[sam]

You are the most humble in those discussions.

The thread is actually in the Brothers section. It's to do with "Rent vs. Buying" I threw my thoughts on the topic, but I wanted to get your insight. I will email you.

Anyway that's enough digression for this thread here.

[GVsdJZ2H]

That email doesn't seem to be working. I'll give you mine here:

...........................

If you could mail me at the above so I can note yours down.

[rostpribru]

(1) Agree.
(2) Some of the posts from Psychology thread should be transferred here. We can do a copy paste ourselves.
(3) Is it possible to bring Abdussamad Clarke back to SF?
(4) If start discussing outrageous scientific theories will it bring Mufti Abu Hajirah back to action?

brother, I am ignorant about these things, can the moderators be persuaded to move the science ones here and do they have the ability to?

lol Abdessamad Clarke's input would no doubt be very interesting, but maybe he is off and about having deep al-Murabitun thoughts about harmonizing the European psyche with Islam via its ancient cultural heritage and the beautiful amaal of Madinah.

[everlastinge]

And then there was Karl Popper.

He said that the hallmark of scientific theories is that these are falsifiable. You can prove them wrong by empirical evidence. A theory that is not amenable to falsification is not a scientific theory. Thus he gave a method for demarcation of scientific and non-scientific theories. This is the Popperian wisdom.

Then once a journalist of science called John Horgan once interviewed Popper for Scientific American.

Is your theory ( of demarcation of scientific theories) falsifiable? Popper leaned forward and put his hand on Horgan's hand and said, "I do not want to hurt you - that is a silly question - my theory is not a theory of science".

Cute.

[QuidQuoPro]

Once upon a time, not that long ago, there was a physicist. His name was Thomas Kuhn. He turned to philosophy of science. Having observed the prime science of physics from a ring side seat he presented his philosophy of science. The idea is rather simple and the idea is not deep at all but the Marxist intelligentsia wet gaga ever since. Transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of science. The last sentence is Thomas Kuhn, I kid you not, in a sentence. And then the leftists wanted to apply it to everything. Was he not talking about revolution? Was he not a conventional scientist? So why not follow him?

Another atheist physicist had a scathing view of Thomas Kuhn's idea. He is Steven Weinberg. Here is the article.

But a lot of damage was done by Karl Popper himself. We'll write a small post on him next. But just two points about Kuhn formalism - just to kick start the discussion. He was talking about mature science. So what about non-mature? If your theory does not cover the nascent phase then it is not comprehensive. And what about future of science? Will it continue that way into future also? Paradigm to paradigm via revolution? In last half a century, after his book called The Structure of Scientific Revolution, we do not have much evidence in the same direction. Of course the paradigm of paradigm shift has been pushed, in the mean while, to ridiculous limits. Our leftist intelligentsia ran out of ideas a long back ago. It will be a good idea to compile all those silly things that they have been experimenting with for decades now - post modernism, deconstruction, and all that.

[Phassetus]

Sorry I do not understand,

he is the one who chose the name superman brother (uber_mensch), when I last heard meant superman in German, but it is easier to spell in English

Oh! uber mensch means superman ? I thought you were mocking him, sorry about the misunderstanding bro.

[mpxricyNimb]

(1) Agree.
(2) Some of the posts from Psychology thread should be transferred here. We can do a copy paste ourselves.
(3) Is it possible to bring Abdussamad Clarke back to SF?
(4) If start discussing outrageous scientific theories will it bring Mufti Abu Hajirah back to action?

[Muramoursuard]

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah

Brothers I would like to discuss this issue with you


Is the scientific method a separate thing to or inherently attached to modern Empiricist philosophy?


Are all modern scientists followers of the Empiricist philosophy?


Is such as thing as Islamic Science utilizing the scientific method and based upon useful established theories possible or impossible?


Superman especially, I am awaiting your fascinating answers

[ffflyer]

Superman especially, I am awaiting your fascinating answers

Are you mocking your muslim brother. :/
Do you think you are always right?

[Jon Woodgate]

this is a very interesting thread

[realnilkless]

It is unfortunate that the respected Abdassamad Clarke was not accorded with the respect, or greet in a manner befitting, someone of his age, knowledge, and record of service for helping transmit tradition/classical knowledge to Muslims in the West.

I really think that we lost a golden opportunity to learn much from the respected scholar due to the way some members interacted with him.

