I like this guy normally, but this train of thought was so retarded that I actually registered in order to derail it. 'Muslim World' is predominantly third world, so not surprisingly, few research papers are published in countries in which there is little money for food, never mind access to journals, infrastructure for equipment, travel grants or salaries for academics.

That academic productivity is linked to resources, rather than philosophy, is supported by the observation that the rate of publication has increased at four times the global average in the middle east in the last 30 years (http://www.science-metrix.com/30years-Paper.pdf), ten-fold in Iran. This is due to resource prioritisation by the administrations of those countries, not the religiosity of the scientists.

A better way of thinking about it would be to look at the number of muslims actually publishing scientific papers globally - loads of muslims live and work in the first world conducting great research that is unbiased by any secret fantasies they (or their theist colleagues) may harbour. I actually work in a lab headed by a Jew and staffed by a few atheists, a hindu, 2 christians, 2 muslims and a few shintos, and there is no correlation between how often anybody prays and their success at work.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'islam, science, progress, future, research' to 'islam, science, progress, future, research, thunderf00t' - edited by gwiz665

Intelligence and religion are inverse curves. There are stupid atheists and smart muslims, but they are the outliers - the vast majority follow the curves nicely.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

I'm sorry but these videos are pathetic. Ignoring everything no-really said in his comment (all true), they would still be sad. Even if these statistics pointed at some actual problem, the world would be better off without many things, so what? Even if he proved that by taking up Islam you immediately become retarded and contribute nothing to society, so what? So we should ban Islam? Or better yet, invade Islamic nations to liberate them from stupidity?
You can educate people, that's it, suggesting we can "do" anything more is borderline warmongering.

>> ^no-really:

That academic productivity is linked to resources, rather than philosophy, is supported by the observation that the rate of publication has increased at four times the global average in the middle east in the last 30 years (http://www.science-metrix.com/30years-Paper.pdf), ten-fold in Iran. This is due to resource prioritisation by the administrations of those countries, not the religiosity of the scientists.



As he mentions in the video itself, if you look at that map, yes, many of those countries are poor, but some of them are in some of the most resource-rich areas of the world, and are up to their neck in money (Saudi Arabia etc) What all the darkest spots on that world map all have in common, is a heavy influence of Islam. Unfortunately, a heavy influence of islam on all of society probably means you'll end up having more in common as well, poor education, little or no science, politics poisoned by religion, and so on.

Nobody is suggesting you cant come from an islamic country and be a brilliant scientist, its just that under the influence of islam, society rots from within. The more islam, the less of everything else. the more devoted and dedicated followers of islam, the worse of everybody is.

Show me a country that has increased its religiosity/dedication to islam and thereby dragged itself out of poverty, misery and backwards thinking, and i'll show you false correlation..

What about the history of Islam? All the scientists and developments that came from it?

What's the video's author suggesting that we eliminate a religion because it's not producing enough science?

I upvoted so that people can see this video...and hopefully take away from it that it doesn't matter if you're smart or if you're stupid...you can still be really dumb and prejudiced.

You have to compare social standing. Compare Muslims as a group to a group of Christians with equal social standing for any kind of scientific accuracy.

I'd be willing to bet though that Athiests/Agnostics produce the most good scientific work in the world per-capita. Of the scientists I know (a dozen or so) only one observes his religion regularly and he is not known for the quality of his work.

Is the author of this video willing to take things a step further and say that ALL religion is detrimental?

For those who care. A scientific paper proving that ALL religions and strong religious beliefs inhibit scientific productivity. As a bonus it also shows that high GDP per capita is linked to scientific productivity.

The amount of resources or percentage of GDP allocated to science is determined by the underlying philsophy/ideology. Islam simply doesn't value scientific advances. That's why those countries don't contribute.

I've only skimmed the linked pdf but it says that the growth over Middle East countries is very uneven. Most of the growth is from Iran and Turkey and we know all about Iran. This is the country paying the Taliban to kill U.S soldiers. In most other Islamic countries it's stagnant. Iran's increase has it's roots in the war with Iraq and the desire to get nuclear weapons.

The fact is you'll only see projects like the Large Hadron Collider thanks to countries like America and those in Europe.

And BTW, is it possible to drop the use of the word "retarded". I'm happy to see that when I'm watching my Halo 3 montages and the kids are complaining about non-MLG footage, but there's nothing in his argument that is "retarded".


>> ^no-really:

I like this guy normally, but this train of thought was so retarded that I actually registered in order to derail it. 'Muslim World' is predominantly third world, so not surprisingly, few research papers are published in countries in which there is little money for food, never mind access to journals, infrastructure for equipment, travel grants or salaries for academics.
That academic productivity is linked to resources, rather than philosophy, is supported by the observation that the rate of publication has increased at four times the global average in the middle east in the last 30 years (http://www.science-metrix.com/30years-Paper.pdf), ten-fold in Iran. This is due to resource prioritisation by the administrations of those countries, not the religiosity of the scientists.
A better way of thinking about it would be to look at the number of muslims actually publishing scientific papers globally - loads of muslims live and work in the first world conducting great research that is unbiased by any secret fantasies they (or their theist colleagues) may harbour. I actually work in a lab headed by a Jew and staffed by a few atheists, a hindu, 2 christians, 2 muslims and a few shintos, and there is no correlation between how often anybody prays and their success at work.

>> ^Yogi:

What about the history of Islam? All the scientists and developments that came from it?
What's the video's author suggesting that we eliminate a religion because it's not producing enough science?
I upvoted so that people can see this video...and hopefully take away from it that it doesn't matter if you're smart or if you're stupid...you can still be really dumb and prejudiced.



