The Clash Of Un-Civilizations And Osama-ism

Urstruly #304: ``In my opinion the phenomenon that Romair has described should be taught in the schools and universities under the subjects of social psychology, sociology, anthropology, strategic studies, civics and what not. Now I don’t know if Romair is really an intelligent person or did it just happen like Alexander Flemming discovered penicillin by accidentally sneezing into his petri dish- but I would like to think the former.``

Rest assured, it was a coincidence. Long night, terrible headache, and no Tylenol, can result in wonders. Not quite in the same league as Alexander Flemming. Then again, I always thought this was the name of a batsman on the currrent New Zealand cricket squad.

``Romair`s thesis helped a lot in understanding this phenomenon, which I would like to name after me as ``Urstruly-ism`` if he allows.``

I think you read a lot more into it, than was intended. You can call it whatever you want, but it has to be something more original than, ``Urstruly-ism.`` On second thought, there are many terms in our society for religious fanatics. These include, Fundo, Beard, Jehadi, Mullah etc. I am trying to come up with a new term for the secular fanatic. If you can suggest an original term, then what the hell, you can call the above-mentioned piece Urstruly-ism, if you want.

shammi #340 Always a pleasure to discuss things on chowk with you. You said something about people discrediting what I write, and I appreciate your concern. However, on reflection, I dont think you need to worry on that account: By and large I think people on chowk are appreciative of some of the themes I keep harping on (peace and friendship between India and Pakistan, treating religion as a personal matter and respecting all religions) even if these themes are either not important to some of them or (in case of the few exceptions among the regulars on chowk) come in the way of what I consider to be irrational obsessions. By and large, chowk is a fine place to rant on the themes I like to rant on, and a fine place also to engage fine posters like yourself in discussion once in a while.

Just a couple of unrelated questions:

1. There is this element of ``terrorism`` vs ``acts of war argument going down but I am confused. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist acts, was West Pakistanis genocide of innocents in Bangladesh a terrorist act?

2. Why are we so tied to the Palestinean cause and not with those of people oppressed in Africa. Surely we are more than the religions we were born into? Is there any specific reason why being born a Muslim means support (to the degree of dying) for only Muslim related causes.

In that case we are no better.....

``As for your questions: Yes, I am a Mumbai-based journalist. I do not work for any one paper as I am an independent columnist and thus far no one on earth has been able to manipulate me into giving their point of view unless I believe in it myself. And to hell with the consequences I have to face for it.``

This kind of self-serving sentimentality is always the bulwark upon which brutality is built.

Ask her servants.

Urstruly:

It is clear to me that the responses thus far have been mostly a barrage of objections - it sems some peolpe have not understood that the revolution had taken place sometime ago, that the ``paradigm shift`` occured and is continuing to occur - and I see these objections as being the defense of a old paradigm, in the sense that Kuhn (he, of Paradigm Shift) uses it in his ``Structure of Scientific Revolutions``, I have included a synopsis:

That the structure of Scientific and political (cultural) revolutions occurs when a anomaly or set of anomalies becomes so pronounced and evident that it can be ignored nor can the prevailing paradigm absorb it - This leads to crisis - which inturn is related to the creation of a new paradigm that absorbs those anomalies that gave rise to the crisis.

Normal science ``is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like`` —scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.

To this end, ``normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments``.

Research is ``a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education``.

A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly ``subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice``. These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific revolutions—``the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science``.

New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community.

When a shift takes place, ``a scientist`s world is qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory``.

So how does paradigm change come about?

Discovery—novelty of fact.

Discovery begins with the awareness of anomaly.

The recognition that nature has violated the paradigm-induced expectations that govern normal science.

A phenomenon for which a paradigm has not readied the investigator.

Perceiving an anomaly is essential for perceiving novelty (although the first does not always lead to the second, i.e., anomalies can be ignored, denied, or unacknowledged).