I had read similar things earlier on SF. That is why I made my comment. Can you find the link to some thread where some discussion with him took place. So far I only know the impression that you have stated but have not seen the actual things. Also give me links to some discussion with Contemplating Chishti, if you know, for his case too was discussed earlier in similar context.
in anticipation.

[XIMHOTEP-X]

Are you mocking your muslim brother. :/
Do you think you are always right?

Sorry I do not understand,

he is the one who chose the name superman brother (uber_mensch), when I last heard meant superman in German, but it is easier to spell in English

who do you think I was referring to, Sheikh Abdessamad Clarke who I admire greatly?

[Boveosteors]

It is unfortunate that the respected Abdassamad Clarke was not accorded with the respect, or greet in a manner befitting, someone of his age, knowledge, and record of service for helping transmit tradition/classical knowledge to Muslims in the West.

I really think that we lost a golden opportunity to learn much from the respected scholar due to the way some members interacted with him.

sorry brother I really do not understand what you are saying, are you saying that there is something wrong with having deep al-Murabitun type thoughts about harmonizing the European psyche with Islam via its ancient cultural heritage and the beautiful amaal of Madinah?

As far as I am concerned that was a compliment and I am the one who wrote it.

Are you speaking on behalf of Abdessamad Clarke or just stating your opinion?

I follow the Maliki school myself and am in many ways influenced by the writings of the Murabitun thinkers, and if you do not know Abdessamad Clarke and the Murabitun are indeed involved in the above process as is obvious from Sheikh Abdul Qadir as Sufi's instructions to his followers in Europe that there is a value in reading the classic European literature, furthermore Abdessamad Clarke has himself written a commentary on the certain parts of the ancient Celtic literature.

[ringsarcle]

....
(3) Is it possible to bring Abdussamad Clarke back to SF?
...

....
lol Abdessamad Clarke's input would no doubt be very interesting, but maybe he is off and about having deep al-Murabitun thoughts about harmonizing the European psyche with Islam via its ancient cultural heritage and the beautiful amaal of Madinah.

It is unfortunate that the respected Abdassamad Clarke was not accorded with the respect, or greet in a manner befitting, someone of his age, knowledge, and record of service for helping transmit tradition/classical knowledge to Muslims in the West.

I really think that we lost a golden opportunity to learn much from the respected scholar due to the way some members interacted with him.

[tmobmobfil]

And then there was Karl Popper.

He said that the hallmark of scientific theories is that these are falsifiable. You can prove them wrong by empirical evidence. A theory that is not amenable to falsification is not a scientific theory. Thus he gave a method for demarcation of scientific and non-scientific theories. This is the Popperian wisdom.

Then once a journalist of science called John Horgan once interviewed Popper for Scientific American.

Is your theory ( of demarcation of scientific theories) falsifiable? Popper leaned forward and put his hand on Horgan's hand and said, "I do not want to hurt you - that is a silly question - my theory is not a theory of science".

Cute.

an idea that amuses me very much is that human kind in their vanity may struggle vainly and haughtily

to develop a 'theory of everything' and get one that is very close to the truth.

and just like the story of the tower of Babel, how Allah brought the vain people low ...

just as they are congratulating themselves Allah could say 'BE' and with that be all the apparent physical laws of science

(which are only Allah's habit anyway)

would change and their whole great pyramid of scientific assumptions, built up over the centuries, would collapse

and no experimental physical results would be the same as before

all physical, biological and chemical theories would then become wrong

(as everything would be happening by different apparent "means")

and they would have to start again from the very foundations of science

to understand these new 'laws of nature'

the true physical scientists would be fascinated by this amazing change

but the ones like Dawkins, who turn science into a form of idolatry

their height of their vanity having lead them to the most terrible of falls

falls that their inflated ego's could not cope with

no longer could they explain anything as they could before

and they would be found in many lands hanging from trees in parks

or slumped over their desks amidst a pile of pills

[jeaccatty]

I shall take the constancy of the laws of science ans a Mercy from Allah(SWT).
He sort of having Mercy on our limited capabilities.
Sort of a toy given to us - arrogant about the fact that we can understand His creation.
My beloved Shaikh (DB) says that science is full of Ma'arifah. More science you study more you marvel at His creation. One example is mosquito bite. Think of the mosquito size. This is a parable that Allah(SWT) has given himself for insignificance. The world has been compared to its value. Then let us consider its sting - is smaller still. Then the material it might inject into us. Must be significantly small. And that is what does all the job. So many of ailments transferred. What sophisticated system Allah(SWT) has in place!

