[LEGALEAGLE]

The turkish ulema banned the printing of the Quran because they believed that the banging of the printing press on the mus'haf was disrespectful.

Was this a good idea ?

[jinnzaman]

Do you have evidence that the printing press assisted in the formation of scientific knowledge and technological development?

[dreamdeferred]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Do you have evidence that the printing press assisted in the formation of scientific knowledge and technological development?

Sir.....you're being facetious right?

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by dreamdeferred

Sir.....you're being facetious right?

Nope.

Show me direct causal connection.

[dreamdeferred]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Nope.

Show me direct causal connection.

Dude.......I'm too lazy to source my opinions right now so don't make me get too academic.

The printing press completely revolutionized the way knowledge was transmitted and shared. It changed the dynamics of education across class lines and I have no doubt that it contributed to the advancement of scientific and technological achievement.

One could make the same case for the internet in our era. I think the printing press was more profound though in terms of impact.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by dreamdeferred

Dude.......I'm too lazy to source my opinions right now so don't make me get too academic.

The printing press completely revolutionized the way knowledge was transmitted and shared. It changed the dynamics of education across class lines and I have no doubt that it contributed to the advancement of scientific and technological achievement.

One could make the same case for the internet in our era. I think the printing press was more profound though in terms of impact.

Which books were printed and where were they distributed?

[dreamdeferred]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Which books were printed and where were they distributed?

Trick question!

I'm aware that the first books printed were Bibles meant to consolidate interpretive authority. (I hope I have that right it's been a while)

But over the long term I think my points still stand. And stop using the Socratic Method on me mayne!!

[Timbit]

Wow. The historical impact of the printing press cannot be overemphasized.
Jinnz, what is it with you and asking for evidence of such basic things?

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by dreamdeferred

Trick question!

I'm aware that the first books printed were Bibles meant to consolidate interpretive authority. (I hope I have that right it's been a while)

But over the long term I think my points still stand. And stop using the Socratic Method on me mayne!!

haha, you saw where I was heading with this . . . if the majority of books printed using hte printing press were not really scientific in nature . . . then the underlying argument that the printing press caused the 'stifling of science' in the Muslim world is weakened.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Timbit

Wow. The historical impact of the printing press cannot be overemphasized.
Jinnz, what is it with you and asking for evidence of such basic things?

I'm a foundationalist which means that I reduce everything to basic principles and trace the chain of logic. I search for the underlying premises of an argument and when I find the roots of the tree, I subject it to strict scrutiny. If you attack the foundations of an argument, you collapse the rest of the argument.

Anyhow, the entire concept that "science and technology" lead to the ascendancy of the West and the converse proposition, that the absence of science and technology has lead to the decline of the non-West, is inherently Eurocentric and the historical record contains a variety of external explanations for the nature of the hegemonic order.

Its all on my blog. Click on the tag "colonialism" and "clash of civilizations"

Science is a social construct . . . thats what philosophy of science is all about. See the works of Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, et al.

[dreamdeferred]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

haha, you saw where I was heading with this . . . if the majority of books printed using hte printing press were not really scientific in nature . . . then the underlying argument that the printing press caused the 'stifling of science' in the Muslim world is weakened.

Understood......

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

I'm a foundationalist which means that I reduce everything to basic principles and trace the chain of logic. I search for the underlying premises of an argument and when I find the roots of the tree, I subject it to strict scrutiny. If you attack the foundations of an argument, you collapse the rest of the argument.

Anyhow, the entire concept that "science and technology" lead to the ascendancy of the West and the converse proposition, that the absence of science and technology has lead to the decline of the non-West, is inherently Eurocentric and the historical record contains a variety of external explanations for the nature of the hegemonic order.

Its all on my blog. Click on the tag "colonialism" and "clash of civilizations"

Science is a social construct . . . thats what philosophy of science is all about. See the works of Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, et al.

Dammit man........I'm too sleepy to formulate a coherent response to this. I'm hip to the authors you've mentioned and while I agree that the "science and technology" argument for the current world order is paper thin I don't see how that lessens the impact of the printing press on the advancement of science/tech.