The area of the anomaly is then explored.

The paradigm change is complete when the paradigm/theory has been adjusted so that the anomalous become the expected.

The result is that the scientist is able ``to see nature in a different way``.

Invention—novelty of theory.

Not all theories are paradigm theories.

Unanticipated outcomes derived from theoretical studies can lead to the perception of an anomaly and the awareness of novelty.

The process of paradigm change is closely tied to the nature of perceptual (conceptual) change in an individual—Novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation.

By resisting change, a paradigm guarantees that anomalies that lead to paradigm change will penetrate existing knowledge to the core.

As is the case with discovery, a change in an existing theory that results in the invention of a new theory is also brought about by the awareness of anomaly.

The emergence of a new theory is generated by the persistent failure of the puzzles of normal science to be solved as they should. Failure of existing rules is the prelude to a search for new ones. These failures can be brought about by

observed discrepancies between theory and fact—this is the ``core of the crisis``.

changes in social/cultural climates (knowledge/beliefs are socially constructed?).

There are strong historical precedents for this: Copernicus, Freud, behaviorism? constructivism?

Recall that paradigm and theory resist change and are extremely resilient. Philosophers of science have repeatedly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can always be placed upon a given collection of data (did someone say ``Interpretation``?).

In early stages of a paradigm, such theoretical alternatives are easily invented.

Once a paradigm is entrenched (and the tools of the paradigm prove useful to solve the problems the paradigm defines), theoretical alternatives are strongly resisted.

As in manufacture so in science—retooling is an extravagance to be reserved for the occasion that demands it.

Crises provide the opportunity to retool.

All crises close in one of three ways.

Normal science proves able to handle the crisis-provoking problem and all returns to ``normal.``

The problem resists and is labeled, but it is perceived as resulting from the field`s failure to possess the necessary tools with which to solve it, and so scientists set it aside for a future generation with more developed tools.

A new candidate for paradigm emerges, and a battle over its acceptance ensues—these are the paradigm wars.

Once it has achieved the status of paradigm, a paradigm is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place.

Transition from a paradigm in crisis to a new one from which a new tradition of normal science can emerge is not a cumulative process. It is a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals. This reconstruction changes some of the field`s foundational theoretical generalizations.

How do new paradigms finally emerge?

Some emerge all at once, sometimes in the middle of the night, in the mind of a man deeply immersed in crisis.

Those who achieve fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have generally been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they changed. Much of this process is inscrutable and may be permanently so. When a transition from former to alternate paradigm is complete, the profession changes its view of the field, its methods, and its goals. This reorientation has been described as ``handling the same bundle of data as before, but placing them in a new system of relations with one another by giving them a different framework`` or ``picking up the other end of the stick``. The emergence of a new paradigm/theory breaks with one tradition of scientific practice that is perceived to have gone badly astray and introduces a new one conducted under different rules and within a different universe of discourse.

Why should a paradigm change be called a revolution? A scientific revolution is a noncumulative developmental episode in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one (92).

A scientific revolution that results in paradigm change is analogous to a political revolution. [Note the striking similarity between the characteristics outlined below regarding the process of political revolution and those earlier outlined regarding the process of scientific revolution]

Political revolutions begin with a growing sense by members of the community that existing institutions have ceased adequately to meet the problems posed by an environment that they have in part created—anomaly and crisis.

The dissatisfaction with existing institutions is generally restricted to a segment of the political community.

Political revolutions aim to change political INSTITUTIONS in ways that those institutions themselves prohibit.

During a revolution`s interim, society is not fully governed by institutions at all.

In increasing numbers, individuals become increasingly estranged from political life and behave more and more eccentrically within it.

As crisis deepens, individuals commit themselves to some concrete proposal for the reconstruction of society in a new institutional framework.

Competing camps and parties form.

One camp seeks to defend the old institutional constellation.

One (or more) camps seek to institute a new political order.

