>>It's time to put on our thinking caps and
interpret the significance of what we've been
exploring! Unless it explains, history is
trivial. Did you discover anything unexpected
this week that is worth being explained? In
your explorations of Islamic and early medieval
science, you encountered many different, sometimes
contradictory explanations. Interpretations
have varied immensely over time and continue
to be disputed even today. To see how this
is so, let's consider two common caricatures
and misrepresentations of Islamic science
in the Middle Ages.
First, Pierre Duhem, an early 20th century
French physicist, was also a pioneer historian
of science. A century ago, Duhem wrote: "There
is no Arabic science. The wise men of Mohammedanism
were always the more or less faithful disciples
of the Greeks, but were themselves destitute
of all originality." Duhem's interpretation
of Islamic science, although perhaps typical
for his generation, is no longer tenable.
Imagine that Duhem is Rip Van Winkle, and
that today Duhem has risen again from a long
sleep after nearly a century. He is a bit
groggy and disoriented because of all the
changes he sees in the world today, and also
because of advances in scholarship in the
history of science. If you met Duhem today
wandering around this university, how would
you help ease his disorientation and confusion?
What examples of the significance and originality
of Islamic science might we explain to him,
to help him come to his senses as quickly
as possible?
Second, let's consider the common assumption
that Islamic science flowered briefly during
the Middle Ages, but was not long sustained.
In this view, the chief question about Islamic
science is the problem of its decline. But
to frame the discussion around the so-called
"problem" of its decline presupposes that
it did in fact rapidly decline before the
end of the Middle Ages, rather than being
longer-lived. Yet scholars now believe that
vigorous scientific activity in the Islamic
world extended up through the early modern
period, and into the 18th century, although
we do not yet know enough to describe it.
These later Islamic scientific manuscripts
remain largely unstudied and unexamined.
Why do you think the assumption of Islamic
decline predominates? That is, why do we not
just suspend judgment until these later Islamic
manuscripts have been studied?
These two stereotypes - the lack of scientific
originality, and the assumption of a brief
duration - profoundly shape modern perspectives
of Islamic science. Finally, this week we
also explored the history of early medieval
technology. In his radio series, Engines of
Ingenuity, John Lienhard points to unexpected
connections between the history of medieval
technology and the settling of America and
the American frontier. Lienhard explains:
"The old West provides such an accurate mirror
of medieval life just because it was populated
by free and inventive people adapting to harsh
circumstances. The medieval mind, as it turns
out, was what it took to open up America."
Do you think Lienhard provided adequate evidence
to support these connections?
Before your explorations this week, did you
expect the Islamic scientific tradition to
be so vigorous? Did you expect that science
might be an important part of the story of
the Middle Ages? Did you expect that the history
of medieval technology might hold ramifications
for understanding the American frontier? What
is the most significant implication of what
you have learned this week? What is your interpretation?
