced, so you can get some idea of the accuracy by checking the quality of the sources. The medieval islamic world certainly contributed enormously to science, and this was poorly understood by early western historians. However, there can be a tendancy for modern historians, particularly those sympathetic to Islam, to overcompensate and exaggerate. For instance, the claim "ranked alongside Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica as one of the most influential books in the history of physics" seems somewhat strong to me, and sure enough, the source is an article published by UNESCO rather than a scholarly journal.
 * The present article seems pretty good to me, though. For instance, Physics in medieval Islam makes the statement: "Muslim scientists placed a greater emphasis on experimentation than previous ancient civilizations... which was due to the emphasis on empirical observation found in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and the rigorous historical methods established in the science of hadith". This is a matter of opinion and so needs to be attributed, not only sourced. The present article does not make the same mistake when it discusses the role of Islam at the start of the sciences section. Geometry guy 19:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. Yes: maths in the Islamic and Mayan worlds were more advanced than in the West. But my main query is about the claims in physics, especially claims that many discoveries almost parallel Newton's. I guess someone familiar with the history of science in both cultures can answer fully this "big question" (see below section)? —Cesar Tort 19:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't say I can answer much of this with specificity. I've never studied much historical mathematics or science. The mathematics section seems close to accurate, though the real problem is that it is presented as a list of firsts and accomplishments instead of just describing the mathematics of the time. The rest of the article seems the same way and you can never get an NPOV article with that method. Specifically in mathematics it refers to "al-Karaji's introduction of algebraic calculus and proof by mathematical induction", which is sort of true but not the whole story. It's not what would be considered mathematical induction by the standards of rigor today, but was indeed an impressive early start at it. Other Islamic scholars did in fact extend it closer to the rigorous way we use it now. The statement on "algebraic calculus" whatever that means seems similarly tilted. the Al-Karaji article does have some a source for that, but given that it is from 1853, it may be outdated or mean something a bit different. So in short, it's close in getting the facts but needs attention from someone that knows the specifics well, and unfortunately I can't meet that bill. As mentioned though the bigger problem is the presentation. - Taxman Talk 12:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from my talk page:
Hello. I'm not sure that I can help here - I am not very knowledgeable about the origins of science, even less so when it comes to the cultures that science originates from. I can say that no mention of any of the Islamic people listed on Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1 was made during a whole 4-year undergraduate course in Physics and Astronomy (and I can't recall them being mentioned in my studies since then, either). Whether that represents a systematic western bias or not is something that I do not know. Your best bet is to check the textbooks for the history of science. Mike Peel (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

—Cesar Tort 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)