He is basically saying islam is detrimental to science and progress. thats a bit like saying "Smoking cigarrettes is bad for your health" it doesn't mean cigarettes kills everybody who smokes, it doesn't mean we should start executing people for smoking, it doesn't mean we should bomb cigarette-factories or wipe tobacco off the face of the earth. It simply means the statistics are not on the cigarettes side, and its not on Islams side either.

At the same time, we know that cigarettes are full of tar in nicotine, so its no wonder its bad for you.

Islam, on its side, is a religion with its base in the Quran and Hadith. A reading of these texts will give you an idea of what its all about. Its a religion intrinsically hostile to the outside world including other religions or new ideas. Over and over, it demands total submission to the "one true god" and over and over it emphasizes the infallibility of islam, and the dangers of doubting it. It all but reads as a recipe for the halting of all progress, and heck, why not indeed, after all, Islam touts itself as being the final say from the old man himself. Why would there be any more questions left to ask or answer? That this mentality is reflected in the statistics of countries under Islamic rule/Islamic majority is certainly no surprise to me.

If you are of the opinion that saying stuff like that out loud makes you prejudiced, then thats your take. I think its a serious problem, and that talking about it openly would be better than to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^Yogi:
What about the history of Islam? All the scientists and developments that came from it?
What's the video's author suggesting that we eliminate a religion because it's not producing enough science?
I upvoted so that people can see this video...and hopefully take away from it that it doesn't matter if you're smart or if you're stupid...you can still be really dumb and prejudiced.


He is basically saying islam is detrimental to science and progress. thats a bit like saying "Smoking cigarrettes is bad for your health" it doesn't mean cigarettes kills everybody who smokes, it doesn't mean we should start executing people for smoking, it doesn't mean we should bomb cigarette-factories or wipe tobacco off the face of the earth. It simply means the statistics are not on the cigarettes side, and its not on islams side either. At the same time, we know that cigarettes are full of tar in nicotine, so its no wonder its bad for you. Islam, on its side, is a religion with its base in the Quran and Hadith. A reading of these texts will give you an idea of what its all about. Its a religion intrinsically hostile to the outside world including other religions or new ideas. Over and over, it demands total submission to the "one true god" and over and over it emphasizes the infallibility of islam, and the dangers of doubting it. It all but reads as a recipe for the halting of all progress, and heck, why not indeed, after all, Islam touts itself as being the final say from the old man himself. Why would there be any more questions left to ask or answer? That this mentality is reflected in the statistics of countries under Islamic rule/Islamic majority is certainly no surprise to me.
If you are of the opinion that saying stuff like that out makes you prejudiced, then thats your take. I think its a serious problem, and that talking about it openly would be better than to pretend the problem doesn't exist.


I think given a bit of time I could reach the same correlation with countries the US has attacked and nearly destroyed or has effected extremely negatively. I could prove up to at least the video posters standards that the US military does more for stifling science and general well being of other countries populations than anything else on earth. So to me this is an incredibly simplistic look and conclusion to come to when you're talking about humans and their development throughout history.

Hell I could come to the conclusion that the Chinese were useless inventors because they couldn't come up with Glass. Which means they failed at chemistry for so many centuries as well as transistors and the like, because they had china and they felt "Eh that's good enough."

The recent boon to the economy in a predominantly Muslim region of the planet has produced of late, an incredible rise in the amount of bling produced, esp. in Dubai.
List of the wealthiest, "who the fuck wants to go there" , predominantly Muslim countries, by GDP as of 2009.

Indonesia-$968.5bil -Treat their women like shit???...YES!
Turkey-$859.8bil.-Treat their women like shit???...YES!
Islamic Rep of Iran-$876bil.-Treat their women like shit???...YES!
Saudi Arabia-$581.3bil.-Treat their women like shit???...YES!
UAE-Dubai-$121,400(GDB per capita)-Treat their women like shit???...YES!

Real progressive for wealthy folk, eh? I could give a fuck about their throwback religious practices, save for the fact that the same affords little or no rights to the genetically superior of the species.

This criteria is simplistic, telling, valid.

>> ^Yogi:
I think given a bit of time I could reach the same correlation with countries the US has attacked and nearly destroyed or has effected extremely negatively. I could prove up to at least the video posters standards that the US military does more for stifling science and general well being of other countries populations than anything else on earth. So to me this is an incredibly simplistic look and conclusion to come to when you're talking about humans and their development throughout history.

You mean like.. Japan?

Alright, so thats 65 years ago, but i mean, Japan was really, really fucked. Before the A-bombs, the destruction level of japanese cities ranged from 50-90% completely destroyed. Every single city. But today Japan is the most technologically advanced nation on earth. It rose from the ashes. so did germany, and Vietnam, and so many other countries that have been bombed to bits, whether its by the US or anyone else. if you want more recent examples, go to Croatia/former Yugoslavia. War is a terrible thing, and yes, the aftereffects are terrible and can last for centuries (just ask any child born near Hiroshima the last 65 years) But it is not sufficient reason to be stuck in the dark ages.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^Yogi:
I think given a bit of time I could reach the same correlation with countries the US has attacked and nearly destroyed or has effected extremely negatively. I could prove up to at least the video posters standards that the US military does more for stifling science and general well being of other countries populations than anything else on earth. So to me this is an incredibly simplistic look and conclusion to come to when you're talking about humans and their development throughout history.

You mean like.. Japan?
Alright, so thats 65 years ago, but i mean, Japan was really, really fucked. Before the A-bombs, the destruction level of japanese cities ranged from 50-90% completely destroyed. Every single city. But today Japan is the most technologically advanced nation on earth. It rose from the ashes. so did germany, and Vietnam, and so many other countries that have been bombed to bits, whether its by the US or anyone else. if you want more recent examples, go to Croatia/former Yugoslavia. War is a terrible thing, and yes, the aftereffects are terrible and can last for centuries (just ask any child born near Hiroshima the last 65 years) But it is not sufficient reason to be stuck in the dark ages.


