Talk:Ibn al-Haytham/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

How do we solve this?

The never-ending tit-for-tat edit-war over Alhazan's ethnicity is one of the reasons why this article was removed from the list of good articles. I would like everybody genuinely interested in making this article the best it can be and getting it relisted as a good article to join me in making some concrete suggestions for how we can settle/sidestep this obviously contentious issue. I know which way I fall on the issue, and how I would write the article if I could tyrannically dictate such a thing, but I genuinely think that there must be a way to phrase the lead that acknowledges that different perspectives exist, acknowledges the controversy, but does not pander to politically or religiously motivated viewpoints. Let's try to solve this. We're clever people, right? Famous_dog (c) 11:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I pending-protected the article, but I will toss an idea into the ring here: at Nicolaus Copernicus, whose ethnicity is famously fought over (German/Polish), we came up (after about 10 years (!), the talk-pages make fabulous reading) with leaving the ethnicity out of the lede, and just label him "a Renaissance- and Reformation-era mathematician and astronomer". Might a comparable era our timescale serve in the case here? Lectonar (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• The problem, as I see it, is that him being an Arab is sourced to multiple reliable academic sources written by acknowledged experts in the fields of Islamic history and Islamic science, while those who claim he was Persian provide links to blogs and sources written by "laymen", like the edit I just reverted, which is sourced to a blogpost about photography, with only a passing mention of Ibn Al-Haytham. Which IMO means that claims about him being Persian should be seen as an unsourced fringe claim, not meriting any mention at all in the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that. But the presence of a mention of his (probably) Arab ethnicity in the lead is obviously twisting the knickers of a whole bunch of people, albeit people who cannot find a reliable source to counter it. This issue is preventing a pretty comprehensive article from being elevated to the nirvana of good-articleness. Is there a way that we can prevent further edit-warring while still maintaining WP's principles? Famous_dog (c) 13:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem moving his ethnicity to the body of the article, although I do not believe this will stop IP POV pushers from using unreliable sources for their interpretation of his ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(please don't top-post) Famous_dog (c) 14:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi everybody and thank you very much for your work. I would say to Thomas.W that it's not true, the sources stating he was Persian are not only blogs, for example this one :

https://www.physics.org/interact/physics-evolution/text-only/02.html

This is from Institute of physics based in London which states he was a Persian, please, tell me if you really think it's a blog ? There is another big difference between me and those saying he was Arab, it's that i do not remove sources stating he was an Arab, i just add sources stating he was a Persian and i think this is my right as long as my sources are reliables, don't agree ??? I think like one contributor who said that as his ethnicity is unclear, we should just say "muslim scientist" this could solve the problem. More, i would report rudeness from Kansas Bear on his talk page, treating a user of liar and sockpuppet, please just go on his talk page and see by yourself. Thanks again for your job guys (and ladies of course).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.156.123 (talk)

Anonymous User, that sadly IS a blog, albeit a blog from a fairly prestigious source. The problem is that this prestigious institution is an institute devoted to physics, not history. It might be possibly be considered a reliable source for physics but not history. That is the problem with this source as I see it. Physicists, clever though they are, are not historians. Famous_dog (c) 14:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you do not remove reliable sources is not really a point in your favour. If you did, it would hardly be considered proper behaviour. Famous_dog (c) 14:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for you for your answer Famousdog, but other sources (including historical ones) are listed above on this talk page, and a single user, Kansas bear, removed all of them (saying he does not want articles writen by "some Brits" who write only generaly...) being by the way rude with some users who just wanted to upgrade the article fairly (this is my case), i thought this was forbidden on Wikipedia which is a usualy reliable source very usefull for me as well in my professionnal life than my personnal one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.156.123 (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Judging from the attitude and actions of this IP, it is clear this is a blocked user here to right great wrongs. Incapable of bringing reliable sources for this article, said IP resorts to accusation of racism, lying, and distortion of facts. I see no reason to continue a dialogue with this type of "person" and that we have this talk page "semi-protected" against IPs. That said, moving Alhazen's ethnicity out of the lead, will not remove the problem of disruptive IPs. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kansas bear, Thank you for your answer, i never accused you of racism, i just said you were rude and not very respectfull with britsh writers (and by the way, being British is not a "race" but this is another story...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.156.123 (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This is your post kansas bear:

"I am saying a historian with an academic background in this particular area should be considered. Not some Brits that have written a generalized history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)"

So please keep the word "liar" for youself.

