“Science refuses to take root in Muslim countries”: Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy

yasir

T20I Debutant
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Runs
7,133
Post of the Week
2
Lot of respect for Dr Prevez Hoodbhoy, in an environment where there is very limited freedom of speech, he says a lot, part of the reason is maybe most people don't get it :(

There are quite a few nuggets in this interview. I have tried to highlight those:

“Science refuses to take root in Muslim countries” Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy


Is the Muslim world more affected by pseudoscience and superstition than any other part of the world?

Pseudoscience – defined as statements about nature that are spurious and do not pass the test of scientific validity – is to be found everywhere. However, wherever excessive emphasis is placed upon tradition and belief, it becomes more common. For example, I have been to India multiple times and seen how even educated people there can be persuaded to believe in completely nonsensical stuff. In 1995, I saw absolute pandemonium in Delhi as hundreds of thousands of Hindus rushed to their temples after hearing that the elephant god Ganesh had been discovered drinking milk offered by his devotees. Then, after a few days Indian rationalists challenged this and actually demonstrated that it was capillary action which caused the liquid to slowly move up the elephant god’s trunk!

I could give you many more examples from India – and I’m sure you could give me plenty of examples from Italy, of weeping Madonnas – but there’s something different about Pakistan and the Muslim world, in general. Science resolutely refuses to take root in Muslim countries. It’s much harder there to summon forces against pseudoscience. Sadly, charlatans, crooks, and religious people are easily able to mislead people.

An example: about three years ago, a hitherto unknown man, Agha Waqar Pathan, became a national hero in Pakistan when he claimed to have invented a car that runs on plain water. No petrol, no gas, no diesel or any other fuel would be required. Members of the prime minister’s cabinet, opposition politicians, television anchors and journalists stood in line to get photographed with this national celebrity. Pakistan’s nuclear hero, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, endorsed this man along with scores of other scientists. I kept saying on TV that this man is taking us for a ride, that he’s a fraud and that this is scientific nonsense. Ultimately, it turned out that Pathan was a bank robber. He was disgraced and people were very embarrassed.

What makes Pakistan so unique vis-à-vis other countries? I think it’s a combination of two factors. First, the insistence that religion must be brought into everything – including science – puts certain critical faculties to sleep. Second, kids are taught science as though they were memorising a holy text. The student is asked to reproduce facts of science, not to use them in a manner that demands reasoning.

Pseudoscience in Islamic garb comes in a variety of forms. We have the so-called “scientific interpretation” of the Quran, Islamic creationism, and various academic projects to “Islamise” science. Then we have scams like the water-run car you mentioned. Which forms of pseudoscience are you familiar with, and who are they appealing to?

Fortunately, the so-called intellectuals who set out to create a pure Islamic science are less to be seen today than 30 years ago. Then, under the patronage of President General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan, these people had been adopted by the Pakistani state to fulfil an ideological mission.

Zia’s cronies claimed the existence of an Islamic science that stood apart from Christian science, Jewish science, Hindu science, etc. Using the critique of science made by western post-modernists, they wedded this with Islamic theology and then claimed discovering a science based on Islamic values. None of these people were real scientists, although quite a few had Ph.Ds. They used fancy words to dignify their efforts but there was no content. To debunk this was one reason why, in the late 1980s, I wrote my book, Islam and Science – Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality. Today I am happy to see that fewer people are spending their time on such stuff.

It is in the realm of living things that Muslims and science have their biggest clash. Most, though not all, flatly deny human evolution. Our schoolbooks dismiss the notion that life evolved from simpler to more complex forms. For example, a current biology textbook declares that “The theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin in the 19th century, is one of the most unbelievable and irrational claims in history.” Even in the biology department at my university, students tell me that their professors say that they teach the theory of evolution, only because they are obliged to. In fact, they say they don’t really believe in it.

Then there’s belief in Islamic medicine. You can see many billboards around the country that advertise Islamic cures such as bleeding, cupping, or snails that suck blood. Also, there are faith-healers, who sell little amulets that they claim have medicinal properties. On TV channels there are countless programmes dedicated to faith healing.

It’s not just the poor and the uneducated who believe in them. In fact, supernatural beliefs are vigorously promoted on university campuses.

Would you say, then, that your country has a special problem with pseudoscience?



Well, as I said earlier, this kind of problem is to be found elsewhere too – Bangladesh, Indonesia, Egypt, and possibly other places where I haven’t been. The problem is that science taught across the Sunni Muslim world is very much in the nature of repetition and memorisation. I see students in a group chanting and memorising, just before a science test. Science is associated with formulas and diagrams and charts; it is seen as something to be remembered, not something that enhances your analytical powers.

Given the weakness of analytical powers, it is natural that pseudoscience, in its manifestations, has a grip upon people. It exists everywhere, but here we suffer from the lack of a good scientific education. The student has little exposure to real science and does not know about it depth, its breadth, its beauty, and its power.

There is also a lack of role models for young Pakistanis. Our brightest students do not even think of getting into science. Instead, they would rather study accounting and finance, or work for some multinational corporation that sells products developed in other parts of the world. This is the case with much of the Muslim world.

Shia Iran and Sunni Turkey are somewhat better off in scientific terms. Their social cultures are relatively more advanced and secular. Iran has a pre-Islamic history of which they are very proud – perhaps too proud. Still, one feels an intellectual depth in Iranian society that is absent from Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Arab countries. Remarkably, even in Khomeini’s time there was no attempt to create a specifically Islamic science unlike in Pakistan under Zia-ul-Haq.

Do any forms of pseudoscience currently receive governmental funding and support?

Some years ago, the Higher Education Commission in Pakistan, was supporting projects aimed at explaining the scientific content of the Quran. Official support of science projects, based on pseudoscience in Islamic garb, is uncommon today, but it exists.

Going back over 30 years, I had had an acrimonious public debate with a senior director of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), Bashiruddin Mahmood, who wrote a paper saying that jinns – the invisible creatures that Allah made out of fire just as He made man out of clay – could be captured and used to solve Pakistan’s electricity problem. I called it nonsense, and he accused me of being an enemy of Islam. Interestingly, just the other day I received a paper written by another PAEC person who says he strongly disagrees with Mahmood and agrees with my judgement of him. However, this man tried hard to convince me that although getting energy out of jinns directly is impossible, following King Solomon it is definitely possible to use them as slaves for driving turbines!

I could give many such examples but let me just say that the support for pseudoscience in Pakistan does not come largely from the state any more. Instead, there are private TV channels that propagate so-called Islamic healing and miracles, and rail against evolution. The sad fact is that of the about 70-80 channels, not one channel is devoted to actual science. The only popular science documentaries series ever produced in Pakistan were the two series (1995, 2003) that I made (Asrar-e-Jahan and Bazm-e-Kainat). Sometimes our English newspapers carry science news, such as when President Obama said America sent a manned mission to Mars. But it’s rare to find such news in the mainstream Urdu media.

