• Home
  • Mas‘ud  Motaharinasab
    • List of Articles Mas‘ud  Motaharinasab

      • Open Access Article

        1 - Revisiting Scientific Dialog in the Flourishing Period of Islamic Civilization (With an Emphasis on a Methodological Comparison of Ibn Sina and Biruni)
        Mohammad  Bidhendi Alireza Aghahosseini Mas‘ud  Motaharinasab
        A review of scientific and methodological dialogs dominating Islamic civilization during the last periods, particularly in the third and fourth centuries (AH), and their explanation and analysis could play a significant role in creating a modern Islamic civilization. Th Full Text
        A review of scientific and methodological dialogs dominating Islamic civilization during the last periods, particularly in the third and fourth centuries (AH), and their explanation and analysis could play a significant role in creating a modern Islamic civilization. The purpose of this paper is to clarify and analyze the scientific methodology of Ibn Sina and Aburayhan Biruni in order to expose the nature of the scientific and methodological dialogs of that period of civilization. A comparative study of the methodology of these two thinkers demonstrates that, following the Aristotelian logic, Ibn Sina attached more importance to deduction than to induction. However, Aburayhan was mainly interested in empirical and inductive methods and performed more professional and field studies. He even criticized Ibn Sina for his extreme emphasis on his rational method. Another difference between these two philosophers stems from the fact that Biruni did not confine himself to a pre-determined philosophical structure, whereas Ibn Sina initially defended the structure of Aristotelian philosophy to some extent. However, He finally distanced himself from Aristotle in his al-Isharat wa’l-tanbihat and Oriental Wisdom. Still another difference between the two is said to be that Ibn Sina believed that whatever we hear might be possible, but Biruni maintained that whatever we hear must be denied first unless its opposite is proved through reasoning and argumentation (this judgment has been criticized by many thinkers). Manuscript Document