Johannes Kepler – A Mysterious Cosmographist @ freethinker #24:

[...] -- There are not many conflicts between pre-postmodern philosophy and science. Conflicts between the two mostly arise in interpreting and extrapolating the scientific theories. Philosophy does not reject a theory which is verified by empirical evidence. The scientists use as much logic as is needed in formulating their theories which are logically consistent. -- [...]

Here I am in need to clarify my ideological background. But before it I also should clarify that even ``Postmodern Philosophy`` is not having any serious conflict with science. Let me admit that Philosophy already has completely surrendered before science in 20th century. I am NOT representing any conventional philosophy like pre-postmodernism or post modernism. Neither of them are having any clash with science. Let me also state that Philosophy is not the name of ``pre-postmodernism`` or ``postmodernism``. Philosophy is the name of logical study of facts and ideas.

I know that Will Durant already stated that physical sciences have taken the problems of Philosophy and have solved them using its own methods. In this way Philosophy itself has lost all its importance because now onward, important things are only physical sciences. Major attacks on Philosophy came from the side of Philosophers themselves. Positivist Philosophy favoured extreme type of ``laboratory experimental method`` and rejected any logical inquiry by calling it mere speculative. Linguistic Philosophy rejected all the metaphysical inquiries and favoured only experimental verifiability of concepts. Science completely won the bettle against philosophy because Philosophers themselves surrenderred before science. Both Positivists and Linguistics rejected Epistemological inquiries also. Will Durant also disregarded Epistemology and even the theory of logic. I was however never convinced by these philosophies like Positivism or Linguistics. My main area of interest is still Epistemology. But my comprehension of even Epistemology is also complete non-conventional. I have tried to understand Epistemology in the light of basic concepts of Cultural Anthropology. I am therefore representing a whole different type of Epistemology which doesn`t exist anywhere else. Cultural Anthropology was developed on to its present tone by Sir James Frazer at the end of 19th century and in early 20th century. Realistically speaking, old big names of Epistemology were not familiar to Cultural Anthropology. On the other side, it should be difficult to deny the importance of any influence of the works of Sir James Frazer. His work (i.e. Golden Bough) could influence theory of Epistemology as well. As a result of this work, it was not very difficult to judge just how do we think and just how new ideas or new theories come to human mind. My main research in Epistemology is that just how do we think, what we can think, what we cannot think, just how new ideas or theories come to human mind etc. Let me also clarify that science is officially unaware of just how any new idea or theory comes to human mind. I shall be thankful to the respected chowk members if anyone could show me any scientific theory which might have explained the issue of just how new ideas or theories come to humam mind. Karl Popper also faced this problem but he could not find any satisfactory solution. His opinion was: ``there is no logical method for the acquisition of new concepts``.

In science, it is the ``scientific research method`` which attempts to discover new theories. I realized, while evaluating ``scientific research method`` that it had no answer to question that from where ``hypothesis`` comes. Science works on hypothesis but does not know where it comes from. I am, having the opinion that ``hypothesis`` comes from ``mind``. But study of ``mind``, being an ``abstract`` entity, is outside the scope of science. So science, in my honest assessment, doesn`t know where ``hypothesis`` comes from.

Secondly, at first I was inspired by ``Idealism`` and ``Pure Rationalism``. But soon after studying ``Cultural Anthropology``, I realized that ``Pure Rationalism`` is actually a misleading ideology. I already have explained just how ``Pure Rationalism`` is a misleading ideology, in some of my previous interacts in another chowk article about ``strings theory``. Let me also clarify that any other branch of Philosophy still has not rejected ``Pure Rationalism`` on those grounds which I presented in my those previous interacts. ``Pure Rationalism`` is really practically impossible to exist because it really goes against the hard limitation of ``Deductive Logic``, which itself is supposed to be the main piller of ``Pure Rationalism``. The ``discovery`` of that ``hard limitation of deductive logic``, to some extent, is my original discovery. It was officially known that information of ``conclusion`` has to be already contained in ``premises``. Another guiding factor for me was a statement of David Hume which asserted that ``Rational Judgment is just an association of distinct sensations``. So in this way, finally I found that not a single word of ``conclusion`` can come from outside of ``premises``. At first I tried to apply this result on the ``Pure Rational`` Philosophy of Hegel, which led me to the rejection of ``Pure Rationalism``.

What I know out of the study of ``Epistemology`` is that human knowledge consists of three layers which are (i) instinctive, (ii) perceptional and; (iii) reason based. All types of human knowledge belongs to either one or more of these three basic layers. ``Instinctive`` and ``perceptional`` knowledge are inferior to ``reason based knowledge`` because ``reason based knowledge`` can be found only in humans whereas perceptional and instinctive knowledge is shared by humans and animals both. All of the ``organized human knowledge`` actually belongs to the layer of ``reason based knowledge``. ``Reason based knowledge`` itself is not more than logical conclusions (i.e. all types of logic including deductive, inductive and analogical) derived out of basic perceptional knowledge.