What is your take on the distortion of the history of science in Islamic garb? I am thinking of the exhibit, 1001 Inventions. Does it overlap with pseudoscience?

It’s not a bad thing to be proud of one’s history – and I am perfectly happy to read and see more on great Muslim/Arab scientists of antiquity. In fact, I also teach this stuff in one of my courses. But let’s remember that science is the creation of all humankind. Unfortunately, every civilisation has a tendency to look back and say, “We were the real inventors.” With Hindu chauvinism on the rise, you see lots of this in Modi’s India. Similarly, the Chinese have always believed that China has been the cradle of science and civilisation. It should not surprise anyone that in Pakistan, and probably most Muslim countries, students are taught that Muslims alone invented science and that the Europeans stole their ideas. However, this false assertion of cultural and religious pride does not, by itself, generate crazy ideas. Pseudoscience comes about when the scientific method is bypassed and simple logical tests are thrown aside.

How do you judge the current state of scientific research and scientific education in the Muslim world?

There have been two Nobel Prize winners, Abdus Salam (physics, 1979) and Ahmad Zewail (chemistry, 1999). Both lived their professional lives in the West and died there. They owe little to their native lands. Salam is a tragic case, because he considered himself a strongly believing Muslim, but his sect – the Ahmadiyya – was declared heretical in 1974 by an act of the Pakistani parliament. This destroyed the one role model that we could have had for science in Pakistan. He is almost unknown to our students, and there is little enthusiasm for science among young people today.

As for the state of science in Islam: there has been little activity since the 12th century. It’s a sad fact that no invention of great importance – electricity, computers, and antibiotics being examples – has been produced by Muslims. Until a decade or two ago, there were very few research papers being published by Muslim authors. However, the scientometric department of Thompson Reuters Corporation released a report in 2016 saying that the number of publications from Pakistan, as well as the number of citations, has increased by 400 per cent over the last 10 years. Unfortunately, this is completely bogus. Such a four-fold increase should have been immediately noticeable in laboratory activity, seminars, colloquia, lectures, etc. But none of this is visible. What’s actually happening is that people have figured out how to write academic papers and to get them cited. There now exist “citation cartels,” with the collaboration of academic crooks – Chinese, Indians, Americans, and almost everyone around the world.

Because of the massive amount of cheating, acquiring an understanding of how science is doing in any country is now actually a very difficult task. There is a big increase in quantity, but that quantity is meaningless. Saudi Arabian universities are a prime example of false statistics. Saudi students and teachers have little interest or ability in science but on paper those universities are thriving. That’s because they hire talented professors from the US and Europe, who then raise the reputation of those universities. The attempt to quantify university rankings and progress in science will have to await better metrics.


If you were to be made Minister of Education, what policies would you adopt in order to fight pseudoscience in an Islamic garb?

The first thing I would do is test teachers and students for scientific competence. University and college admissions should be based on a student’s ability to pass a test that is on science itself and requires them to solve problems at different levels of complexity. I would take away the 20 extra points that are granted to those who have memorised the Quran. Further, in evaluating applicants for teaching posts in science departments, they should be asked only those questions that are relevant to their fields.

Is there any consistent way to harmonise scientific beliefs and religious ones?

There’s only one way to create this harmony. Put them into two separate, non-overlapping compartments. Leave science to scientists, to be pursued using scientific methods based on reason, logic, experiment and observation. And leave religion to the spiritual domain of the individual. Or else, there will be confusion and conflict.

The only Muslim thinker who was able to successfully deal with this issue on the Indian subcontinent was Sayyid Ahmad Khan. Following the mua’tizilla (rationalist) tradition, he insisted that that one has to examine the etymology of the words in the Quran and then interpret and reinterpret until Islam ends up conforming with science. This requires some terrific intellectual acrobatics, but there is really no other way. If we are to believe in supernatural miracles as violations of the laws of nature, then that violation can always repeat itself and completely destroy the predictive value of science. One ends up being back in the pre-scientific age.

Radicalism and terrorism are plaguing the Muslim world. Are they in any way linked to pseudoscience?

No, the two are not directly linked. The terrorist mindset among some Muslims is created out of anti-westernism, both for genuine and spurious reasons, as well as hatred against other Muslim sects. It is furthered by the access clergy and hatemongers have to the public media. It is unlikely that a terrorist thinks very much about scientific issues, and so any linkage must be quite tenuous. But the terrorist mindset is definitely the result of uncritically absorbed propaganda. If a person was to critically examine what he or she is told, then extreme positions would be much less likely. More real science in the Muslim world could mean that we would have less terrorism as well as less pseudoscience.

http://newslinemagazine.com/magazine/science-refuses-take-root-muslim-countries-dr-pervez-hoodbhoy/
 
First science needs to advance to the level of deciding whether the correct way of praying is by keeping hands on the chest or by the side. Once science answers that question then maybe Muslim countries will start focusing on some actual scientific research.
 
In a society where people would rather believe in miracles and all, its hard for the locals to accept science.

Ever since we are born in Pakistan we would be told how every thing is the work of god, miracles, work of taveez, our destination is already written, or time of death is already determined.

And as i grew older, it was because of tv that i learn that all this stuff isn't true. A guy who has cancer could extend or shorten his life by either not getting chemo, or getting it at full dose or getting it as 2 weeks in and 2 weeks off.

I know people who say that dua will cure illness, scientist and docters are idiots. Why? Because someone was misdiagnosed and was cured because of some dua...
 
Deep rooted problems. Indoctrination of Islam has stopped any rational thinking.
 
:facepalm: Now Atheists / Liberals will bash Islam for all the problems in the country.

read that thread regarding why jews have flourished and muslims have not. It had some very interesting points.

Particularly the way the rabbis have asked their followers to live their life and the way our mullahs have told us to live our life.

And i have seen with my own eyes how people who are religious are soo disillusioned.
 
Another well disguised anti-Islam thread by the resident atheist.
 
Another well disguised anti-Islam thread by the resident atheist.

I would say it was anti-religion but in the case of Pakistan it is anti-islam considering it is you know... the state religion.
 
Anybody remembers the time when that fraudiya claimed that he developed a car run on water, and then even esteemed scientists came on television and said laws of thermodynamics are breakable only law that can't be broken are Allah's laws.

I was facepalming the entire time. Such is the level of intellect of the country.


Koi in jahiloon ko bataye laws of thermodynamics are not man made, man just realized them and put them in writing :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
 
Anybody remembers the time when that fraudiya claimed that he developed a car run on water, and then even esteemed scientists came on television and said laws of thermodynamics are breakable only law that can't be broken are Allah's laws.

