The goat ate my prophecy!
CSI | The Goat That Ate Islamic Science
Islamic scholars took from this story not the lesson that I find obvious—that the goat was a second Messenger of Allah, who wanted to show Muhammad exactly what he could do with his bonkers idea of stoning adulterers. Instead, they used it to argue that were it not for the goat, the Quran would have (therefore should have?) included the missing verse and that this resolves the apparent doctrinal inconsistency—a hermeneutics of animal husbandry.
I’m sorry. This comic tale doesn’t really have a punch line. But it does reveal something about the nature of knowledge and epistemic authority in Islam, and this may go a long way toward explaining why Arab-Islamic societies never produced a scientific revolution while European societies did.
Comments
"I’m sorry. This comic tale doesn’t really have a punch line. But it does reveal something about the nature of knowledge and epistemic authority in Islam, and this may go a long way toward explaining why Arab-Islamic societies never produced a scientific revolution while European societies did."
Um, what about algebra? Chemistry? Practical engineering? The Islamic Golden Age (which was primarily scientific and technological in nature) predates the European renaissance by several centuries, lasted longer, and was more widespread in its repercussions. Honestly, they only two ways to read that paragraph are as profound ignorance or deeply seated Christo-European chauvinism--and the fact that the author has the hot academic credentials ("Austin Dacey, Ph.D., is former director of Science and the Public, a program of the Center for Inquiry and State University of New York at Buffalo, and author of several articles and books, including The Secular Conscience. He holds a doctorate in applied ethics and social philosophy and has taught most recently at Polytechnic Institute of New York University.") sadly argues against the former. I have as much nostalgic affection for the Skeptical Inquirer as the next mojonaut or mojoketeer, but seriously, if this is the sorta thing that is either a) slipping through their peer review process or b) is embraced by the editorial board, then it really draws into question how much faith we should have in their work as a whole.
(Yeah, I know he winds some of this back in the last few paragraphs of his article, but what he says there indicates all the more that he should know that his initial claim is simply untrue and grossly downplays the contribution of *gasp* Islamic scholars to our current notion of science--and also invites the question: What is the point of this article, apart from mocking a belief system that the author happens to hold in poor regard?)
Posted by: dave-o | May 14, 2010 05:33 PM