Talk:Science in the medieval Islamic world

Citations

Shouldn't the beginning have citations? Riverblade (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia articles normally do not cite the lead section, as it is purely a summary of the fully-cited text that follows, i.e. any citations would only repeat those given further down. By the same token, it is a mistake to introduce "new" material or citations into the lead. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Alchemy and chemistry section

Dear Chiswick Chap,

I agree that it would be ideal if each section would be a concise summary of the main article for each subject, but the problem in this case is that

(1) the current section is a piece of misinformation: the belief that substances comprised mixtures of the four Aristotelian elements in different proportions was shared by all medieval Aristotelian philosophers (which is to say, practically all medieval philosophers; if anything, medieval alchemists often had diverging ideas on the subject, and the first serious challenge to it came from alchemists such as Paracelsus and Jan Baptist van Helmont, whose views on the subject may be traced back to medieval alchemy); the elixir as fifth element is an idea first formulated as such in the 14th century by John of Rupescissa (though it has much older roots); nitric acid and other mineral acids were discovered in the 13th century by anonymous Latin alchemists such as pseudo-Albertus Magnus and pseudo-Geber; all alchemists described laboratory techniques and experimental methods (in the sense of systematic empirical observation and testing as a basis for knowledge; that the experimental method in the sense of controlled experiment would have been developed by medieval alchemists is a common misconception); processes such as sublimation and distillation have a much older history, and the alembic was developed by Greco-Egyptian alchemists. (for references and more information, see some of the articles I linked)

(2) the current section does not in fact summarize our article on alchemy and chemistry in the medieval Islamic world as it stands now. Perhaps some of the misinformation in the current section was at one point also present in that article, but it is not at this moment.

On the other hand, some of the content in the section I propose to add is actually present in the main article (the sulfur-mercury theory metals here, the systematic classification of chemical substances and the chemical synthesis of ammonium chloride here), although of course that article is still in need of much expansion and improvement.

I do believe that the proposed section does summarize some of the most important innovations in medieval Islamic alchemy and chemistry, at least from the perspective of their further development in Western Europe (which is perhaps a bit Eurocentric, but common enough). If you believe it to be too technical, or otherwise not fit in well with the flow and style of the rest of the article, please feel free to copy-edit it. However, it is sourced to expert authors on the subject, and its basic content should be retained.

Sincerely, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 20:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I've done that; FYI the rule is that a section with a "Main" link summarizes the main article; if that article is in a disastrous state of flux (no jokes about transition metals please) then that is of course difficult. The text doesn't say what the alchemists were trying to do, if it wasn't making gold (and indeed transforming their souls), so perhaps the section is now deficient or indeed misleading in that regard. The term "chemistry" does seem anachronistic, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edit; I've tweaked it some more, but it does look better this way.

What most alchemists were trying to do has been captured well by William R. Newman's expression "perfecting nature" (see his 2004 monograph cited in the article): to transform substances so they would be more useful, valuable, better in line with the divine purpose of all things. This did indeed include transforming base metals into gold, and to a lesser degree transforming souls (though this psychological aspect is often tainted by ahistorical Jungian interpretations), but it would be quite wrong (as is commonly done in fiction and popular culture) to reduce alchemy to these two activities. In fact, alchemists were experimenting with all kinds of materials, and what they were seeking was a universal knowledge of the constitution of bodies, since only that would allow them to change the essence of anything in God's creation which they should find in need of some improvement. In a way, they were truly looking for the "Secret of Creation", in order to be able to further God's work, as it were.

But apart from this often religiously oriented teleology, the emphasis lay very much on gaining knowledge for the sake of knowledge, as in any true 'philosophy'. Gold itself was eventually produced artificially through the 20th-century development of nuclear physics, even though nuclear physics not only or even primarily serves to create gold. Thus too, many alchemists (e.g., the Jabirians) pursued knowledge for its own sake, with the practical improvement, 'perfecting' or 'healing' of substances serving more as a demonstration of divine knowledge than as a goal in and of itself. Practical chemical knowledge (metallurgy, glass making, cosmetics) actually predates the advent of alchemy by many centuries, and what distinguishes alchemy is precisely the fundamentally philosophical and theoretical approach. From the very beginning, the alchemical enterprise was modeled upon that of the Dogmatic school of medicine, which sought a knowledge of the hidden causes of disease, i.e., the elements or principles of which our bodies are composed. Rather than just human bodies, alchemists sought to 'cure' all kinds of bodies with their 'elixirs' or 'medicines', but this could only be done through an intimate knowledge of the hidden structure and composition of these bodies.

Just like premodern medicine, the theoretical framework upon which alchemy or premodern chemistry was based was deeply flawed, but what both shared with their modern counterparts was the very ambition to approach their subject from a theoretical point of view. To call the sulfur-mercury theory of metals-informed attempts at transmuting base metals 'chemistry' is not any more or less anachronistic than calling the humoural theory-informed attempts to heal human bodies through blood-letting 'medicine'. It's all just a question of adopting a properly historical perspective, and of dropping the presentist lenses. I'm glad to say that this is precisely the direction in which scholarship has been moving during the past thirty years, even though some tension still remains (perhaps exemplified by the trend to speak of 'chymistry' rather than of 'alchemy' or 'chemistry'). In any case, I think it's safe to say that, on the whole, what alchemists were trying to do was largely similar to what modern chemists are trying to do, albeit in their own and very different historical, intellectual, and technological contexts. If you want to know more, I strongly advise you to read Principe, Lawrence M. (2013). The Secrets of Alchemy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, which presents the new historiography in a highly accessible and informative way. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 18:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Medieval Muslim societies were pioneers in science and philosophy, but

This is becasue of there culture they need to learn about the world and god — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.60.125.226 (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Science in the medieval Islamic world → Science in the Islamic Golden Age – "Medieval Islamic world is less common than Islamic Golden Age and it's even a redirect to the latter. Maudslay II (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC) -- Maudslay II (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• oppose: "medieval Islamic world" is much clearer than "Islamic Golden Age", because it may not immediately be clear to what period "Islamic Golden Age" refers. The concept of a 'Golden Age' is generally rather dated from a historiographical point of view, being used less and less by modern scholars. However, it is especially ambiguous with regard to Islam, since scholars have increasingly been pointing out that the Islamic world flourished as never before in the early modern period, questioning the traditional idea that the Islamic world went into decline from the 12th century on. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 17:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "Golden Age" is a vague and POV-ish term that is less common according to NGRAMS[1] probably time to file a RM there. (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Islamic Golden Age" is not well-defined, despite our article trying its best. Srnec (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.