Just as I recognize that blacks are better at the 100 meter dash, I also recognize that Europe created the scientific method. If that's racism, so be it.
One - Greece is on the continent of Europe, so of course they are European, but that was not the point now was it. The Greeks were the progenitors Western society, but this was all when the Europe you are referring to was still practicing feudalism. When you say European, you meant a specific thing. Highlighting the Muslim influence in the creation of the scientific method was left out of your supposition altogether, and for a very specific reason.
Additionally, the average percentage of medical studies rejected by legitimate, respected medical journals is around 40%, and they are not all rejected for being fraudulent. Most are rejected for being outside the reporting scope of the specific medical journals the papers are regarding.
And my answer was not in any way helped by AI...It is not hard to be a reasonably intelligent biped when you can think for yourself.
I could write something long and detailed, but you will remain unconvinced.
Earliest evidence of systematic scientific thinking is Aristotle's Analytica Posteriora, (`340 BC) in which is discussed systems of demonstration definition to attain scientific knowledge. His work is (mildly) marred by his belief in empiricism, that only true knowledge could be obtained by direct observation, that deduced (or in his term, induced) knowledge did not pass the test of truth.
Epicurus (`250 BC) laid out some of the first rules for proposing what we would now call a hypothesis, to come up with something that has not yet been observed.
Lucretius (`55 BC I believe) in Rome publishes "On the Nature of Things" a poem laying out Epicurus work and methods, focusing on axioms and comparative and parallel comparative philosophy.
Here, during the middle ages, the focus moves to early Muslim scientists like al-Kindi (801–873) and the writings of an author going by the name of Jābir ibn Hayyān (writings dated to 850–950), who may have been a collective of authors. The writings include a larger emphasis on experimentation, especially repetitive experimentation as a means of obtaining scientific truth.
While not perfect, these writings contain contain the oldest known systematic classification of chemical substances, and the oldest known instructions for deriving an inorganic compounds from organic substances (such as plants, blood, and hair) by chemical means.
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) used these same methods put forth by other Muslim philosophers, using experimentation to obtain the results in his Book of Optics (1021). He combined observations, experiments and rational arguments to support his theory of vision, in which rays of light are emitted from objects rather than from the eyes, proving an argument by Aristotle, that objects emitted particles pertinent to sight, false.
There is a lot of other influence from throughout the world on the development of the scientific method, from the writings of Hindu philosophers in India about the cosmology of the universe and Chinese philosophers who used a similar method of deductive reasoning, but never codified it into a step-by-step process the way that Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes did. But to discount the influence on scientific thinking by other cultures is not being intellectually honest.
(most of this is excerpts from my Masters thesis, just in case you think AI did it, I too work in academia, but I do not have such a negative view of my profession as you seem to.)
Just as I recognize that blacks are better at the 100 meter dash, I also recognize that Europe created the scientific method. If that's racism, so be it.
Do you not consider the Greeks European?
And your answer was totally helped by AI.
One - Greece is on the continent of Europe, so of course they are European, but that was not the point now was it. The Greeks were the progenitors Western society, but this was all when the Europe you are referring to was still practicing feudalism. When you say European, you meant a specific thing. Highlighting the Muslim influence in the creation of the scientific method was left out of your supposition altogether, and for a very specific reason.
Additionally, the average percentage of medical studies rejected by legitimate, respected medical journals is around 40%, and they are not all rejected for being fraudulent. Most are rejected for being outside the reporting scope of the specific medical journals the papers are regarding.
And my answer was not in any way helped by AI...It is not hard to be a reasonably intelligent biped when you can think for yourself.
What was, exactly, the Mohammedian influence on...using very specific terms here...the "scientific method"?
And don't lie, you should be better than that.
Why would I lie when it is easily fact checked.
I could write something long and detailed, but you will remain unconvinced.
Earliest evidence of systematic scientific thinking is Aristotle's Analytica Posteriora, (`340 BC) in which is discussed systems of demonstration definition to attain scientific knowledge. His work is (mildly) marred by his belief in empiricism, that only true knowledge could be obtained by direct observation, that deduced (or in his term, induced) knowledge did not pass the test of truth.
Epicurus (`250 BC) laid out some of the first rules for proposing what we would now call a hypothesis, to come up with something that has not yet been observed.
Lucretius (`55 BC I believe) in Rome publishes "On the Nature of Things" a poem laying out Epicurus work and methods, focusing on axioms and comparative and parallel comparative philosophy.
Here, during the middle ages, the focus moves to early Muslim scientists like al-Kindi (801–873) and the writings of an author going by the name of Jābir ibn Hayyān (writings dated to 850–950), who may have been a collective of authors. The writings include a larger emphasis on experimentation, especially repetitive experimentation as a means of obtaining scientific truth.
While not perfect, these writings contain contain the oldest known systematic classification of chemical substances, and the oldest known instructions for deriving an inorganic compounds from organic substances (such as plants, blood, and hair) by chemical means.
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) used these same methods put forth by other Muslim philosophers, using experimentation to obtain the results in his Book of Optics (1021). He combined observations, experiments and rational arguments to support his theory of vision, in which rays of light are emitted from objects rather than from the eyes, proving an argument by Aristotle, that objects emitted particles pertinent to sight, false.
There is a lot of other influence from throughout the world on the development of the scientific method, from the writings of Hindu philosophers in India about the cosmology of the universe and Chinese philosophers who used a similar method of deductive reasoning, but never codified it into a step-by-step process the way that Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes did. But to discount the influence on scientific thinking by other cultures is not being intellectually honest.
(most of this is excerpts from my Masters thesis, just in case you think AI did it, I too work in academia, but I do not have such a negative view of my profession as you seem to.)
No no, not "systematic thinking" which people have been doing since time immemorial, but the "scientific method".
sigh
Great essay you let AI write for you as well.