But that's not the point here, the point is "are the sources unanimous about the ethnicity of that man ?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.156.123 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

What about these sources stating he was Persian :

• Understanding History by John Child, Paul Shuter, David Taylor - Page 70

• Science and Human Destiny by by Norman F. Dessel, Richard B. Nehrich, Glenn I. Voran - Page 164

• The Journal of Science, and Annals of Astronomy, Biology, Geology by James Samuelson, William Crookes - Page 497

I would like to know if they are RS. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.156.123 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Go do your own work, since your latest edit is not a reliable source either, it's a blog.

Also, this statement links your current IP to the one that posted the lie on my talk page

• "More, i would report rudeness from Kansas Bear on his talk page, treating a user of liar and sockpuppet, please just go on his talk page and see by yourself."

You stated:

• "Hi Kansas bear, i can see you're reverting all sources without any explanation"[1]

That is a lie. I explained three times, twice in edit summaries[2][3] and once on the talk page[4]

• "So please keep the word "liar" for youself."

First off, considering you have taken my statement out of context(ie. distortion of facts), have not read any of the discussion concerning Child, Shuter, and Taylor and have blatantly ignored what SteveMcCluskey stated, this just proves you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

And while you continue to embarrass yourself, learn to spell and do research.

You also stated:

• "i never accused you of racism"[5]
• "So could you please give me an explanation for that ? or maybe it's because you just don't like Persians"[6]

This is a personal attack and an accusation of racism. Appears you have lied, again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A proposal

The page may need semi-protection (i.e. blocking IP editors).

I have no idea what ethnicity this man was. I'm not entirely sure why it's necessary to include this in the article. But any determination of his ethnicity should be done on the talk page. None of you have any direct knowledge of this man; he has been dead for over 500 years. Please discuss this with decor. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that the proposition of Power-enwiki is clever and that's exactly what i say, i don't know that man, he died 1000 years ago, but when i search on google about him, sources are not unanimous.

For kansas bear : you don't know me neither, i'haven't been rude with anybody here, this does'nt make sens for me to be rude with people, all that i say is that you and me do not know him and sources appear to be divergent.

If i make some mistales when i write, please forgive me, this is because english is not my mother tongue as i'm french, and i l'ive in Paris, but i love wikipedia as i use it since a long time and i've allways been honest even if you think i'me not.

I've made some articles on french wikipedia on historical topics, and they are still here, allmost unchanged, years after, maybe it's because they are not so bad or at least i hope so.

Honestly, i've tried to search about these people (Child, Taylor, etc...) and i've found a wide range of propositions (rugbyman, professor, etc...) i do not know them, but some of them have been published in prestigious souces (like Kevin Killeen Oxford University press if do not make a mistake, who is a historian in the field of intellectual history and stating Ibn al-Haythzm is Persian).

As i said, i don't know ibn al-Haytham, and if you are absolutely certain that he was an Arab, so it's ok for me but the problem is that the majority of "reliables" sources states he's Arab but a few ones states he's Persian and if you look on other famous people with controversially ethnicity (Copernicus, Geber...) their ethnicity is either not mentionned (Copernicus) either double mentionned (Geber), correct me if i'm wrong.

I hope i haven't bored you with my long long speech... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.137.2 (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection may deal with the short term problem, but I think User:Famousdog's suggestion that we follow the Copernicus procedure, and remove discussions of ethnicity from the lede and place a balanced discussion of the scholarly view of the claims that he is Arabic or Persian in the body of the article has real merit. In 2010 I added (as an IP) the following note to editors, based on a similar note in the Copernicus article, as hidden text after a similar discussion on Talk.

"NOTE TO EDITORS: Please read the talk page before editing the introductory paragraphs. These paragraphs represent a consensus on how best to present the essential information in the introduction. Other issues are discussed later in the article. Whether nationality should be attributed to Alhazen is in dispute among editors (see the Talk page and its archives)."