As polarization occurs, political recourse fails.

Parties to a revolutionary conflict finally resort to the techniques of mass persuasion.

Like the choice between competing political institutions, that between competing paradigms proves to be a choice between fundamentally incompatible modes of community life. Paradigmatic differences cannot be reconciled.

The evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science do not work, for these depend on a particular paradigm for their existence.

When paradigms enter into a debate about fundamental questions and paradigm choice, each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm`s defense—the result is a circularity and inability to share a universe of discourse.

Fundamental paradigmatic assumptions are philosophically incompatible.

Ultimately, scientific revolutions are affected by the impact of nature and of logic.

techniques of persuasive argumentation (a struggle between stories?). A successful new paradigm/theory permits predictions that are different from those derived from its predecessor. That difference could not occur if the two were logically compatible. In the process of being assimilated, the second must displace the first. Consequently, the assimilation of either a new sort of phenomenon or a new scientific theory must demand the rejection of an older paradigm.

The need to change the MEANING of established and familiar concepts is central to the revolutionary impact of a new paradigm. The differences between successive paradigms are both necessary and irreconcilable. Why? because successive paradigms tell us different things about the population of the universe and about that population`s behavior,

because paradigms are the source of the methods, problem-field, and standards of solution accepted by any mature scientific community at any given time. the reception of a new paradigm often necessitates a redefinition of the corresponding science.



In the circular argument that results from this conversation, each paradigm will satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself, and fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent. Since no two paradigms leave all the same problems unsolved, paradigm debates always involve the question: Which problems is it more significant to have solved?

In the final analysis, this involves a question of VALUES that lie outside of normal science altogether—it is THIS recourse to external criteria that most obviously makes paradigm debates revolutionary

Revolutions as Changes of World View.

When paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. How do the beliefs and conceptions of scientists change as the result of a paradigm shift? Are theories simply man-made interpretations of given data?

During scientific revolutions, scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before.

Familiar objects are seen in a different light and joined by unfamiliar ones as well.

Scientists see the world of their research-engagement differently.

Scientists see new things when looking at old objects. In a sense, after a revolution, scientists are responding to a different world.

This difference in view resembles a gestalt shift, a perceptual transformation—``what were ducks in the scientist`s world before the revolution are rabbits afterward.``

The historical reconstruction of previous paradigms and theorists in scientific textbooks make the history of science look linear or cumulative, a tendency that even affects scientists looking back at their own research. (Dost Mittar - Where are you?)

Max Planck: ``A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grow up that is familiar with it.``



The transfer of allegiance from paradigm to paradigm is a CONVERSION experience (like ``born again``) that cannot be forced.

How are scientists converted? How is conversion induced and how resisted?

Individual scientists embrace a new paradigm for all sorts of reasons and usually for several at once. idiosyncracy of autobiography and personality? nationality or prior reputation of innovator and his teachers?

The focus of these questions should not be on the individual scientist but with the sort of COMMUNITY that always sooner or later re-forms as a single group The community recognizes that a new paradigm displays a quantitative precision strikingly better than its older competitor.

A claim that a paradigm solves the crisis-provoking problem is rarely sufficient by itself.

Persuasive arguments can be developed if the new paradigm permits the prediction of phenomena that had been entirely unsuspected while the old paradigm prevailed.

Rather than a single group conversion, what occurs is an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances. But paradigm debates are not about relative problem-solving ability. Rather the issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for.

A decision is based on future promise rather than on past achievement. A scientist must have FAITH that the new paradigm will succeed with the many large problems that confront it. There must be a basis for this faith in the candidate chosen.

Sometimes this faith is based on personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations.

This is not to suggest that new paradigms triumph ultimately through some mystical aesthetic.

The new paradigm appeals to the individual`s sense of the appropriate or the aesthetic—the new paradigm is said to be neater, more suitable, simpler, or more elegant.