I was facepalming the entire time. Such is the level of intellect of the country.


Koi in jahiloon ko bataye laws of thermodynamics are not man made, man just realized them and put them in writing :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
:)))

I'm not even surprised
 
:facepalm: Now Atheists / Liberals will bash Islam for all the problems in the country.

Another well disguised anti-Islam thread by the resident atheist.

As pointed out in Article, there is more protection of religion than rational and open conservation.

Conflict between religion and Science is one of the biggest cultural development issue faced by 1.7B Muslim community. Why we cannot have rational conversation about it? - Its not a patriotic or emotional issue, where religion has to win. If religion has strong intellectual foundation why fear the battle??

Intellectual conversation about role of religion and Science in educational institutions(schools, collages, universities), medium of information(media, internet etc) & cultural developments (Art, TV, Radio,Theater ) is something we have avoided for long time. Many conservatives think that by not allowing or talking about it problem will go away, opposite has happened in reality.

These intellectual conversations are like design process (in Science & ENG terms), you have to invest in design process to have improve product (aka society). Dogma is something that has to be challenged at all levels, all the time, that's the only way to get rid of it. We have not find any other way of dealing with dogma, other than shaming it intellectually. We are not going to get rid of extremism, poverty without raising the literacy, literacy needs vibrant liberal environment, not the ratification of everything.
 
Anybody remembers the time when that fraudiya claimed that he developed a car run on water, and then even esteemed scientists came on television and said laws of thermodynamics are breakable only law that can't be broken are Allah's laws.

I was facepalming the entire time. Such is the level of intellect of the country.


Koi in jahiloon ko bataye laws of thermodynamics are not man made, man just realized them and put them in writing :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

LOL!!! - I remember my Father in Law was quoting those Pseudo Scientist, that they have PhD, how can you not listen to them...

Blame squarely lies on conservative culture and values that are so dear to us. Even now Turkey is getting rid of teaching Evolution in Schools, they will be one extremist state in decade or so if Erdogan & Co were able to force their agenda. Another Pakistan in making :facepalm:
 
I don't get why everything is the fault of the religion and not its followers
 
Pervez Hoodhboy has no clue about the history of science in Islam esp. in the so called post classical period (he didn't seem to have learned a lot from his "discussion" with Asad Q. Ahmed, but perhaps "science refuses to take root" in his mind), the wider epistemological issues of bringing the "scientific method" in a still widely agrarian society (which also happens in India, China, ... but who cares), etc, etc Pervez Hoodhboy is in fact the typical European Orientalist of the late 19th century, like Ernest Renan - and I precise the era because not a single modern academic of Islamic studies will talk such way (no, Dawkins is not a scholar when it comes to Islam), but he makes "liberals"* sleep well because it's quite gratifying to think that Islam is against science while not doing much to remediate the mess (have you contributed in building primary school in deprived areas, trying to address corruption in higher education, to equilibrate the quality between public/private schools, ... ?)

* I just want to say that by "liberals" I meant the typical paindoo from Pakistan who think that the height of liberalism is not to mimic the best values of classical Europe but to put some pork in the samosa perhaps - how enlightened indeed.
 
Pervez Hoodhboy has no clue about the history of science in Islam esp. in the so called post classical period (he didn't seem to have learned a lot from his "discussion" with Asad Q. Ahmed, but perhaps "science refuses to take root" in his mind), the wider epistemological issues of bringing the "scientific method" in a still widely agrarian society (which also happens in India, China, ... but who cares), etc, etc Pervez Hoodhboy is in fact the typical European Orientalist of the late 19th century, like Ernest Renan - and I precise the era because not a single modern academic of Islamic studies will talk such way (no, Dawkins is not a scholar when it comes to Islam), but he makes "liberals"* sleep well because it's quite gratifying to think that Islam is against science while not doing much to remediate the mess (have you contributed in building primary school in deprived areas, trying to address corruption in higher education, to equilibrate the quality between public/private schools, ... ?)

* I just want to say that by "liberals" I meant the typical paindoo from Pakistan who think that the height of liberalism is not to mimic the best values of classical Europe but to put some pork in the samosa perhaps - how enlightened indeed.

Islam is against science, that is for sure, as any religion is. Every religion has a God at the center of it, which is a non-starter as far as scientific conversation goes.

It may be a valid historical footnote that Muslims were contributors to scientific progress, but it doesn't change anything about the reality of today that science is not taking root in Muslim societies.
 
When muslim conquered persia, 2nd Khalifa ordered to burn the books as for muslims quran was enough.

Abbasid, encouraged scholars of different fields, but that was due to their personal interests and Baghdad played a great role moving the human knowledge forward, especially in geology, astronomy, medicine, chemistry and mathematics.

Actually Musa kharzami (he was persian) is considered to be the father of computer science.

But overall west won, as their mind set changed, and every other nation failed to match them as their mind set was not updated.
 
When muslim conquered persia, 2nd Khalifa ordered to burn the books as for muslims quran was enough.

Abbasid, encouraged scholars of different fields, but that was due to their personal interests and Baghdad played a great role moving the human knowledge forward, especially in geology, astronomy, medicine, chemistry and mathematics.

Actually Musa kharzami (he was persian) is considered to be the father of computer science.

But overall west won, as their mind set changed, and every other nation failed to match them as their mind set was not updated.

No, that would be Alan Turing.

Khwarizmi's major contribution was in algebra, where he introduced balancing equations by moving RHS and LHS. Two of his books Zīj al-Sindhind and Kitāb al-Jam‘ wat-Tafrīq bi-Ḥisāb al-Hind came from the knowledge of ancient pakistanis and indians.
 
Correlation doesn't indicate causation. If you look at most of the countries coming out of centuries of colonialism, they all suffer from a lack of scientific progress. Some might be slightly faster than others but most of them are at the bottom of the barrel trying to recover from their usage as colonies.

Also every empire rises and falls. We happen to live in times when the regions we hail from are recovering from devastating losses. 500 years ago, that was not the case and in another 500 years, world will change drastically and the ones at top right now might not stay there. Empires rise and fall, that much is guaranteed.

If Islam was the problem, Muslims would not have dominated at any point in time yet they did.
 
Correlation doesn't indicate causation. If you look at most of the countries coming out of centuries of colonialism, they all suffer from a lack of scientific progress. Some might be slightly faster than others but most of them are at the bottom of the barrel trying to recover from their usage as colonies.

Also every empire rises and falls. We happen to live in times when the regions we hail from are recovering from devastating losses. 500 years ago, that was not the case and in another 500 years, world will change drastically and the ones at top right now might not stay there. Empires rise and fall, that much is guaranteed.