No that's a single event and then they got a chance to build themselves up. That's not like say Haiti who has been terrorized by the US for the last century or Cuba who's been terrorized for the last 50 years. It's not the same Japan vs Iran for example which we have been trying to stomp into the ground through various means for 50 years as well.

To me this is just way to complex the world is too complex. You can say Islam is stunting science if you want but the way he's going about proving it is incomplete.

Like I tried saying with the cigarette metaphor, its not that Islam has all the blame for everything, its just a very suspicious negative correlation between Islamic and Enlightened in this world. And like I said, if you look at the contents of the scripture, that makes complete sense. But yes, its a complex world, and proving such a negative correlation is difficult if not impossible, but we do have some disturbing indicators of that correlation.

And anectdotes about individual scientist and individual achievements do not justify ignoring the general evidence. If you can show me a country that practice a sincerely devout version of islam while soaring in reason, philosophy scientific advances, free speech, human rights, equality, freedom, tolerance and justice you might have had some reason to say the correlation is bullshit and the argument is just simplistic prejudice.

OK, prove that the U.S stifles science. More science gets done in the U.S than anywhere else. If anything has been holding science back it's religion and Islam is the worst culprit.

I don't think anyone should try to shift the conversation onto the more egregious aspects of U.S foreign policy because this is not what the video is about.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^Yogi:
What about the history of Islam? All the scientists and developments that came from it?
What's the video's author suggesting that we eliminate a religion because it's not producing enough science?
I upvoted so that people can see this video...and hopefully take away from it that it doesn't matter if you're smart or if you're stupid...you can still be really dumb and prejudiced.


He is basically saying islam is detrimental to science and progress. thats a bit like saying "Smoking cigarrettes is bad for your health" it doesn't mean cigarettes kills everybody who smokes, it doesn't mean we should start executing people for smoking, it doesn't mean we should bomb cigarette-factories or wipe tobacco off the face of the earth. It simply means the statistics are not on the cigarettes side, and its not on islams side either. At the same time, we know that cigarettes are full of tar in nicotine, so its no wonder its bad for you. Islam, on its side, is a religion with its base in the Quran and Hadith. A reading of these texts will give you an idea of what its all about. Its a religion intrinsically hostile to the outside world including other religions or new ideas. Over and over, it demands total submission to the "one true god" and over and over it emphasizes the infallibility of islam, and the dangers of doubting it. It all but reads as a recipe for the halting of all progress, and heck, why not indeed, after all, Islam touts itself as being the final say from the old man himself. Why would there be any more questions left to ask or answer? That this mentality is reflected in the statistics of countries under Islamic rule/Islamic majority is certainly no surprise to me.
If you are of the opinion that saying stuff like that out makes you prejudiced, then thats your take. I think its a serious problem, and that talking about it openly would be better than to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

I think given a bit of time I could reach the same correlation with countries the US has attacked and nearly destroyed or has effected extremely negatively. I could prove up to at least the video posters standards that the US military does more for stifling science and general well being of other countries populations than anything else on earth. So to me this is an incredibly simplistic look and conclusion to come to when you're talking about humans and their development throughout history.
Hell I could come to the conclusion that the Chinese were useless inventors because they couldn't come up with Glass. Which means they failed at chemistry for so many centuries as well as transistors and the like, because they had china and they felt "Eh that's good enough."

>> ^no-really:

'Muslim World' is predominantly third world, so not surprisingly, few research papers are published in countries in which there is little money for food, never mind access to journals, infrastructure for equipment, travel grants or salaries for academics.


By that presumption, one could argue that Islam is a factor that contributes to a bad economy, which then leads to the stifling of academic progress.

Your argument is interesting and well put, but the anecdotal evidence presented takes away the credibility of your statement that religion does not affect this process.

If this was a story about the wealth of nations, as was reasonably suggested above, those Islamic countries that are substantially wealthier per capita than Western & Asian countries would contribute at least a comparable amount to science.

islam is not worth discussing in any context except how to contain or destroy it.

I was never convinced by that or the contribution of any religion.

Here's a quote from a very good article (which covers Christianity as well) "Myth of Islamic Contribution to Human Civilization" by Muhammed A. Hussain.

"Thus, the Islamic Golden Age is a time, which was characterized by the development of a rather anti-Islamic Mutazili theology, inspired by the rational reasoning and freethinking of the pre-Christianity Greek Rationalism. And those Muslims scholars, who enriched science, mathematics, medicine, philosophy and rational thinking - the defining elements of the Islamic Golden Age, belonged to the un-Islamic Mutazili school, unlike contemporary Sunni Islamic scholars, such as al-Bukhari, Abu Daud and Imam Ghazali et al., of the true Islamic school. Given these facts, it is totally untenable and silly to claim that the golden era of progress and prosperity of Islamic world was ever positively influenced by Islam but instead, it was made possible because true Islamic ideology took the back seat during that era."

http://www.islam-watch.org/M.Hussain/myth_islams_contribution.htm

>> ^Yogi:

What about the history of Islam? All the scientists and developments that came from it?
What's the video's author suggesting that we eliminate a religion because it's not producing enough science?
I upvoted so that people can see this video...and hopefully take away from it that it doesn't matter if you're smart or if you're stupid...you can still be really dumb and prejudiced.

There are a few good comments here with a bunch of crap floating around them. Having just watched the video and browsed the article, I am going to boot this the fuck out of Science for shittiness.

As no-really pointed out, looking at the scientific output for nations where Islam is the state religion does not say much about the scientific output of Muslims in general. If we looked at the output for nations where some form of Christianity is the state religion, what do you think you'd see?

England + Costa Rica + Liechtenstein + Malta + Monaco + Vatican City + Cyprus + Greece + Finland + Denmark + Iceland + Norway + Tuvalu = England + meh.