What is the process by which a new candidate for paradigm replaces its predecessor?

At the start, a new candidate for paradigm may have few supporters (and the motives of the supporters may be suspect).

If the supporters are competent, they will

improve the paradigm, explore its possibilities,

and show what it would be like to belong to the community guided by it. For the paradigm destined to win, the number and strength of the persuasive arguments in its favor will increase.

As more and more scientists are converted, exploration increases. The number of experiments, instruments, articles, and books based on the paradigm will multiply. More scientists, convinced of the new view`s fruitfulness, will adopt the new mode of practicing normal science (until only a few elderly hold-outs will remain).

And we cannot say that they are (were) wrong.

Perhaps the scientist who continues to resist after the whole profession has been converted has ipso facto ceased to be a scientist.

The acceptance of a paradigm frees the community from the need to constantly re-examine its first principles and foundational assumptions.

Members of the community can concentrate on the subtlest and most esoteric of the phenomena that concern it.

Revolutions close with total victory for one of the two opposing camps. When it repudiates a paradigm, a scientific community simultaneously renounces most of the books and articles in which that paradigm had been embodied. The community acknowledges this as progress.In a sense, it may appear that the member of a mature scientific community is the victim of a history rewritten by the powers that be. But recall that the power to select between paradigms resides in the members of the community.

The process of scientific revolution is in large part a democratic process.



The community must see paradigm change as progress—as we have seen, this perception is, in important respects, self-fulfilling.

Discomfort with a paradigm takes place only when nature itself first undermines professional security by making prior achievements seem problematic. The community embraces a new paradigm when the new candidate is seen to resolve some outstanding and generally recognized problem that can be met in no other way. The new paradigm promises to preserve a relatively large part of the concrete problem-solving ability that has accrued to science through its predecessors.

Hobby: Whats up!

Tahmed #341: You disappoint me. I was gearing up for a majestic rendition of ``God bless America`` in your last post. Ill be honest, the following is gonna be an endless rant. Your not obligated to address it all, Im writing mainly for myself...

Now then, In school, Im taught that information is ``data in context.`` Knowledge being: ``information with direction.`` They never said nuthin about wisdom, so Ill call it ``the ability to learn and understand from the past.``

Intelligence is highly overrated. Most intelligent people are only eloquent enough to mask their stupidity (lawyers, politicians, the Chinese etc). I don`t expect desis to get much of this, for if you`re not a doctor, your some sort of 21 century dalit. Intelligence has to do with how many letters u got after your name. This ties into ones ability to memorize and regurgitate (the basis of our `education` system).

The world populous is 5% righteous, the rest have 5% of righteousness in them.

The ways of the ``informed`` are well documented. Wise men like Hamidm can spot ``pedantic sophistry`` a mile away. Informed people like to lump others into boxes and ``intellectually`` beat them to a pulp (the purpose of Chowk).

Now, if one accuses America of perpetrating some of the worst crimes in human history, the informed will send their `intellectual` radar into a frenzy. They will begin scanning their databases for all sorts of labels (this makes ``debating`` easier, you see). The latest is ``anti American`` or my favourite, ``You people blame America for every world ill.`` No they don`t, they are simply WISE enough to have learnt from the past, to separated american rhetoric from truth (If only they could do this with Islamic rhetoric...)

You say, ``thank God the US has decided to take on these terrorists.``

Sir, America IS the terrorist. Before Im labelled in the same box as Urstuly, I hope people become wise enough to detect a certain pattern in American foriegn policy.

I do not see America as some sort of freedom fighting monopoly set to rid the wirld of evil doers. This is NOT an X-Men comic.

Wisdom teaches me that when one kills 5000 children a month, he has no right to call another person a terrorist. People seem to see the taliban as terrorists and america as freedom fighters (or vice versa). Im not intelligent enough to see the delineation in that argument.

Reply Tahmed # 316

“Those who live in these Past Civilizations are condemned to become Taliban (Muslim or Hindu Taliban, it does not matter).”