If Islam was the problem, Muslims would not have dominated at any point in time yet they did.

Domination in what? Greek ,Romans had their religion and they dominated as well in that logic.

Change is the only constant and if religion is major part of any system and doesn't encourage asking questions it will harm the society.
 
Every religion has a God at the center of it, which is a non-starter as far as scientific conversation goes.

Don't think science has a problem with the concept of God per se. The scientific community is far from being on the same page with regards to definitively proving or disproving the existence of God.
 
Islam is against science, that is for sure, as any religion is. Every religion has a God at the center of it, which is a non-starter as far as scientific conversation goes.

It may be a valid historical footnote that Muslims were contributors to scientific progress, but it doesn't change anything about the reality of today that science is not taking root in Muslim societies.

Yes and I guess you have made more scientific contributions than nobodies like Aryabhatta (Hindu), Ibn Sina (Muslim), Newton (Christian), etc to name very few from 1000s.

There are millions of Arabic and Sanskrit language manuscripts on all kinds of knowledge, from pure sciences to philosophy.

How many of them were penned by atheists you think ?

0,03 % ?

Does listening to Lady Gaga blocks you from doing mathematics ?

Do you know that's how ludicrous your argument sound ?

"Having God at the centre" just doesn't mean anything.

When muslim conquered persia, 2nd Khalifa ordered to burn the books as for muslims quran was enough.

Abbasid, encouraged scholars of different fields, but that was due to their personal interests and Baghdad played a great role moving the human knowledge forward, especially in geology, astronomy, medicine, chemistry and mathematics.

Actually Musa kharzami (he was persian) is considered to be the father of computer science.

But overall west won, as their mind set changed, and every other nation failed to match them as their mind set was not updated.

The caliph didn't burn books in Persia.

EVERYONE encourages science "for its own benefits".

Why do you think that Germany until Hitler's rise had more Nobel Prizes in science than France and the UK combined ?

Because Germany had no colonies, so the industries had to invest into sciences to compensate, that's why they were particularly innovative in chemistry.

In the UK itself it's well known that the rise of science was linked to the Industrial Revolution, the innovative technology being needed for facilitating economic rise.

It has nothing to do with praying two or five times a day ; it's a question of transfer of technology (in the "Third World" there's no strong industrialization/urbanization, so no "need" for research in pure sciences, no public or private funds, etc)

Science has more to do with sociology than theology.
 
Pervez Hoodhboy has no clue about the history of science in Islam esp. in the so called post classical period (he didn't seem to have learned a lot from his "discussion" with Asad Q. Ahmed, but perhaps "science refuses to take root" in his mind), the wider epistemological issues of bringing the "scientific method" in a still widely agrarian society (which also happens in India, China, ... but who cares), etc, etc Pervez Hoodhboy is in fact the typical European Orientalist of the late 19th century, like Ernest Renan - and I precise the era because not a single modern academic of Islamic studies will talk such way (no, Dawkins is not a scholar when it comes to Islam), but he makes "liberals"* sleep well because it's quite gratifying to think that Islam is against science while not doing much to remediate the mess (have you contributed in building primary school in deprived areas, trying to address corruption in higher education, to equilibrate the quality between public/private schools, ... ?)

* I just want to say that by "liberals" I meant the typical paindoo from Pakistan who think that the height of liberalism is not to mimic the best values of classical Europe but to put some pork in the samosa perhaps - how enlightened indeed.

Most of the Islamic scientists that you so proudly claim would have been killed in todays world for not being religious enough the arab/islamic world went backwards once they started taking Islam literally instead of figuratively.
In USA today we have started to see the same happening with the religious idiots taking power and destroying the sciences.
 
Most of the Islamic scientists that you so proudly claim would have been killed in todays world for not being religious enough the arab/islamic world went backwards once they started taking Islam literally instead of figuratively.
In USA today we have started to see the same happening with the religious idiots taking power and destroying the sciences.

That just happens to be factually untrue, and you can't really make history on you own, not how that works in the real world sadly.

What do you say about omar ordering burning books in Egypt? [/QUOTE ]

What do you say about omar ordering burning books in Egypt?

Already in the late 19th century French scholar Gustave Le Bon dismissed it. Recently there has been a book, "What Happened to the Ancient Library of Alexandria?", with contributions by many scholars, which say what happened : the Caesarian civil wars and Theodosian ("Christian") persecutions ended the ancient world's largest library.

The so called 'Umar burning is not mentioned before the 12th century. Why ? Because that's when a "friend" (who happened to be an historian) of Saladin had to justify the Kurdish warrior's burning of the Fatimid library in Egypt - the Fatimids being the main enemies of the Abbassid caliphate since centuries, you had to erase all of their trace -, "look, Saladin is just doing what Umar did".
 
What makes Pakistan so unique vis-à-vis other countries? I think it’s a combination of two factors. First, the insistence that religion must be brought into everything – including science – puts certain critical faculties to sleep. Second, kids are taught science as though they were memorising a holy text. The student is asked to reproduce facts of science, not to use them in a manner that demands reasoning.

I think there's truth in that. I am not a fan of atheists in Pakistan as most of them spend too much effort on debating useless stuff like the existence of God and the freedom to draw nudes, but if Hoodbhoy and his ilk could stick to constructive and valid criticisms like this, it's something that really needs to be debated at the highest level.

Good article, even if I take Enkidu's point that religion isn't necessarily an obstruction to science, or hasn't been in the past, or currently for non-Muslim countries. But it is in Islamic countries for whatever reason. Those need to be looked at too.
 
Don't think science has a problem with the concept of God per se. The scientific community is far from being on the same page with regards to definitively proving or disproving the existence of God.

Problem mainly is with bringing non-tested or verifiable ideas to Science Classroom and policy front. You can keep all the Gods you want at home, when you come out in open, evidence is king, Science submit itself to evidence only...

Religion protects dogma, rather its the main source of it, that's why its hard to see how Religion and Science can co-exist. In West religion has been ever receding force over last few centuries, they have given consistent leeway to Science because they could fight it intellectually. In muslim world, religion is still winning via brut force, Science is not allowed to compete on open and fair grounds, there is are reason we don't create anything. Many people in Muslim world believes Islam is so strong (intellectually) that's why it is still standing, which is far from reality.
 
No, that would be Alan Turing.

Khwarizmi's major contribution was in algebra, where he introduced balancing equations by moving RHS and LHS. Two of his books Zīj al-Sindhind and Kitāb al-Jam‘ wat-Tafrīq bi-Ḥisāb al-Hind came from the knowledge of ancient pakistanis and indians.

You are correct.

Khwarzmi was actually the pioneer of CS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science

it is true that he translated the work of Pakistani mathematician but he took this field to new heights.
 
You are correct.