The note to editors was removed in 2015, apparently inadvertently, when Persondata migrated to Wikidata. As a step to restore some calm to the article, I'll restore the note to editors. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Kansas bear, i just went on the Al-Razi talk page to ask other contributors if my sources are reliables or not.

It's true that that source is a blog but i checked the author of it and he's a member of "american academy of innovation", so i thought his blog was reliable.

Anyway, contributors will decide on the talk page of Al-Razi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.165.187.35 (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I doubt if the discussion at al-Razi will be very productive, as you raised your question in a section where the most recent comment was made in 2005. You should rely on the insights of this, currently active, discussion. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi SteveMcClusky and thanks for your answer.

My remark about Al Razi was just an answer to Kansas Bear's statement above and not directly linked to Ibn Al Haytham, i continued on Kansas's talk page after that but he erased my question about the reliability of sources.

Trying to solve this issue, i would like to know if these sources are reliables according to you:

• Understanding History by John Child, Paul Shuter, David Taylor - Page 70

• ^ Science and Human Destiny by by Norman F. Dessel, Richard B. Nehrich, Glenn I. Voran - Page 164

• ^ The Journal of Science, and Annals of Astronomy, Biology, Geology by James Samuelson, William Crookes - Page 497

• Killeen, Kevin (2014). Thomas Browne. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 940

Another user than me (Scienceis) has listed more sources stating that Ibn al-Haytham was Persian.

I agree that most sources list him as Arab but some sources list him as Persian.

If you look to Jabir ibn Hayyan's article, there are 3 sources stating he was Arab and 12 stating he was Persian, and in his article it's stayed "Arab or Persian".

Thanks for your work.

Ooh yes, i've seen al Razi's talk page and the last coment is effectively very old. My appologize. I can write my comment in "alcohol again" but even there the last comment is quite old... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.165.187.35 (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as a historian of science, I would have to say that the sources you cite are not reliable sources on the historical question of the ethnicity of Ibn al-Haytham. There certainly are reliable historical studies out there for someone who wishes to do the research. A good starting point would be A. I. Sabra's discussion of the original sources on his life in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography:

• Sabra, A. I. (2008) [1970–80], "Ibn Al-Haytham, Abū ʿAlī Al-Ḥasan Ibn Al-Ḥasan", Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Charles Scribner's Sons

I really have nothing more to add on the topic. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point of view,

but i'm a mathematician and i love logics.

I studied a PhD in the field of stochastical calculus at the Pierre et Marie University in Paris and had the honour to publish a few articles for the CNRS. I am saying that because in one of my articles, i proposed some historical facts to introduce my work whose facts were wrong, so the CNRS asked me to remove them from my article, otherwise they would refuse to publish me.

What i want to say is that prestigious organisms (like CNRS, Oxford University and many others) will not publish works with false informations even if these false informations are not linked with the main subject of that work.

The last source above is from a historian and published at Oxford University Press, that's why i think it's reliable.

I followed your article link from Sabra and haven't found any information about Ibn al-Haytham's ethnicity, so if i understand well your proposal, you mean his ethnicity shoud be removed from the article ?

Thank you for the time you spent for reading me, i have nothing else to add neither except if someone else want to discuss further about this issue.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.169.229.140 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

37.169.229.140, when you say, "Another user than me (Scienceis) has listed more sources...," are you claiming that you and User:Scienceis are not the same person? I would appreciate a clarification. Thanks. —grolltech^(talk) 22:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm only an IP user, i don't have an account on Wikipedia and i have never had one. I'm NOT Scienceis. Many other users proposed to remove Arabic ethnicity (and Persian as well), i think it's the only way to reach a concensus on this article (see above Lectonar, Dmcq, power-enwiki and others). Have a look at the sources and share your POV about them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.165.190 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this source reliable enough :

http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/abu-ali-al-hasan-ibn-al-hasan-ibn-al-haytham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.243 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi 193.109.199.243,