England is the only real heavy hitter in there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Christian_countries

At very best, a reasonable argument could be made that there is a correlation between low scientific output of nations with state religions, but I'll eat a dick or two if you can dig through the confounding factors to make a solid case for that.

Point being, this video sucks, the article linked sucked too, and don't make broad generalizations about Islam and science without being able to back it up with scientific proof.

Fuck this, I'm out.

*nochannel
*religion
*islam

This video has been removed from all channels (Science, Religion, Islam, Philosophy) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Islam, Religion) - requested by rembar.

>> ^Deano:

I was never convinced by that or the contribution of any religion.
Here's a quote from a very good article (which covers Christianity as well) "Myth of Islamic Contribution to Human Civilization" by Muhammed A. Hussain.
"Thus, the Islamic Golden Age is a time, which was characterized by the development of a rather anti-Islamic Mutazili theology, inspired by the rational reasoning and freethinking of the pre-Christianity Greek Rationalism. And those Muslims scholars, who enriched science, mathematics, medicine, philosophy and rational thinking - the defining elements of the Islamic Golden Age, belonged to the un-Islamic Mutazili school, unlike contemporary Sunni Islamic scholars, such as al-Bukhari, Abu Daud and Imam Ghazali et al., of the true Islamic school. Given these facts, it is totally untenable and silly to claim that the golden era of progress and prosperity of Islamic world was ever positively influenced by Islam but instead, it was made possible because true Islamic ideology took the back seat during that era."
http://www.islam-watch.org/M.Hussain/myth_islams_contribution.htm
>> ^Yogi:
What about the history of Islam? All the scientists and developments that came from it?
What's the video's author suggesting that we eliminate a religion because it's not producing enough science?
I upvoted so that people can see this video...and hopefully take away from it that it doesn't matter if you're smart or if you're stupid...you can still be really dumb and prejudiced.



So you've got one paper...good for you.

Look this is just racism plain and simple...it's just nicer than QMs form of racism. Put a nice face on it...Liberal commentators during the cold war were explaining why the Russians say "No" all the time at the UN. They came to the conclusion with the support of psychiatrists that it was because Russian mothers dress their babies in swaddling clothes that doesn't allow them to move. This was an academically supported reason for why they wouldn't cooperate at the UN supported by experts. So when I see stuff like this...it's just obvious bullshit and furthermore it doesn't mean a goddamn thing to me. You're just trying to say one thing by hiding behind another...ok but it's not that hard to see through.

>> ^quantumushroom:

islam is not worth discussing in any context except how to contain or destroy it.


Once again QM is able to sum up exactly what a video is actually about. He sees through it, this is what this video is about, it's just working backwards from an assumption.

BOOSH! ... you just got rembar'ed


>> ^rembar:

There are a few good comments here with a bunch of crap floating around them. Having just watched the video and browsed the article, I am going to boot this the fuck out of Science for shittiness.
As no-really pointed out, looking at the scientific output for nations where Islam is the state religion does not say much about the scientific output of Muslims in general. If we looked at the output for nations where some form of Christianity is the state religion, what do you think you'd see?
England + Costa Rica + Liechtenstein + Malta + Monaco + Vatican City + Cyprus + Greece + Finland + Denmark + Iceland + Norway + Tuvalu = England + meh.
England is the only real heavy hitter in there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Christian_countries
At very best, a reasonable argument could be made that there is a correlation between low scientific output of nations with state religions, but I'll eat a dick or two if you can dig through the confounding factors to make a solid case for that.
Point being, this video sucks, the article linked sucked too, and don't make broad generalizations about Islam and science without being able to back it up with scientific proof.
Fuck this, I'm out.
nochannel
religion
islam

favorite thing about this post... the title brings up Soundgarden - 'Black Hole Sun' as a Related Video

Regarding the fair question about whether this belongs in the "science" channel:

If we put atheists' videos in the "religion" channel, we don't mean they're necessarily correct about religion, we mean that the video contains an argument about religion.

The same appears to be true about videos that contain arguments about science and comparative metrics of nations & cultures' scientific contributions.

I believe it's thus consistent to retain the categorization of *science, not because we're claiming the author is correct, but because the author is legitimately discussing science.

Adding video to channels (Science) - requested by chilaxe.

I must have forgotten to add this to *talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

>> ^Yogi:
Look this is just racism plain and simple...


Islam is not a race any more than scientology is. Are you also saying "Anonymous" are racially prejudiced against mostly white celebrities with more money than sense? Or maybe you should wait until scientology has a good grip on several nations as the dominant religion before playing the racist card. Its amazing how conveniently cults can change shape to escape criticism.
"It's not a cult, it's a religion"
"It's not a religion, it's a culture"
"It's not a culture, it's a race"

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^Yogi:
Look this is just racism plain and simple...

Islam is not a race any more than scientology is. Are you also saying "Anonymous" are racially prejudiced against mostly white celebrities with more money than sense? Or maybe you should wait until scientology has a good grip on several nations as the dominant religion before playing the racist card. Its amazing how conveniently cults can change shape to escape criticism.
"It's not a cult, it's a religion"
"It's not a religion, it's a culture"
"It's not a culture, it's a race"


"Its amazing how coveniently cults can change shape to escape criticism"

Dude...seriously?! You say shit like that and it's Not about racism. You just called one of the largest most established religions on the planet a cult. You hate these people...and you're finding and posting things to justify that hatred and bias. Don't argue with me...it's right fucking there. No Shut The Fuck Up! You've been proven to be a bigoted moron better than anyone could ever. Fucking pathetic.

Just an answer to ^
Cult = Religion with few followers
Religion = Cult with many followers
Ergo: Religions = Cults
Same shit, different name.

I think you need to calm down a bit.