Khwarzmi was actually the pioneer of CS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science

it is true that he translated the work of Pakistani mathematician but he took this field to new heights.

Might as well make Brahmagupta or the dudes in indopak or mesopotamia who invented decimal numeric system, the pioneers of computer science too. Also the chinese who invented the abacus, if one wants to be so flippant with the term.

Any specific example of what were the new heights?
 
"charlatans, crooks and religious people..." - If ever there were three words that belonged together, right next to each other, more. Hoodbhoy raises some very valid points and his book, Islam and Science, is a must read for anyone who wishes to explore this issue in more depth. The Pakistani education system entered a state of decay when Zia ul Haq took over and he, along with his Islamist cronies, went to town on the education system for their own ends. An excerpt that briefly touches on what their priorities were for the education system:

Hoodbhoy 1.jpg

One of the things in the book that caught my eye were the results of a study(conducted decades ago admittedly) that found that high school students in the United States had a significantly better grasp of scientific principles than Pakistani teachers and professors which says it all really.

To really understand just why scientific illiteracy is rampant in Pakistan, one needs to examine the role of Jamat e Islami in the development of our education system. During the Zia era, Jamatias were among his chosen few and given their higher profile than other extremist parties, had more of a say in matters of statecraft than the likes of JUI or Sunni Tehreek (who were largely ignored by the powers that be). Pakistan as it exists today, and it's education system in particular, is more a product of Jamat e Islami than any other entity, be it Jinnah and his Muslim League, the early leaders like Liaqat (though he did enable the Jamatias' rampage through his Objectives Resolution). The gist of what I'm saying is that the education system in Pakistan is largely a product of Jamat e Islami and this is what the Jamat's vision is for education:

Hoodbhoy 2.jpg

When your education system is built with goals like those mentioned above, is it really any surprise that the people who go through it are scientifically illiterate? I won't even go into some of the more egregious cases like the QeA University professor who used public funding to develop a way of harnessing energy from Djinns to solve Pakistan's energy crisis.
 
:facepalm: Now Atheists / Liberals will bash Islam for all the problems in the country.

That might have something to do with the fact that most social problems in Pakistan can be traced back to Islam in one way or the other, be it honor killings and the Islamic concept of modesty, murderers using Qisas and Diyat laws to walk free, rapists walking free due to the ludicrous rules of evidence in Islamic law while their victims rot in jail on adultery charges, entire families, even neighborhoods, burnt to a crisp over allegations of blasphemy, four out of five women, freaking 80% of all women, experiencing domestic violence at some point which is justified using a passage from the Quran and the fact that you can't outlaw it because the CII blocks it quoting the same passage from the Quran. Need I go on?
 
Another well disguised anti-Islam thread by the resident atheist.

Nothing wrong with being anti Islam as long as the arguments used have a basis in fact as opposed to irrational xenophobic rants.
 
No matter how much one tries to twist it,'the simple fact is that Science can never go hand in hand with religion, anybody who says otherwise is a proper idiot and nothing more.

If you believe in Allah then good for you but that belief should be kept seperate from classrooms and the teaching of science, engineering, medicine etc.
 
If you believe in Allah then good for you but that belief should be kept seperate from classrooms and the teaching of science, engineering, medicine etc.
An argument can be made that if you believe, you have a vested interest in keeping society illiterate, particularly in science. While the clerical class in the Islamic world are regressive nutjobs, they are not stupid. They have learnt from history and they know how much of a threat a scientifically literate society is to their power. They saw the Europeans clip the church's wings and move away from religion en masse as levels of education and scientific literacy rose exponentially following the renaissance and especially during and after the industrial revolution. A similar disillusionment from religion in the Islamic world would reduce the clergy's power massively and it's no coincidence that Pakistan's education system started moving away from science towards religion as the clergy took over in the 70s.
 
Problem mainly is with bringing non-tested or verifiable ideas to Science Classroom and policy front. You can keep all the Gods you want at home, when you come out in open, evidence is king, Science submit itself to evidence only...

Religion protects dogma, rather its the main source of it, that's why its hard to see how Religion and Science can co-exist. In West religion has been ever receding force over last few centuries, they have given consistent leeway to Science because they could fight it intellectually. In muslim world, religion is still winning via brut force, Science is not allowed to compete on open and fair grounds, there is are reason we don't create anything. Many people in Muslim world believes Islam is so strong (intellectually) that's why it is still standing, which is far from reality.


I agree with most of the criticisms raised by Dr. Hoodbhoy and I think he did a very good job of conveying his message without resorting to needless religion bashing. And while I don't support introducing religious texts into science textbooks blaming religion as a whole for the problems facing Pakistan is a gross oversimplification. Religion has been used for political purposes throughout Pakistan's history and what happened during the Zia era has less to do with Islam and more to do with larger sociopolitical landscape of the region. Isn't it ironic that the same 'enlightened west' that is so vocal about separating church and state introduced the most extreme interpretations of religious texts in the curriculum of madrassas to create an army of holy warriors for countering the Soviet union while funneling billions of dollars through the government of a dictator who had hanged his predecessor? The much touted intrinsically developed morality of western societies that is independent of religion did nothing to stop them from doing so? And while the good doctor correctly points out the damage this brand of extreme religiosity did to science in Pakistan, I wish he would have also mentioned its links to the larger geopolitical landscape rather than laying the blame squarely on religion. While religion is sometimes a factor in hampering scientific progress it is often used as a convenient scapegoat to gloss over more deep rooted problems.
 
Might as well make Brahmagupta or the dudes in indopak or mesopotamia who invented decimal numeric system, the pioneers of computer science too. Also the chinese who invented the abacus, if one wants to be so flippant with the term.

Any specific example of what were the new heights?

We would need some name.
 
Domination in what? Greek ,Romans had their religion and they dominated as well in that logic.

Change is the only constant and if religion is major part of any system and doesn't encourage asking questions it will harm the society.

That's correct. There was a period of time when the Roman empire was the dominating one in the world which was followed by the Muslim empires from 800 AD to 1400 AD. Some empires were only regional while others were global (ie. Greeks, Romans, Muslims, British, etc.).

I use the word dominating in terms of land mass and military but also general development and discoveries.
 
I agree with most of the criticisms raised by Dr. Hoodbhoy and I think he did a very good job of conveying his message without resorting to needless religion bashing. And while I don't support introducing religious texts into science textbooks blaming religion as a whole for the problems facing Pakistan is a gross oversimplification. Religion has been used for political purposes throughout Pakistan's history and what happened during the Zia era has less to do with Islam and more to do with larger sociopolitical landscape of the region. Isn't it ironic that the same 'enlightened west' that is so vocal about separating church and state introduced the most extreme interpretations of religious texts in the curriculum of madrassas to create an army of holy warriors for countering the Soviet union while funneling billions of dollars through the government of a dictator who had hanged his predecessor? The much touted intrinsically developed morality of western societies that is independent of religion did nothing to stop them from doing so? And while the good doctor correctly points out the damage this brand of extreme religiosity did to science in Pakistan, I wish he would have also mentioned its links to the larger geopolitical landscape rather than laying the blame squarely on religion. While religion is sometimes a factor in hampering scientific progress it is often used as a convenient scapegoat to gloss over more deep rooted problems.