Then I remember an anecdote by scientist. He said that he always marvels at the ant. Just imagine the pressure gradient in the room because of the sugar grain. Must be hopelessly small. But that is what the ant uses to reach it. What an intricate system in place! And Allah, our Lord is All-Pure.

I suppose Allah(SWT) does not take us for a ride unless we try to be very cunning.
But He (SWT) knows better.

Having said that the fact we have come to know about dark matter and dark energy itself tells us that our arrogance on finding the laws of nature was not well founded. Initially when dark matter was predicted that was a shock itself. The result was that the bright matter is smaller than the dark matter. So the hammer on the head announced that your ignorance is more than your knowledge. When dark energy came on the scene the game was upped once more. Your ignorance is not only more than your knowledge but it is significantly more. Bright matter only 4 percent. Dark matter about twenty five percent. Dark energy more than seventy percent.

I suppose that is a good enough shock from Allah(SWT).
But He(SWT) knows better.

As far as Dawkins is concerned I'll leave him to people like Yousuf bin Khattab and Hamza Tzortzis. For the time being. But I should mention that I have been pestering Drs 76, Abu Tamim and Amr123 to take up this task of working like a paper shredder on evolution. I suppose it needs a little bit of push towards it journey of doom. Lord Most High willing.

[TepSteade]

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ma/works/ma-gz-ps.pdf

A fascinating article about Al Ghazali's though on causality

For uber_mensch it points out the similarity of thought between David Hume and al-Ghazali in causality

- but of cause unlike Hume Al-Ghazali knew that ultimately it is intuition that gives us our most valuable knowledge, by means that Hume could not have comprehended.

[intifatry]

And then there was Karl Popper.

He said that the hallmark of scientific theories is that these are falsifiable. You can prove them wrong by empirical evidence. A theory that is not amenable to falsification is not a scientific theory. Thus he gave a method for demarcation of scientific and non-scientific theories. This is the Popperian wisdom.

Cute.

He also said God doesnt exist because the theory of God is non-falsifiable.
Having said that the fact we have come to know about dark matter and dark energy itself tells us that our arrogance on finding the laws of nature was not well founded. Initially when dark matter was predicted that was a shock itself. Dark matter hasn't been detected yet.

Personally I think it's one case that points out a flaw in the scientific method. The assumption is that all that exists can be detected empirically and that all that exists is reducable to number, so, they have postulated the existence of dark matter using mathematical models, but they can't find it. I doubt they ever will.

Their whole purpose in doing this is to account for everything that exists from a materialistic perspective.

[EmpokemyMok]

sorry brother I really do not understand what you are saying, are you saying that there is something wrong with having deep al-Murabitun type thoughts about harmonizing the European psyche with Islam via its ancient cultural heritage and the beautiful amaal of Madinah?

As far as I am concerned that was a compliment and I am the one who wrote it.

Are you speaking on behalf of Abdessamad Clarke or just stating your opinion?

I follow the Maliki school myself and am in many ways influenced by the writings of the Murabitun thinkers, and if you do not know Abdessamad Clarke and the Murabitun are indeed involved in the above process as is obvious from Sheikh Abdul Qadir as Sufi's instructions to his followers in Europe that there is a value in reading the classic European literature, furthermore Abdessamad Clarke has himself written a commentary on the certain parts of the ancient Celtic literature.

Brother, I have no idea how you inferred what you appear to have from my comment.

My comment was not directed at you I only quoted your statement to show that there are others who, like myself, would like for the respected scholar to participate here. Furthermore, my comment about how he was not accorded the respect that he was worthy of while participating here was also not directed at you for what I am making reference to is something that occurred 3 years or so before you even joined the forum.

So in sum, the post was not directed at you nor had you in mind in any way.

[Accecyncphory]

You had asked me this in the other thread:

What was it about the thread that had this affect on you?

Nothing directly, as I usually don't express myself like that. It's just that yesterday a group of brothers (a jama'ah) from South Africa came to my Masjid for a few days and after visiting some Muslims in our locality they gave a talk on Imaan. It was basically about how we don't attribute the things that are happening around us to Allah but instead, attribute it to the creation. Even though I wasn't singled out or mentioned by name during the talk, I felt like my faults were laid bare. The heart is supposed to be linked to Allah but instead, is directed to other things. This morning I continued to read from that thread and all of a sudden it struck a chord in me. I really don't know what else to say, man.