This is NOT about racism. Islam IS a cult. But it gets a free ride from too many of us. I know it feels "wrong" to have a pop like this (and I certainly did once) but once you delve into some of the detail it's not a pretty picture.
Still, if I can go back to the point being made by the video here's a link that is supportive, yes supportive, of science in the Islamic world.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/thesword/2010/06/the-staggering-potential-of-is.html

There are things in there I don't agree with but it says that alot of new investment is coming from oil-rich states like Saudi who are at last becoming nervous about just sitting around on their oil reserves and see the need to diversify.
Also it says a recent UNESCO report says that 13 Islamic countries produced a higher percentage of women science graduates than the U.S. I'm sure that's not the full story but there's a link to the report if you want to check that one out.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^Yogi:
Look this is just racism plain and simple...

Islam is not a race any more than scientology is. Are you also saying "Anonymous" are racially prejudiced against mostly white celebrities with more money than sense? Or maybe you should wait until scientology has a good grip on several nations as the dominant religion before playing the racist card. Its amazing how conveniently cults can change shape to escape criticism.
"It's not a cult, it's a religion"
"It's not a religion, it's a culture"
"It's not a culture, it's a race"

"Its amazing how coveniently cults can change shape to escape criticism"
Dude...seriously?! You say shit like that and it's Not about racism. You just called one of the largest most established religions on the planet a cult. You hate these people...and you're finding and posting things to justify that hatred and bias. Don't argue with me...it's right fucking there. No Shut The Fuck Up! You've been proven to be a bigoted moron better than anyone could ever. Fucking pathetic.

It's not an academic paper, just an opinion piece. So I conclude you haven't taken a look. I recommend that you do.

Your implication of racism is nonsense.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Deano:
I was never convinced by that or the contribution of any religion.
Here's a quote from a very good article (which covers Christianity as well) "Myth of Islamic Contribution to Human Civilization" by Muhammed A. Hussain.
"Thus, the Islamic Golden Age is a time, which was characterized by the development of a rather anti-Islamic Mutazili theology, inspired by the rational reasoning and freethinking of the pre-Christianity Greek Rationalism. And those Muslims scholars, who enriched science, mathematics, medicine, philosophy and rational thinking - the defining elements of the Islamic Golden Age, belonged to the un-Islamic Mutazili school, unlike contemporary Sunni Islamic scholars, such as al-Bukhari, Abu Daud and Imam Ghazali et al., of the true Islamic school. Given these facts, it is totally untenable and silly to claim that the golden era of progress and prosperity of Islamic world was ever positively influenced by Islam but instead, it was made possible because true Islamic ideology took the back seat during that era."
http://www.islam-watch.org/M.Hussain/myth_islams_contribution.htm
>> ^Yogi:
What about the history of Islam? All the scientists and developments that came from it?
What's the video's author suggesting that we eliminate a religion because it's not producing enough science?
I upvoted so that people can see this video...and hopefully take away from it that it doesn't matter if you're smart or if you're stupid...you can still be really dumb and prejudiced.


So you've got one paper...good for you.
Look this is just racism plain and simple...it's just nicer than QMs form of racism. Put a nice face on it...Liberal commentators during the cold war were explaining why the Russians say "No" all the time at the UN. They came to the conclusion with the support of psychiatrists that it was because Russian mothers dress their babies in swaddling clothes that doesn't allow them to move. This was an academically supported reason for why they wouldn't cooperate at the UN supported by experts. So when I see stuff like this...it's just obvious bullshit and furthermore it doesn't mean a goddamn thing to me. You're just trying to say one thing by hiding behind another...ok but it's not that hard to see through.

The other day someone wrote a letter to my local paper about how Muslims are breeding more than anyone else. The gist was that Muslims will take over the world simply by overpopulating it with their own culture.

I'm not worried about that at all. You know what would happen to the majority of Muslims from highly devout nations if they started trying to take over America? They would start only going to Church on holidays, not really pray anymore and basically just sit around watching TV like most other Americans.

The problem with this video is that it presents a political standpoint as cold science, yet the data upon which the point is based are deeply flawed.

For example, the claim that muslims make up 20% of the world but that muslims only account for 1% of peer-reviewed papers is incongrous; many muslims don't live in muslim countries, but their scientific output is ignored. By the same reckoning, Jews are bad scientists because Israel only produces a relatively small number of patent applications per year (about 100,000 in 2002, compared to 250,000 for Turkey and about the same number granted as Saudi Arabia, for example). Once you put it in those terms, the absurdity of this cherry-picking should become apparent - jews have the highest nobel prizes per capita of any ethnic group, but that fact is ignored by this rather convenient form of analysis. Incidentally, Turkey apply for much more patents per capita per head than the US, for example, so does that mean you'll admit you're wrong?

Quote: "If you can show me a country that practice a sincerely devout version of islam while soaring in reason, philosophy scientific advances, free speech, human rights, equality, freedom, tolerance and justice you might have had some reason to say the correlation is bullshit and the argument is just simplistic prejudice" - don't bother replying, just winding you up.

Furthermore, the article fails to take into account other factors that could contribute to this scientific underachievement: for example, how Islamic countries compare to other countries with similar GDPs? A few contributors have claimed that islamic countries are rich, but this is not actually true. The islamic state with the highest GDP is Kuwait(followed by UAE) - both of these countries have about the same average income as that bastion of richess, um, Ireland. Most of the others are in the poor house: Oman and the Saudis pull in the same as the Greeks, and the rest straddle Ukraine. Hardly money to burn on particle accelerators.

Of course religion is overtly obstructive to scientific progress - just google 'texas school board'; that's not the point made in this video, probably because the main determinant of scientific prowess is actually how much money you spend on it.

Speaking of scientific lucidity, all of the stats I cited were from Gapminder.org, who dredged them from UN reports.

Religion is a virus which festers and boils in stupid people. It spreads to smarter people and makes them stupider. Stupid people don't make much money, science or other smart things.