I think ridicule is a very powerful intellectual tool, we have gotten rid of dogma and will continue to do so by ridiculing pseudo Science, dogma, everything non-rational and lacking evidence. Religion is mother of irrationality, with seriously lacking any evidence...Ridiculing religion is important. West would not have pushed back religion at the scale they did in last few centuries, if ridiculing was not at their disposal...Muslim culture needs that shake up, you cannot respect such ideology, that culture shift is critical to build open and free society.

India still suffers from cast system, there is lot of respect in their culture, that has to be shed before they can move on...One of the worse thing about Hinduism is, that it was (and still is) very resilient against changing the core, that has not worked well for people of sub-continent, they have hold on to really dogmatic culture for a long time, as a result despite being brilliant they have very little to show for in last 5000 years, they have not shed the junk part of their culture...Muslims are proud of being stubborn and not changing, even though 1.7B have nothing to show...

As far as USA using Madarras as weapons was not their invention. They wanted to win the war, provide money for it, they had no love or hate for Madarassa, its Zia's think tank along with Saudis who showed them the way, forget about them, they(Our Army and SA) were the one who planned and executed upon those ideas. Pakistan continue to nurture Jhadhi workforce for 3 more decades on their own...West is not micro managing our culture and Army, these are our own investments, choices we keep on making...

As world is becoming a smaller place by every passing decade, West will care about your business if it effects them. They would not have cared about Jhadis, if they were not blowing up in west.

Question is why we choose to invest in Madarass (they have grown from 5K to 40K) and Tabligas (this was non existent in 60s) in last 3/4 decades instead of building strong liberal and modern institutions, just because Army get free gorillas to fund their ventures?? - By product of that is massive regressive conservative culture, that has made us backwards...
 
Last edited:
I think ridicule is a very powerful intellectual tool, we have gotten rid of dogma and will continue to do so by ridiculing pseudo Science, dogma, everything non-rational and lacking evidence. Religion is mother of irrationality, with seriously lacking any evidence...Ridiculing religion is important. West would not have pushed back religion at the scale they did in last few centuries, if ridiculing was not at their disposal...Muslim culture needs that shake up, you cannot respect such ideology, that culture shift is critical to build open and free society.

I won't comment on this because we seem to have fundamentally different views on religion and there is no point arguing. I remember having this discussion with you on another thread also let us just agree to disagree.

As far as USA using Madarras as weapons was not their invention. They wanted to win the war, provide money for it, they had no love or hate for Madarassa, its Zia's think tank along with Saudis who showed them the way, forget about them, they(Our Army and SA) were the one who planned and executed upon those ideas. Pakistan continue to nurture Jhadhi workforce for 3 more decades on their own...West is not micro managing our culture and Army, these are our own investments, choices we keep on making...

As world is becoming a smaller place by every passing decade, West will care about your business if it effects them. They would not have cared about Jhadis, if they were not blowing up in west.

Question is why we choose to invest in Madarass (they have grown from 5K to 40K) and Tabligas (this was non existent in 60s) in last 3/4 decades instead of building strong liberal and modern institutions, just because Army get free gorillas to fund their ventures?? - By product of that is massive regressive conservative culture, that has made us backwards...

That is exactly the point I am trying to make. Islam had very little to do with the whole episode. Religion was (and still is) being used by both Pakistan and the West for their political agendas. It is just unfair that when the west uses religion for its geopolitical interests to promote violence it is labelled real politik but when a Muslim nation or group does the same it becomes an inherent flaw of Islam.
 
I sometimes wonder who these 'liberals' write there stuff for? the average Pakistani with an iq of 84 is not going to comprehend this stuff, is it for western based pakistanis or Liberal pakistanis?, catering to the already convinced, surely fighting a losing battle.
 
I sometimes wonder who these 'liberals' write there stuff for? the average Pakistani with an iq of 84 is not going to comprehend this stuff, is it for western based pakistanis or Liberal pakistanis?, catering to the already convinced, surely fighting a losing battle.

I have doubt about this 84 number...

There is some difference in avg IQ among races, but that topic is also controversial..

so its safe to assume that average IQ of Pakistanis or of any other nation, should be around 100.
 
I won't comment on this because we seem to have fundamentally different views on religion and there is no point arguing. I remember having this discussion with you on another thread also let us just agree to disagree.



That is exactly the point I am trying to make. Islam had very little to do with the whole episode. Religion was (and still is) being used by both Pakistan and the West for their political agendas. It is just unfair that when the west uses religion for its geopolitical interests to promote violence it is labelled real politik but when a Muslim nation or group does the same it becomes an inherent flaw of Islam.

Atleast be smart about it, if that's what you want to achieve, otherwise you will just appear dumb. Extremist have killed 60,000+ just in Pakistan alone with those political tactics and rotten the core of society in 15 years, they can hardly penetrate west, what's the point of such political tactics?? - What Pakistan or Muslims are gaining out of it?? - This is another example of dumb down religion soldiers are so easy to manipulate...You have to use intellect not faith to do even politics. At the end Muslims are looking stupid, with 1.7B population, all they can do is kill each other, what a smart move :14:
 
Atleast be smart about it, if that's what you want to achieve, otherwise you will just appear dumb. Extremist have killed 60,000+ just in Pakistan alone with those political tactics and rotten the core of society in 15 years, they can hardly penetrate west, what's the point of such political tactics?? - What Pakistan or Muslims are gaining out of it?? - This is another example of dumb down religion soldiers are so easy to manipulate...You have to use intellect not faith to do even politics. At the end Muslims are looking stupid, with 1.7B population, all they can do is kill each other, what a smart move :14:

Never said it was the right policy. Was just pointing out that religion is just being used as a tool by both sides so it is misleading to blame religion itself.
 
Never said it was the right policy. Was just pointing out that religion is just being used as a tool by both sides so it is misleading to blame religion itself.

Well religion is a political ideology, its a tool like everything other thing we come up with. Emotional attachments of billions does not make it real...
 
Science, if looked at the basics, where it starts from, is a completely fictitious theory, the basics can never be proved...

Just for reference take E=mc^2 that comes from energy is directly proportional to frequency of an object...Something that cannot be proved mathematically...same goes for the newton Physics and much more
 
Science, if looked at the basics, where it starts from, is a completely fictitious theory, the basics can never be proved...

