The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us the Renaissance

The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us the Renaissance

by Jim Al-Khalili
3.6 3

NOOK Book(eBook)

$8.99
View All Available Formats & Editions
Available on Compatible NOOK Devices and the free NOOK Apps.
Want a NOOK ? Explore Now

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews

The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us the Renaissance 3.7 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 3 reviews.
sergevansteenkiste More than 1 year ago
Professor Jim Al-Khalili demonstrates with much conviction that contrary to popular belief, the birth of the modern scientific method did not occur during the European Renaissance, but in the Arabic world in the tenth and eleventh centuries. The modern scientific method relies on hard empirical evidence, experimentation, and testability of theories. Professor Al-Khalili uses the word "Arabic" rather than "Islamic" to differentiate "Arabic science" from Greek, Indian, and European Renaissance science. "Arabic science" refers to the science carried out by those scientists who lived in the Abbasid Empire, or who wrote their scientific texts in Arabic, the language of science in the medieval world. Professor Al-Khalili concentrates most of his attention on pure sciences such as astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, and medicine. In contrast to Western Europe until the early fifteenth century, the Arabic world progressively created the favorable conditions in which the great polymaths such as Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Biruni, and Ibn Khaldun were able to rise to prominence. The Arabic world was host to dozens of thriving centers of excellence in science, not only in Baghdad, but also across North Africa and Spain and to the east in Persia and Central Asia. Professor Al-Khalili clearly explains that Spain became the main conduit for transferring the Arabic science to Western Europe in the wake of the Reconquista. The rebirth of European scholarship benefited greatly from the capture of Toledo, Cordoba, and Granada. This rebirth also found fertile ground first in Florence, and subsequently in the rest of Europe because of the favorable conditions existing in these locations. Professor Al-Khalili is at his weakest when he reviews the reasons behind the slow decline of Arabic science between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. The author rightly rejects the argument that the golden age of science in the Arabic world came to a sudden end with the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols in 1258. Science continued to flourish in other locations within the Arabic-speaking world after this event. In contrast, Professor Al-Khalili is clearly ambivalent about the rise of religious conservatism in the eleventh century that has inflicted lasting damage to the spirit of rationalism within the Arabic-speaking world to this day. Hiding behind the legacy of colonialism cannot erase the fact that there are undeniable tensions that still exist between science and religion in some parts of the Muslim world. To his credit, Professor Al-Khalili notes that some Muslim countries are investing in the infrastructure conducive to the further development of science. Both the volume and quality of scientific research in the Arab world have been negligible on a worldwide basis. At the same time, the author reminds Muslims and non-Muslims that what is even more important than money thrown at this poor showing is the political will to reform and to ensure real freedom of thinking. In summary, Professor Al-Khalili wants to sensitize Muslims and non-Muslims about the numerous contributions that the Arabic science made to the development of humanity during the Middle Ages. Hopefully, the Arab Spring will turn out to be a decisive catalyst to convince more Muslims that science is not the adversary of their spiritual beliefs.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
I am just starting to read this and I am very interested in the paradoxes, but he is going in all detail about where it originated and stuff. I think that just saying VERY LITTLE about where it came from would be better and pu more paradox stuff, but thats just me. :)
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Good informations and a good book.