Religion == stupid.

QED.

It's not about race, it's about a really, really dumb idea which drags us all down.

Chilaxe, I've never run into you before, but I run the Science channel. In opposition to many other channel owners, I run my channel (when I'm around) with an iron fist. Included in my channel description is the note that "if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate and in keeping with scientific thought."

This post, video, and the related article make claims that are unsubstantiated given the evidence they cite. For fucks' sake, the post starts off with "Muslims make up about 20 % of the world population but only produce 1 % of the worlds scientific papers (according to the IOP)." which is blatant horseshit if you take the time to even browse the article for the actual statistic.

In the future, please do me the favor of not reversing my decisions for the Science channel, especially if it involves dumping garbage back into Science.

P.S. Sifters, what the hell has happened? Y'all know I also think religion is a crock of shit but you are better than this....for shame.

*nochannel
*religion
*islam
*talks

>> ^chilaxe:

Regarding the fair question about whether this belongs in the "science" channel:
If we put atheists' videos in the "religion" channel, we don't mean they're necessarily correct about religion, we mean that the video contains an argument about religion.
The same appears to be true about videos that contain arguments about science and comparative metrics of nations & cultures' scientific contributions.
I believe it's thus consistent to retain the categorization of science, not because we're claiming the author is correct, but because the author is legitimately discussing science.

This video has been removed from all channels (Science, Religion, Islam, Talks) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Islam, Religion, Talks) - requested by rembar.

>> ^Yogi:
>Dude...seriously?! You say shit like that and it's Not about racism. You just called one of the largest most established religions on the planet a cult.

Yes I did.

>> ^Yogi:
>You hate these people...


"These people"? hm... No.
"This religion"? Well.. No, Not really. I dont "hate" Islam either, but I don't see why Islam should be exempt from criticism, just because its a religion, and I don't accept your definition of it as a race. If its a race, and i'm a racist, just who am I supposed to hate? 20% of India? Most of the middle east? Chechens? Somalies? Indonesians? Cat Stevens?

If anyones a racist here, it would have to be those who confuse ideologies with groups of people, like calling all nazis "germans" or believing that zionism is the same as Israel, or that Israel is the same as "jewish". Its you that do not have your definitions in order, not me.

I agree with your argument, but get over yourself. >> ^rembar:

P.S. Sifters, what the hell has happened? Y'all know I also think religion is a crock of shit but you are better than this....for shame.

Just saving you some time, dude.

The faithful muslim has 3 choices when he meets you: convert you, enslave you, kill you. That's it.

It's mandated in the "holy" book that is little more than a desert warfare manual, which encourages false assimilation in nations where muhammad's tribe is outnumbered.

When the tribe finally outnumbers the infidels, then they attack openly.

Atheists and then liberals should be the first ones denouncing such barbarism, since your necks are the first to go under the scimitar.


>> ^Yogi:

Once again QM is able to sum up exactly what a video is actually about. He sees through it, this is what this video is about, it's just working backwards from an assumption.

Hi @rembar,

I'm always happy to discuss things with fellow advocates of science. First of all, thanks for administrating the Science channel.

The video doesn't appear to claim Muslims produce only 1% of scientific papers, but instead claims the "Islamic World" produces only 1% of scientific papers. Indeed, the author of the original article is a Muslim living in Britain who is arguing for greater scientific funding in the Islamic World and that "A cultural renaissance leading to a knowledge-based society is urgently required if the Muslim world is to accept and embrace [the scientific spirit.]" He's referring to Islamic societies, not Muslims like himself living outside of Islamic societies.

I think you're right that there's a terminology error in the video description submitted by @BicycleRepairMan , in which "Muslims" should be replaced with "[the Islamic World]." In a nutshell, the video gets it right, but the video description gets it wrong.

Thanks for bringing attention to that important distinction.

I will when you manage to step your game up.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I agree with your argument, but get over yourself. >> ^rembar:
P.S. Sifters, what the hell has happened? Y'all know I also think religion is a crock of shit but you are better than this....for shame.

What game is that, dad? That is, how should I step up my game? By humbly beseeching you to teach me the error of my ways, instead of knocking you off the pedestal you put yourself on?

Note: I did not disagree with your argument. (I wrote that once already.) But you really need to check your ego. It kind of hurts your argument. You're a scientician, right? What good is the most brilliant idea in the world if no one will listen to it because of the attitude?

Here ya go. Don't say I never did anything for you.>> ^rembar:

I will when you manage to step your game up.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I agree with your argument, but get over yourself. >> ^rembar:
P.S. Sifters, what the hell has happened? Y'all know I also think religion is a crock of shit but you are better than this....for shame.

A tip for stepping up your game: Stop whining. It makes you seem petulant and childish.

If you think I'm interested in checking my attitude to convince people on the internet I'm right, you're mistaken. If you think my tone takes away from my point, you're being silly. If you think I'm not going to call people out for acting like idiots....well...stop being an idiot.

And that's all I have to say.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

What game is that, dad? That is, how should I step up my game? By humbly beseeching you to teach me the error of my ways, instead of knocking you off the pedestal you put yourself on?
Note: I did not disagree with your argument. (I wrote that once already.) But you really need to check your ego. It kind of hurts your argument. You're a scientician, right? What good is the most brilliant idea in the world if no one will listen to it because of the attitude?
Here ya go. Don't say I never did anything for you.>> ^rembar:
I will when you manage to step your game up.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I agree with your argument, but get over yourself. >> ^rembar:
P.S. Sifters, what the hell has happened? Y'all know I also think religion is a crock of shit but you are better than this....for shame.

Chilaxe, the video most certainly does not get it right. The video places the "Fraction of the world that is Muslim" side by side with the "Fraction of Scientific Papers produced by the Muslim World" to create a strawman argument that somehow the comparison of these two figures says something about the effect that Islam (as a religion in general, notably not just as a state religion) has on scientific productivity.