Just for reference take E=mc^2 that comes from energy is directly proportional to frequency of an object...Something that cannot be proved mathematically...same goes for the newton Physics and much more
Yes totally made up stuff.
 
An argument can be made that if you believe, you have a vested interest in keeping society illiterate, particularly in science. While the clerical class in the Islamic world are regressive nutjobs, they are not stupid. They have learnt from history and they know how much of a threat a scientifically literate society is to their power. They saw the Europeans clip the church's wings and move away from religion en masse as levels of education and scientific literacy rose exponentially following the renaissance and especially during and after the industrial revolution. A similar disillusionment from religion in the Islamic world would reduce the clergy's power massively and it's no coincidence that Pakistan's education system started moving away from science towards religion as the clergy took over in the 70s.

Talk about having an extremist mindset...
 
Talk about having an extremist mindset...

Don't see the extremism you're referring to. It's hardly a secret that the role of religion in a society and, therefore, the power and influence of the clergy diminishes greatly as members of that society become more educated and prosperous. History is littered with examples of that. To point out that people may be aware of that and might have a vested interest in avoiding that at home is hardly extremism.
 
Don't see the extremism you're referring to. It's hardly a secret that the role of religion in a society and, therefore, the power and influence of the clergy diminishes greatly as members of that society become more educated and prosperous. History is littered with examples of that. To point out that people may be aware of that and might have a vested interest in avoiding that at home is hardly extremism.

"history is also littered" with examples of great muslim scientists and scholars from 7th century to 13th century who were devot muslims but also laid the foundation of modern science. if religion holds you back then why did these great scholars excel? clearly the problem lies in other factors and not religion.

your agenda against religion has been clear since i joined this forum so i guess i am simply wasting my time. you also blamed religion for poverty even though some of the richest empires in history were religious.
 
"history is also littered" with examples of great muslim scientists and scholars from 7th century to 13th century who were devot muslims but also laid the foundation of modern science. if religion holds you back then why did these great scholars excel? clearly the problem lies in other factors and not religion.

your agenda against religion has been clear since i joined this forum so i guess i am simply wasting my time. you also blamed religion for poverty even though some of the richest empires in history were religious.

You might not have noticed but this isn't the 7th or 13th century, the world has changed and so has the scientific landscape. 13th century scientists weren't working on stuff like the theory of evolution that directly disproved religious dogma and besides, plenty of those Muslim scientists faced opposition and accusations of heresy nevertheless. While it's true that the problem arises due to many factors, religion absolutely, unequivocally is one of those factors.

I have never made a secret of the fact that I'm not a fan of Islam, or religion in general, so congratulations on discovering my agenda but you have been here less than a month, I have been here eight years so you don't know jack about what I believe in or why. I was a Muslim for the first half of my time on PP, only leaving the religion around 2012-13 after finally realizing that what I believed in was a pack of lies. I didn't wake up one day and decided to campaign against Islam, I am a former Muslim from a state that is 97% Muslim and I have some very legitimate grievances that lead me to lash out.
 
Don't see the extremism you're referring to. It's hardly a secret that the role of religion in a society and, therefore, the power and influence of the clergy diminishes greatly as members of that society become more educated and prosperous. History is littered with examples of that. To point out that people may be aware of that and might have a vested interest in avoiding that at home is hardly extremism.

Again just pushing your own agenda.
 
science, if looked at the basics, where it starts from, is a completely fictitious theory, the basics can never be proved...

Just for reference take e=mc^2 that comes from energy is directly proportional to frequency of an object...something that cannot be proved mathematically...same goes for the newton physics and much more

wow!
 
Science, if looked at the basics, where it starts from, is a completely fictitious theory, the basics can never be proved...

Just for reference take E=mc^2 that comes from energy is directly proportional to frequency of an object...Something that cannot be proved mathematically...same goes for the newton Physics and much more

Can you explain what you have written?? - I am sure Einstein would have hard time understanding this...

BTW: Which one of them (E,M,C) represents Frequency in this equation? - Frequency of Object, what is that??

There is a reasonDr Pervez Hoodbhoy talks about the popularity of Pseudo Science in Pakistan :facepalm:
 
^^ He's basically saying that a math equation E=MC^2 cannot be proven mathematically.

Not sure what to say to that....
 
[MENTION=5869]yasir[/MENTION] Can you explain what you have written?? - I am sure Einstein would have hard time understanding this...

BTW: Which one of them (E,M,C) represents Frequency in this equation? - Frequency of Object, what is that??

There is a reasonDr Pervez Hoodbhoy talks about the popularity of Pseudo Science in Pakistan
image: http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

So you are trying to say I don't know what I've written!

E is proportional f
so the constant is h (plancks contant)
E=hf

so v=f into λ (wavelength)
v=c (speed of light)
so f=c/λ
hence, E=h.c/λ

P(momentum =mc)=h/λ so substituting h's value over their makes E=mc^2

The basic of the formula of relativity was E=hf...
 
Question is why we choose to invest in Madarass (they have grown from 5K to 40K) and Tabligas (this was non existent in 60s) in last 3/4 decades instead of building strong liberal and modern institutions, just because Army get free gorillas to fund their ventures?? - By product of that is massive regressive conservative culture, that has made us backwards...
When you look at school textbooks from Pakistan pre and post-Zia, the difference is staggering. With introduction of Pakistan/Islamic Studies as compulsory subjects and the systematic editing of textbooks, the state became the biggest madrassa.

Critics like Hoodbhoy prophetically warned that the blowback of radicalising a generation like this would be felt at the turn of the century as the children of Zia reached maturity.

Its not "liberal whining" to ask for children to be given a proper education instead of being brainwashed into believing rigid dogma, distorted versions of history, pseudo-science that has no factual basis and reading material that breeds religious intolerance. Propaganda has no place in the classroom. This hurts the economy too with the world's increasing reliance on science to solve global challenges and the pace of technological change.

The irony of these folks who hark back to the "Golden Age of Islam" is they don't realise it was termed as such as scientific thought was flourishing in the Muslim World. I remember reading how many of the scientists in the Islamic world were also religious authorities at the same time such as Ibn al-Nafis and Ibn al-Shatir along with others. They made important contributions to such diverse scientific disciplines as mathematics, astronomy, medicine, physics and philosophy.
 
When you look at school textbooks from Pakistan pre and post-Zia, the difference is staggering. With introduction of Pakistan/Islamic Studies as compulsory subjects and the systematic editing of textbooks, the state became the biggest madrassa.

Critics like Hoodbhoy prophetically warned that the blowback of radicalising a generation like this would be felt at the turn of the century as the children of Zia reached maturity.