Excellent! May I quote you?

#336 Aamir

By unity I kindof meant - find something and leverage it to your benefit. In this case the ME is sitting on the most imp thing of all - taht should put them in the drivers seat (unify the muslim world & take it to better places). black&gray you might say but the amazing way things work in real life - i can say anythign is possible if you make it happen.

``...... IOTS NOT EASY ...believe me``

I realised that when i read it later : ).

Heck when friends dont let you, forget adversaries. Life is never easy! Looking at the entire picture - the muslim world as a whole just dwells on its problems and is not doing much to get itself out of the hole. It just wont do to blame all your ills on the evil west. Taht is not positive thinking in my opinion.

aicha

``And finally another thing common between yourself, myself, Saxena, scout, anny, Kabuli etc is that all of us are supposedly young and it is time we start concentrating more on getting dates.``

RSax has been rejected in the bars and lounges of NYC so many times that he has to go Sweden to find love ;) Kyon Bhai Sax??

What happened to your invite to me and YLH for a bar crawl in NYC??

Re: Hamidm

``.......namaste ( with a silly hand-clasp, sheepish smile and head-wag)...``

You are a certified genius!

Re: YLH #309

``...LESSON: Dont judge a people by what their religion preaches...``

One of your best posts...ever! Congrats.

Ref Impacted-Wisdom-Tooth #: 343

[Check this out. Post #15 on my cricket board:]

If you do not allow your hot temper to cloud your judgment, you will notice that I have not posted a single interact on your cricket board. I did not read the article or the interacts. So if you had said something to me, I wouldn`t have known about it.

[“Kindly refer to my post on the ‘In search of the moderate Muslim’ board: Oct-30-01 12:15:21 EST Reply #: 153:“As for the one and only one who wants to sponsor my trip to Kabul, I am now ready. Please send me my ticket AND a permit (it is tough getting one of those, I believe) at the Chowk address. Waiting in anticipation…” For months I had to tolerate the nonsense from this person, vile comments etc. But he has not been able to get back to me on this.

This was long before the Taliban fell. But there has been no response…”]

Again, I was not necessarily reading every single interact since I was travelling. No point in going to Kabul now when Mullah Omar, your hero, is no longer in power and women are allowed to walk around without their shuttlecock burqas. I wanted you to experience Islamic paradise on earth and unfortunately the Americans have decided that such paradise shall perish on the earth.

re: Akash

``And finally another thing common between yourself, myself, Saxena, scout, anny, Kabuli etc is that all of us are supposedly young and it is time we start concentrating more on getting dates``

...good thought, but that might just make everyone more cranky...

Re: Dr. Ali Akbar Poonawalla

Dr. Poonawalla -- some advice on Chowk Usernames. Usernames that contain the letter `l` are highly susceptible to being hijacked by would-be impostors. This is because the Chowk font for displaying usernames makes no distinction in the letter `l and the number `1`. We seem to have caught an impostor red-handed here. Check out Shah #282 and and Sigalph235 #281. Identical text, but different usernames. I know that Sigalph235 would not have written a post like that, but now we know who has hijacked his name. So, I suggest that you pick a different name (e.g. Akbar, Poona, etc.) without `l`

Re: Tahmed321 to Hobbyty

You should be commended for showing Hobbyty right from wrong. It is not easy to stand up and confront a wrong publicly -- it is all to easy to stay quiet and seek shelter in anonymity. Thank you

Bechara Sher Shah Suri. I wrote an article about him to show the Taliban, who had then destroyed the Bahiyman statues, what the Afghans were and what they have become. In the end I had put in the irony, that just as the taliban were destroying the statues in Bahiyman, another band of fanatics was busy conspiring against the mausoleum of a great Afghan Ruler.

But it had an unknown effect on own Unkal Jay. I swear he must have mentioned my article atleast a million times since then.