The statistics quoted may in fact be right, but the analysis is sure as hell wrong.

The article goes in a totally different direction and makes a better, although still sloppy, distinction between Muslims and Muslim nations, but hey, I'm just the guy booting shitty videos out of my channel, articles don't count.

@rembar

Please make clear your dispute.

1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population is Muslim living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish ~1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in these outcomes.

These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere that would disqualify this as legitimate discussion?

Pro tip (no game-stepping involved): Equating criticism with "whining" makes you look petulant and childish. Yeah, telling you to get over yourself is a little rough, but turnabout is fair play, oui?

Look, if your ego won't allow you to stop being a condescending pedant when explaining something, then you're going to lose most, if not all, of your audience. And then what's the point of even trying to explain anything? For most people a negative tone DOES subtract from the point one is trying to make, whether you believe it or not. You're the one being silly if you don't understand basic communication skills. (Did you check out that link I provided? It's actually pretty good.)

And if you think I'm not going to call out arrogant a-holes, think again.>> ^rembar:

A tip for stepping up your game: Stop whining. It makes you seem petulant and childish.
If you think I'm interested in checking my attitude to convince people on the internet I'm right, you're mistaken. If you think my tone takes away from my point, you're being silly. If you think I'm not going to call people out for acting like idiots....well...stop being an idiot.
And that's all I have to say.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
What game is that, dad? That is, how should I step up my game? By humbly beseeching you to teach me the error of my ways, instead of knocking you off the pedestal you put yourself on?
Note: I did not disagree with your argument. (I wrote that once already.) But you really need to check your ego. It kind of hurts your argument. You're a scientician, right? What good is the most brilliant idea in the world if no one will listen to it because of the attitude?
Here ya go. Don't say I never did anything for you.>> ^rembar:
I will when you manage to step your game up.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I agree with your argument, but get over yourself. >> ^rembar:
P.S. Sifters, what the hell has happened? Y'all know I also think religion is a crock of shit but you are better than this....for shame.

Chilaxe, #3 is very confusing to me. Could you please restate #3 replacing "these outcomes" with the actual outcomes you're referring to?

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar
Please make clear your dispute.
1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population are Muslims living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish 1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in these outcomes.
These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere?
>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar
Please make clear your dispute.
1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population are Muslims living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish 1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in these outcomes.
These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere?

@rembar,

Sure. Here are the 3 claims with #3 reworded.

1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population is Muslim living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish ~1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in their low rate of scientific publishing.

These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere that would disqualify this as legitimate discussion?

Well, first of all, #3 isn't actually a theory, since it MUST be true that Islamic societies play a significant role in Islamic societies' low rate of scientific publishing. You are not actually staking a falsifiable claim here.

What you are probably trying to say with #3 is actually: "Islam (or Islamic governance) (or Islamic influence) plays a significant role in Islamic societies' low rate of scientific publishing." If this is actually what you are claiming, your theory is not backed up by #1 or #2 in the slightest because you are not providing evidence of any causation.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar,
Sure. Here are the 3 claims with #3 reworded.
1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population is Muslim living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish ~1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in their low rate of scientific publishing.
These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere that would disqualify this as legitimate discussion?

@rembar,

We're debating not whether this video's argument is true, but whether it represents legitimate debate dealing with science.

It's hard to imagine why debate about the factors underlying differential rates of science publication wouldn't be considered 'dealing with science and of interest to those interested in science.' If something is controversial, we add a *controversy tag.

The great thing about science is there aren't authority figures who make personal judgments about what represents legitimate debate.

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by chilaxe.

Thank you @chilaxe for demontrating the virtue of commonsense. The smart thing to do here would be to keep this in Science AND adding it to Controversy. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you remove it from the channel. If it had absolutely no inherent value or came from a disreputable source I doubt it would have sifted and we wouldn't be discussing it.

BTW can't believe I upvoated QM. First time for everything I guess

This video assumes cause=Islam & effect=lack of science.

So is that assumption correct? Could we just as easily replace cause= with poverty, political system, or the color of wheat bread on Tuesday?

While there may be the potential for scientific correlation, and potentially causation, I don't think we should focus this conversation on Islam specifically. If you want to blame religion for scientific progress, blame religion as a whole.

The basis of all religion is that you suspend your disbelief and follow the tenants of the teachings because someone in a position of power said so. That though pattern alone is bound to have a negative impact on the species' ability to scientifically excel, regardless of the branch of religion.

Dear Islam,

Why are you screwing around when there's still science to do? The other 5 billion of us can't do it alone, there's simply too much science. Do you want to live to 300 or not?

- Sincerely, The Internet

The paper doesn't say what you claim it does. It says that religious tolerance correlates with productive scientific societies, which is no where near the same thing as saying that religious beliefs inhibit productivity. And since it is a correlation, it also does not show a cause-effect relationship and he even points out it could work either way--science could have a secularizing effect or it could be that more secular societies decide to invest more in science (for unknown reasons). Nothing in there about inhibition of scientific productivity except at the end where he states that the data would imply that fundamentalism (i.e. lack of tolerance) is likely to correlate to slower growth (though he didn't actually test that hypothesis with any data and therefore that statement is uncorroborated by any evidence--in fact he mentions that Iran increased scientific research by 5x between 1993 and 2003 which would seem to cast doubt on the hypothesis).

Not sure what your point about the GDP was. Correlation is not causation. We would expect high GDP countries to invest more in research and technology simply because they have more money to spare than poor countries. He even points out that there is a lack of correlation for poor countries.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

For those who care. A scientific paper proving that ALL religions and strong religious beliefs inhibit scientific productivity. As a bonus it also shows that high GDP per capita is linked to scientific productivity.