To my mind, there's nothing mutually exclusive about on the one hand legitimately challenging the philosophical underpinnings of science and on the other acknowledging the obvious effects of certain technological developments (like Gutenberg's press).

Anyways I'm ramblin' now......

Have you read Seyyed Hossein Nasr's book on the Islamic philosophy of science (forgot the title)? It's fantastic.

Ziaddun Sardar also had a cool book on this as well.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by dreamdeferred

Understood......



Dammit man........I'm too sleepy to formulate a coherent response to this. I'm hip to the authors you've mentioned and while I agree that the "science and technology" argument for the current world order is paper thin I don't see how that lessens the impact of the printing press on the advancement of science/tech.

You're not understanding my argument. I'm not arguing that the printing press didn't contribute to the production of scientific revolutions, but it wasn't a necessary cause, merely a sufficient cause. The printing press was invented in the 1400s. Most of the major scientific revolutions didn't occur until the late 1600s. Thats a two hundred year or so gap. So there has to be another explanation for the occurrence of these paradigm shifts. For example, lets ask: which European countries contributed to science? Which European countries did not? Why did specific regions within Europe develop scientific cultures and others did not? Was it a political reason or an economic reason or some cultural reason or some religious reason?

To my mind, there's nothing mutually exclusive about on the one hand legitimately challenging the philosophical underpinnings of science and on the other acknowledging the obvious effects of certain technological developments (like Gutenberg's press).

Anyways I'm ramblin' now......

Have you read Seyyed Hossein Nasr's book on the Islamic philosophy of science (forgot the title)? It's fantastic.

Ziaddun Sardar also had a cool book on this as well.

I've read Nasr and my favorite work of his is a young Muslims guide to the modern world. In terms of his major works on philosophy, there's the philosophy of Islam, but i'm not sure which book ur referring to about science. if u remember the title, lemme know.

Which book does ZS have?

[Jaysh]

Down with Jinnzaman and his philosophical and intellectual bantering!

Down with Jamroll!

Hey, where the heck is Jammy nowadays??? Is he oK?

[dreamdeferred]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

You're not understanding my argument. I'm not arguing that the printing press didn't contribute to the production of scientific revolutions, but it wasn't a necessary cause, merely a sufficient cause. The printing press was invented in the 1400s. Most of the major scientific revolutions didn't occur until the late 1600s. Thats a two hundred year or so gap. So there has to be another explanation for the occurrence of these paradigm shifts. For example, lets ask: which European countries contributed to science? Which European countries did not? Why did specific regions within Europe develop scientific cultures and others did not? Was it a political reason or an economic reason or some cultural reason or some religious reason?

Nah........I get your argument bro. Your original question/assertion was as follows...

"Do you have evidence that the printing press assisted in the formation of scientific knowledge and technological development?"

To which I still say "blurgh!"......I'll track down sources for you 'cause I know your academic a$* won't be satisfied without it but the printing press was a significant precursor to the advancement of science/tech. Certainly not the only precursor...or even the most significant but an important one none the less.

RIPOSTE!!! We'll meet again tomorrow sir...iA....I'm not sure how I'm awake right now.

I've read Nasr and my favorite work of his is a young Muslims guide to the modern world. In terms of his major works on philosophy, there's the philosophy of Islam, but i'm not sure which book ur referring to about science. if u remember the title, lemme know.

Which book does ZS have?

Oh man I've got to get my hands on that "Young muslim's guide..." again, I enjoyed it very much back in the day.

Nasr's book
Amazon.com: Need for a Sacred Science, The (S U N Y Series in Religious Studies): Seyyed, Hossein Nasr: Books

I can't quite remember where I read Sardar's material....it might of been an essay, looked for a while on google couldn't find it.
It may have been in this book though I'm not sure.....I'll look through my notes and get back to you.

Amazon.com: How Do You Know?: Reading Ziauddin Sardar on Islam, Science and Cultural Relations: Ziauddin Sardar, Ehsan Masood: Books

Here's an article that I skimmed where Sardar discusses his views (was it the original work of his I read? I don't know). It's interesting that his work is largely oppositional towards Nasr's, may have been why I read them around the same time.

Sardar article
IslamOnline - Contemporary Section