My opinion is that your source is a reliable one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.163.20.253 (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The source cited is excerpted from a volume of a 7-volume encyclopedia set on the history of science: Science and Its Times: Understanding the Social Significance of Scientific Discovery, vol. 2. The Google Books page for that volume notes that it could not find any reviews in the usual places and describes the editor, Neil Schlager, as "a chemical engineer who has run factories in Nashville, Tennessee; Winnipeg, Canada; and Bahrain". A WorldCat search shows that the series is held by only 16 libraries, worldwide. I'm not certain this holds up as a reliable source on Ibn al-Haytham's ethnicity and, as I've said several times before, I don't feel his ethnicity is a significant element for this article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your answer but the fact is that encyclopedia.com is believed to be legit :

http://www.encyclopedia.com/about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.11 (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Your link just reproduces content from the 2001 book by Schlager, the identity of the server hosting it is irrelevant, and Schlager's book isn't a quotable source. --dab (𒁳) 14:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

There are many such cases on Wikipedia. They are difficult to fix because the nationalists (on either side!) usually come in tag-teams and recruit support in their respective online communities. They aren't here to play fair or to write an encyclopedia. The solution usually is:

• to semiprotect
• to disregard all contribution by anonymous editors or fresh accounts
• to take a step back and either remove mention of ethnicity in the lead, remove the WP:BOMBARDment with crappy google results presented as "references" and instead give a balanced paragraph on the question, with references to scholarly sources, further down in the article
• it usually boils down to "meh, could have been either, we can't be sure and it isn't important"

--dab (𒁳) 14:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

case in point:

"Nicolaus Copernicus was a Renaissance- and Reformation-era mathematician and astronomer"

further down, the ocd treatment of his Polish ancestry and his fluency in German betray that people do care very much about his ethnic affiliations, but the lead is clear of this nonsense, and most trolls don't read past the lead anyway, so they aren't triggered by prominent mention of the "wrong" ethnicity. --dab (𒁳) 14:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Alhazen's ethnicity should be moved out of the lead of the article. No one has given any reason(s) not to remove Alhazen's ethnicity from the lead, so I will be doing that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I propose putting "Iraqi-muslim" or "Iraqi-egyptian" in the lead. I thik that is more appropriate and quite acceptable. what do you see?!

When i look at this (very) long talk page, I think just like Kansas bear and Dbachmann that we should not mention his ethnicity in the lead to stop this endless edit warring in which POV pushers are engaged... Wikaviani (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be rather undisputed that he was Arab. At least the article puts it like this positively, we seem to have half a dozen credible references calling him "Arab" and not a single one calling him "Persian". But of course once the Persian nationalists have decided they want him to be Persian, there will never be peace, so it will be best just to avoid calling him Arab in the lead, because his ethnicity is clearly not relevant to his notability (this also holds true of his religious affiliation of course). --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Support following the best sources. If non-Arab features can't be gleaned from his writings or name, it's reasonable to assume he was an Arab. Although we should be consistent across different articles. Perhaps an RFC similar to the Ethnic Galleries would be sufficient. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 11:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

See, this is the problem with articles such as this. Productive discussion and the IPs just go and remove what they don't like([7]) and then a "different" IP replaces it with whatever they want.([8]) So much for a productive discussion. Perhaps semi-protection from meddlesome IPs would be prudent. What is even more pathetic is the IP's removal of Arab after this discussion and knowing full well this was and still is sourced!

This IP, which apparently hops around has edited under:

• 37.166.50.147
• 37.171.52.41
• 37.105.77.247
• 37.169.229.140

I have restored the referenced information removed under false pretenses and have asked for semi-protection for this article. Clearly having a discussion with this IP has been a waste of time and energy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Case closed: Encyclopedia Iranica says Alhazen was NOT Persian

Hi guys, I think this source should finish this argument once and for all. Here is some excerpts from Encyclopædia Iranica's article on optics.

In one paragraph, the article lists all the Persian authors on optics and Ibn al-Haytham is not among them:

"Authors of Persian origin writing on optics in Arabic range from Avicenna (d. 1037) and Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi (d. ca. 1191) from the eleventh and twelfth centuries, to Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (d. ca. 1274) and Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi (d. 1311) from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, to the far more scientifically advanced case of Kamāl al-Dīn al-Fārisī (d. ca.1319) slightly later."[9]

The article later mentions Ibn al-Haytham as a representative of the Arab optical tradition along with al-Kindi.