The point about GDP was that Muslim countries tend towards the lower end of the GDP spectrum, therefore one would EXPECT a lower rate of scientific output from the Muslim world. I suspect you skimmed many of the previous comments if you're that lost.

@rembar
I put this video in the science channel not because the video itself is scientifically correct, it is quite clearly an opinion piece that may or may not have its numbers/wordings correct. Its not a scientific paper, and I admit the statistics it presents is somewhat sketchy when he talks about muslims as if they all lived in the parts of the world dominated by Islam. The point of the video however, is to point out the clear difference between the expected output of science from parts of the world dominated by islam (expected compared to the rest of the world) and the actual output. In essence , he is asking "Why are the science rates so low in all these islamic countries?"

Now, there may be valid objections to this line of questioning, this difference may not be connected to Islam, maybe you have a better explanation that would debunk this suspicion, and I welcome it.

But dont you think its a valid question to ask? why are some countries, seemingly independent of everything else, so bad at science? There may be several answers, a very complex answer or no answer at all. Either way its a question ABOUT science, and this is why I put it in Science.

This is not a plea or demand for putting it back, I'm merely giving my reasons for putting it there in the first place, I did not intend to abuse or disrespect the channel in any way, but its a video DISCUSSING science and the state of science, and how science seems to be low on the priority-list in some parts of the world.

I explained my judgment on Science videos. Since you don't seem to have been around when I established the channel, you should know that I have always ruled that just because a sift discusses science does not make it worthy of being in the Science channel. There are a bunch of bad science and pseudo-science videos I have booted out (homeopathy, water fluoridation conspiracies, evil vaccines, etc.) because they have misinformation and straight up incorrect theories.

Another great thing about science is that publications are judged by people with graduate degrees and correlating levels of knowledge so that people who know what they're talking about get a say.

Oh, and I am, in fact, debating whether this video is true, and that is why it doesn't belong in Science. Science aims at objective truth. Fuck this nonsense about "discuss the controversy". Shit doesn't fly up in Science.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar,
We're debating not whether this video's argument is true, but whether it represents legitimate debate dealing with science.
It's hard to imagine why debate about the factors underlying differential rates of science publication wouldn't be considered 'dealing with science and of interest to those interested in science.' If something is controversial, we add a controversy tag.
The great thing about science is there aren't authority figures who make personal judgments about what represents legitimate debate.

@BicycleRepairMan

I did not take your post as offensive, but you know I run my channel with an iron fist.

The question itself is worth asking, and a valid argument could be made that Islam plays a role in the low scientific output of Islamic countries in general.

That being said, this video posed the question and proposed an answer (that Islam in these nations is inhibiting scientific progress) without appropriate adequate evidence. Therefore the question is valid but the argument is unscientific and not deserving of a place in the Science channel.

I can only think that Islam, to some extent, is like Catholicism or Judaism, i.e. there are many of its adherents who kind of pay lip service to the rules but go about living their lives like "normal" human beings.

I hate the stoning shit. Hate the Saudi beheadings and the hands getting cut off and all that shit. Hate it.

I especially hate the denigration of women.

But, online, I've met a few Muslims, and they were not the fire-breathing militants that the western media portrays them to be.

@rembar,

Are you really resorting to personal "rulings" that go against the community? You're at your most professional and appropriate when you refer to the many comments that disagree with your own as "shit."

The science channel is clearly meant to serve science and the community, not the inexperienced, self-righteous biases of a single user.

What is so "personal" about the fact that the methods in this video are not scientific, a core requirement of the science channel?

Why must the standards of that channel be lowered to fit your pet "theories"? I say "theories", because, from a scientific POV, the proposition in this video is not a theory, either.

And for what it's worth, in grad school, there were muslims in my lab who did good work, and I even had a muslim on my doctoral committee. The fact that they hailed from muslim culture had no bearing on their work. In fact, it may have improved it, since they didn't go on benders like the many of the grad students, and could work without hangovers.

*Yawn*. I am more experienced than you as a sifter, channel owner, and, I dare say judging by your formulation of theories in this thread, a scientist. And I don't give a damn about truth by democracy. I serve the Videosift community by running a channel that is held to a certain standard of accuracy, logic and scientific credibility, not by cushioning people's feelings when they cling to ignorant or dumb ideas. Sorry if you can't deal, but that's how it is and is gonna be. I'm done wasting time on this sift.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar,
Are you really resorting to personal "rulings" that go against the community? You're at your most professional and appropriate when you refer to the many comments that disagree with your own as "shit."
The science channel is clearly meant to serve science and the community, not the inexperienced, self-righteous biases of a single user.

Has anyone here ever looked at the science channel, or are we just applying criteria selectively?

Once the following videos are removed, since they are merely about science and of interest to people interested in science, we can then reasonable remove the present video about science publishing.

http://science.videosift.com/video/Probably-Hitchens-best-speech-It-does-not-follow
http://science.videosift.com/video/Ned-Flanders-Naturally-Selected-Fish
http://science.videosift.com/video/How-long-does-it-take-for-the-earth-to-go-around-the-sun
http://science.videosift.com/video/Arthur-C-Clarke-predicting-the-future-in-1964
http://science.videosift.com/video/Relativity-is-a-Liberal-Plot

Additionally, if the below videos are supposed to represent rigorous scientific experiments, they seem to very clearly fail the above proposed criteria.
http://science.videosift.com/video/We-Live-in-Public-Trailer
http://science.videosift.com/video/The-anti-Semitic-truth-about-evolution
http://science.videosift.com/video/NEVER-Microwave-an-airbag
http://science.videosift.com/video/Seth-Priebatsch-Building-the-game-layer-on-top-of-the-world

1, 2, 3, 4, 5....

Islamic, no?

Persian at the very least.