Its not "liberal whining" to ask for children to be given a proper education instead of being brainwashed into believing rigid dogma, distorted versions of history, pseudo-science that has no factual basis and reading material that breeds religious intolerance. Propaganda has no place in the classroom. This hurts the economy too with the world's increasing reliance on science to solve global challenges and the pace of technological change.

The irony of these folks who hark back to the "Golden Age of Islam" is they don't realise it was termed as such as scientific thought was flourishing in the Muslim World. I remember reading how many of the scientists in the Islamic world were also religious authorities at the same time such as Ibn al-Nafis and Ibn al-Shatir along with others. They made important contributions to such diverse scientific disciplines as mathematics, astronomy, medicine, physics and philosophy.

Agree with your post but that is why the Idea that Islam and Science cannot go together is silly (which a few posters on here are suggesting)
 
It is fair criticism. Muslim's stopped learning centuries back and are today no way near the standards required.
 
[MENTION=74419]Badsha[/MENTION] Islam can only coexist with scientific advancement in a society. If Science is given room to breathe and rationality and reason are valued more tham scriptural dogma. During that era there were the Mu'tazalites who favoured a rationalist interpretation of the Quran and holy texts.

The use of philosophy and neo platonism was common.

But eventually as the religious establishment got more n more power and deemed the use of philosophy of reason of rationalism as heretical and an innovation. Scientific devlopment in the Arab-Islamic world stopped and its been like that the last 600 years.

Spain produces more peer reviewed scholarly articles than the whole Arab world annually. So devastating has the intellectual and academic decline been since the days of Ibn Sina Ibn Rushd n Al Razi.



So not having things in textbooks that call established scientific theories like Evolution false lile certain Pakistani textbooks do without any evidence to back it up but solely because it goes against the creationist narrative of Adam n Eve.

Even in the U.S its no wonder the states with the highest number of Christian Fundamentalists and evangelicals holding sway they are the most backwards anti science areas of the country.
 
[MENTION=5869]
So you are trying to say I don't know what I've written!

E is proportional f
so the constant is h (plancks contant)
E=hf

so v=f into λ (wavelength)
v=c (speed of light)
so f=c/λ
hence, E=h.c/λ

P(momentum =mc)=h/λ so substituting h's value over their makes E=mc^2

The basic of the formula of relativity was E=hf...

Science, if looked at the basics, where it starts from, is a completely fictitious theory, the basics can never be proved...

Just for reference take E=mc^2 that comes from energy is directly proportional to frequency of an object...Something that cannot be proved mathematically...same goes for the newton Physics and much more

This is just rubbish and wrong. Understand what the equation is saying and what science is before writing nonsensical stuff.


Both E=mc^2 (which is a result derived from special relativity and yes, there is a mathematical derivation) and E=hf (which Plank arrived at by using statistical mechanics, one of the most mathematically rigours areas of physics) have been tested countless times.
Their proof lies in the fact that they work every single time.They are at base of every fusion reactor, every smartphone, every computer; basically the modern technology.

Terrence Tao goes into details of Einstein's derivation here;https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/einsteins-derivation-of-emc2/

And you are again wrong in saying that E=hf was the basis of Relativity, the two have nothing to do with each other.
Einstein first came up with Special Relativity which only concerns itself with motion under negligible effects of Gravity (a special case), as a response to Newtonian mechanics and its failure to accommodate Maxwell electrodynamics. It is entirely self consistent and doesn't require anything from Quantum Mechanics. SR was later unified with Quantum Mechanics by the work of Dirac and others, under relativistic QM which later morphed into Quantum Field Theory.
General Theory of Relativity, which is what happens when you add Gravity into the mix, came nearly a decade later. It to this day remain incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, and that fact is one of the biggest problems in physics.


Mathematics provides you with a model, which even if correct, doesn't always apply to the universe. Experimentation is how you see if a certain model works within our universe. There are countless mathematical models you can come up with, which will be correct, self contained and elegant- but they won't have anything to do with how the universe works. So if your goal is to see how the universe behaves, physics is by far the best bet with its insistence on reproducible experimental evidence. Only maths can and does lead you astray in many case. The point is moot anyway because as I have stated above, both QM and SR have solid mathematical support.

Saying there is anything fictitious about natural sciences is probably the most absurd statement one can come up with. Especially considering the fact that the whole of modern civilization (technology, medicine, our understanding of nature) is a direct consequence of the scientific revolution and sheer volume of peer reviewed, experimental evidence that is out there is support of the theories you are talking about.
 
This is just rubbish and wrong. Understand what the equation is saying and what science is before writing nonsensical stuff.


Both E=mc^2 (which is a result derived from special relativity and yes, there is a mathematical derivation) and E=hf (which Plank arrived at by using statistical mechanics, one of the most mathematically rigours areas of physics) have been tested countless times.
Their proof lies in the fact that they work every single time.They are at base of every fusion reactor, every smartphone, every computer; basically the modern technology.

Terrence Tao goes into details of Einstein's derivation here;https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/einsteins-derivation-of-emc2/

And you are again wrong in saying that E=hf was the basis of Relativity, the two have nothing to do with each other.
Einstein first came up with Special Relativity which only concerns itself with motion under negligible effects of Gravity (a special case), as a response to Newtonian mechanics and its failure to accommodate Maxwell electrodynamics. It is entirely self consistent and doesn't require anything from Quantum Mechanics. SR was later unified with Quantum Mechanics by the work of Dirac and others, under relativistic QM which later morphed into Quantum Field Theory.
General Theory of Relativity, which is what happens when you add Gravity into the mix, came nearly a decade later. It to this day remain incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, and that fact is one of the biggest problems in physics.


Mathematics provides you with a model, which even if correct, doesn't always apply to the universe. Experimentation is how you see if a certain model works within our universe. There are countless mathematical models you can come up with, which will be correct, self contained and elegant- but they won't have anything to do with how the universe works. So if your goal is to see how the universe behaves, physics is by far the best bet with its insistence on reproducible experimental evidence. Only maths can and does lead you astray in many case. The point is moot anyway because as I have stated above, both QM and SR have solid mathematical support.

Saying there is anything fictitious about natural sciences is probably the most absurd statement one can come up with. Especially considering the fact that the whole of modern civilization (technology, medicine, our understanding of nature) is a direct consequence of the scientific revolution and sheer volume of peer reviewed, experimental evidence that is out there is support of the theories you are talking about.

yes my example may be wrong since I've just studied secondary school yet...

But wait! I never said science is wrong!

Just take an example of the Universal laws, that are based on a philosophy and are assumptions. The base of Science is full of assumptions that are modeled into a law which describes a relation between two or more quantities.

Would like to answer with detail later, don't have enough time atm.
 
Back
Top