Also one more citation from the same source:

"Ibn Sina also discussed theories of vision directly. He did not, however, write independent works on optics as did his contemporary, the celebrated author and native Arabic speaker Ibn al-Haytham......... But by far the most impressive of the optical authors of Persian origin is Kamal al-Din al-Farisi whose monumental commentary on the Optics of Ibn al-Haytham is only one of many works composed during his productive intellectual life."[10]

As you can see, Iranica unquestionably does not consider Ibn al-Haytham as Persian, referring to him as a "native Arabic speaker". Moreover, it states clearly that Kamāl al-Dīn al-Fārisī, and not Ibn al-Haytham, was the the most prominent Persian author on optics.
So we have the biggest authority on Persian history stating quite clearly that Alhazen was NOT Persian.
I think this conclusively settles the issue.

It is also noteworthy that Basra, the birthplace of Alhazen, was an Arab city [11], and a well-known Arab stronghold in Mesopotamia along with Kufa [12]. Alhazen lived most of his life in Basra and Egypt, and his native language was Arabic as mentioned above. That is important, because even when we evaluate the primary sources about him, they all indicate to his Arab ancestry while there is literally zero evidence for the Persian claim to even be considered.

The modern non-historical sources which refer to Alhazen as Persian seem to be alluding a geographic designation [13][14] [15]. In Western literature, Iraq is sometimes considered as part of "Persia", specially when ruled by an Iranian-based dynasty. Notice also that even the famous Arab philosopher al-Kindi, who was also Iraqi-born, is sometimes wrongly referred to as "Persian" [16][17][18]. Such sources are just as reliable as the ones which refer to the likes of Ibn Sina [19] and Al-Biruni [20] as "Arabs" because they wrote their works in Arabic. They are all just typical careless writing that is not based on any primary sources and which should not even be considered. And that is why when it comes to ethnic identities and backgrounds, only big authorities on Islam should be cited since such authorities are well-informed and acquainted with the primary sources and complexities of the era. Viaros17 (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Iranica has just as limited knowledge as anyone else. It should be left as "Persian or Arab" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.188.185.139 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP user, you're clearly mistaken. Iranica is a reliable source and as explained extensively in this talk page, Ibn al Haytham was not Persian. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:Overcitation, especially in the lead

According to WP:Overcitation, three references should normally be enough, even for relatively controversial matters. While I recognise WP:OVERCITE as is not an official policy, Featured articles generally seem to conform to it. For example, George_Washington_and_slavery has zero citations in the lead, and appears to have a maximum of three citations for even relatively controversial statements (e.g. Washington thought some of his slaves were indolent). I have recently removed one of the citations from the lead, because a) it was using Toomer's summary of Schramm, which is dubious because Toomer himself disagreed with Schramm, and I'm not sure we should be using other people's summaries of third parties, especially on controversial matters; and b) there are five other references for the same sentence.
This was reverted, I'm not entirely clear why. Do we agree it would be good to stick to the most valuable references, especially in the lead? It would be nice to get it down to a maximum of three good quality references for each sentence. Arguably there should be zero references in the lead, to aid readability, with all material in the lead cited in the main article. Merlinme (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Scientific method

What is this paragraph adding to the article?

Mark Smith recounts Alhazen's elaboration of Ptolemy's experiments in double vision, reflection, and refraction: Alhazen's Optics book influenced the Perspectivists in Europe, Roger Bacon, Witelo, and Peckham. The Optics was incorporated into Risner's 1572 printing of Opticae Thesaurus, through which Kepler[80] finally resolved the contradictions inherent in Witelo's explanation of the imaging chain, from external object to the retina of the eye.[81]

The first sentence does not make grammatical sense to me, the part after the colon has no clear connection to the part before the colon. Is it a badly formatted citation?

I am unclear what the second sentence has to do with Alhazen's influence on the scientific method. Unless someone can reword and clarify I propose the whole paragraph is deleted. Merlinme (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your good-faith edit — A. Mark Smith is a historian of science, a medievalist, who has spent his career (some 40 years) documenting Alhazen's Book of Optics —Kitāb al-Manāẓir in Latin translation —De Aspectibus, which is how it influenced science, especially the Perspectivists in the West. The index of the multiple volumes of Smith 2001, 2006, 2010, and 2010 are a critical edition: the translation from Latin to English of Book of Optics books 1-3, 4-5, 6, and 7 respectively. Smith's indexes of De Aspectibus document the hundreds of occurrences of 'Experiment', and its cognates in De Aspectibus. Smith shows that the diplopia experiment of Ptolemy, and the refraction measurements of Ibn Sahl, who were Alhazen's predecessors, were far surpassed in quantity and application by Alhazen. Alhazen wrote a summary of Kitāb al-Manāẓir in his Treatise on Light (رسالة في الضوء) which was translated into German in the nineteenth c.

