Quote:
Originally Posted by damaci
Yes, you misunderstood. Now follow me step by step.
The dependent variable that we try to explain is the rise and fall of scientific studies in the Islamic world. We know the following facts: Islam was introduced in early seventh century to the Middle East. Then we have an incredible level of scientific flourishing from the eighth century to around the thirteenth century in the Middle East. Then, from the mid-thirteenth century onwards, we see a gradual decline. If you use the independent variable of "religion" in order to explain the dependent variable of "level of science", then you would have a problem, because although the dependent variable changes significantly, your independent variable remains, for all practical purposes, the same. You cannot explain the change in a dependent variable by referring to an independent variable that does not change. Do you understand that?
Now, what I am saying is that the real independent variables that you should use to explain the change in the dependent variable (level of science) are economic and social factors that are related to changes in the World Economy which I explained earlier.
Now, first, get a good book on logic and study it. Secondly, if you are a university student, or a graduate of a university, go to the administrative center of the university and demand your money back.
I don't see how my status affects the quality of your argument, but if you think it does.. shrug.
Religions morph, sect arise, they flow in and out of influence in a society. The American science and technology would look different if the amish had more influence and our museums and cosmology would (will ) be different if the fundamentalist christians gain more power.
The flaw in your argument is that there hasn't been, isn't and won't be a unitary "islamic" viewpoint anymore than there has been, is or will be a christian one. That is assisted by the fact that it also depends on the influence a religion or a sect of it is having on a society at any point in time.
It may help you if you didn't think of the variables as constant in influence over time, whatever the variable is.
Along those lines, until science pushes on the right religious buttons it can progress even if the main religion of a culture is rather anti-science or science neutral up to a point. Anti-science and anti-intellectual aspects of religion only kick-in when science butts against some basic beliefs, easy to see that aspect of the problem in modern america. Just what triggers it varies from religion and sect both in christian and islamic strains.
Certain religions may be science compatible and stop bleeding people and take the odd shot of penicillin and then go nutso with creationist museums, cosmology and stem-cells. Does the fact they were ok with science is 1821 mean they must be ok with it today?
Equivocation error likely, confusing the term "islam" with the various concepts it has, does and will represent in any given society at any given time.
Last edited by luckyme; 02-11-2010 at 09:16 PM.