Alhazen's discovery of the vacuum of outer space, and his discovery of atmospheric refraction by his astronomical observations read like a modern physics book, as noted by Jim Al-Khalili (2009). I will expand on this on this talk page, as documented in the archives of Wikipedia.

Smith shows there is a logical progression from Galen to Ptolemy, to Alhazen in the propagation of Greek thought to the Perspectivists, who took De Aspectibus seriously. There is a clear progression between Greek (Hellenist) thought, the NeoPlatonism of 1000 years ago, the example of Alhazen's experiments, and his influence on Kepler via Giambattista della Porta and Witelo ('Alhazen's ape').

Smith once characterized Alhazen's work as hypothetico-deductive method (2001).

A rewrite of the deleted paragraph ought to be undertaken on this page. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That's fine- do you want to suggest a text? Merlinme (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

For starters, here is a link to the Wikipedia archive from 2016: Atmospheric science. Alhazen shows that the density of the heavens is less than the density of the atmosphere which quotes Smith's 2010 translation, Alhazen, Book of Optics, Book 7 (Refraction), pp 270-274 (paragraphs 4.28 - 4.35). All I am trying to point out is this thousand-year-old text translation from Alhacen reads in an entirely modern way. It is not theoretical or philosophical, but gives a very clear step-by-step experiment, listing what equipment is needed, and what the reader will see as a result. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

armillary sphere

By his example, Alhacen shows a scientific method, and in the process, deduces the existence of the vacuum in outer space:

"The body of the heavens is rarer than the body of air" -- Alhazen, Book of Optics, Book 7 (Refraction) [4.28]

Alhazen deduced that the heavens (including outer space), being transparent bodies, like the atmosphere, and like water, allow us to see a change in the direction of a light ray during its propagation, called refraction. Refraction of a light ray from a fixed star, as the light ray propagates through transparent bodies, occurs at the interface between the materials in the transparent bodies, such as between air and outer space. Alhazen had previously seen this refractive phenomenon at the interface between water and air, as described by Ptolemy 800 years before him. But being an astronomer, Alhazen applies the reasoning to the stars. Alhazen describes an experiment to quantitatively measure the degree of bending of the light ray between air and outer space using an astrolabe or armillary sphere, to measure the angular position of a fixed star, tracking that star from its rising to its zenith.

References

Couple of things: a) where does it mention what the relevance is to Scientific Method, which is the title of the section? b) It's referenced using the Book of Optics, i.e. a primary source.
I'd be happy with it if you could find a secondary source which explained what the relevance of this is to Scientific Method. Merlinme (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction between the denomination and the theology sections.

It's stated on the Theology section that: Alhazen was a Muslim; it is not certain to which school of Islam he belonged. As a Sunni, he may have been either a follower of the Ash'ari school,[121] or a follower of the Mu'tazili school.[122] Sabra (1978) even suggested he might have been an adherent of Shia Islam.

But on the Denomination it's written that he was a sunni, based only on a questionable Indonesian Journal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uytiok (talk • contribs) 10:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

wording

Being new to this article, I am hesitant to edit it, even in a small way. I wish to avoid disagreement, so I am raising my concern on this page.

The Biography section currently contains the words "His initial influences were in the study of religion and service to the community. At the time, the society had a number of conflicting views of religion that he ultimately sought to step aside from religion." There are significant flaws of construction in these sentences, so that one cannot be sure what they intend.

Here are two guesses as to what the sentences intend.

His initial interests were in the study of religion and service to the community. At the time, there were so many conflicting religious views that he ultimately sought to step aside from them all.

His initial interests were in the study of religion and service to the community. At the time, religion expressed so many conflicting views that he ultimately sought to step aside from it.

Perhaps a local editor will help out?Chjoaygame (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)