After it, I came to know that Will Durant had severly criticized and disregarded the theory of logic on the basis of those points which could not convince me. I also came to know that ``Science`` also emphasizes on so-called ``Empirical Knowledge`` and erroneously degrades all forms of ``Rational Knowledge``. In this way, science is actually going against superior form of knowledge which is ``reason based knowledge``. So, this clash between science and philosophy has been started on chowk. Therefore it shall be useless to try to find roots of this clash in the philosophy of ``Postmodernism``.

On chowk, I am struggling against science with the view to restore the importance of Philosophy. I am having interactions with many Philosophers of world as well and I am also struggling against them because they are the people who have completely surrendered before science. In fact, Philosophy has died in our contemporary world. Philosophy is having no real task before it. For example, what Linguistic Philosophy has assigned task to Philosophy is just to do ``linguistic analysis of words of language`` with the view to refine or clarify already available concepts. I was also inspired by the works of Pakistani writer Syed Ali Abbas Jalapuri. He also assigns very limited task to philosophy which is to just determine the social values in the light of scientific discoveries. I am having the opinion that to discover new ideas and theories is actually the task of philosophy and not the task of science. Science only experimentally verifies the philosophical discoveries. Galileo only had experimentally verified already established Greek Philosophical views. Johannas Kapler also just experimentally verified philosophical type views of Copernicus. Michealsons and Morley just had experimentally verified already established philosophical type view about the existence of ``Eather``. The same experiment later on served as the foundation stone of Einstien`s ``Special Theory of Relativity``.

Currently, Philosophers all over the world are preaching the false idea that we should stop thinking and should do only experiments without any prior thinking. I am having the view that we should not stop thinking because we can think. Our thinking still can produce many new ideas. To be able to `think` is an important faculty of human mind. Humans should pay proper respect to their own unique faculty. Now science openly makes fun of act of thinking by calling it ``arm-chair philosopher`s activity``. Science forgets that Einstien was also an arm-chair thinker. And surely, I had learnt the idea of ``Theoretical Scientist`` out of the writings of Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy. We also should try to know what is thinking? how do we think? what is the process of our thinking? etc. etc. These are the tasks of Philosophy and are not the tasks of Science. Theories come from thinking process and not come from physical laboratories. Human thinking process is different from the process of ``scientific research method``. Thats why, I am against currently established ``scientific research method``.

And recently I have found some solid points against ``Idealism`` as well. It was due to this reason that I asked question about the continuous or discrete nature of ordinary motion in my previous interact. And ... agar sirf kaam chal rahe hon to science ka masla khatam ho jata hai. With this attitude, science cannot reach to any final theory.

Regards!

Johannes Kepler – A Mysterious Cosmographist Re: # 12

Khurram

I do not mean that laws of science are just derived out of basic definitions. But basic definitions do have role. Galileo did not know the concept of gravitational force, so just because of it, he could not reach to the precise statement of first law of motion; even though actually he was the person who performed those experiments which ultimately resulted in first law by Newton. Do you think that Newton could reach to laws of motion if he didn`t know basic concepts of ``inertia``, ``acceleration``, ``force`` etc. etc. ...???

Now I cannot write any more because becoming sleepy, so shall discuss your other points tomorrow. One thing which I can add now is that these ``basic`` definitions are also not any final word or reality. You are right that these things are good only for practical purposes. Jab hamarey kaam chal rahe hain to in cheezon ko charrney ki kia zaroorat hai...??? This is the attitude and behaviour of science. Attitude of Philosophy is whole different. It even questions the existence of ordinary visible things. Philosophy has nothing to do with practical matters. Philosophy runs after detailed comprehensions. If science is like a more efficient computer, philosophy is like somewhat duffer human!

One thing I wanted to ask from you and Gill Sahib, or from any other person well conversant with Physics. My question is about ordinary motion of ordinary visible objects. Question is that Accoring to Physics, ordinary motion has to be ``continuous`` or can be ``discrete``? I had read out of lectures of Dr. Abdul Salam that spherical rotational motion such as swing of cricket ball has to be discrete and cannot be continuous. My own idea is that all the motion whatsoever, has to be discrete and cannot be continuous. But I do not know official point of view of Physics regarding all types of motion. I do think however that Newton`s laws might have been based on the conception of ``continuous`` motion.

Thanks in anticipation for guidance in this matter.

Regards!

Johannes Kepler – A Mysterious Cosmographist There is confusion in your thinking. Science is constructed both by rational arguments and empirical evidence. Science needs both of them. Pure rationalism can (and frequently does) lead to more than one rational conjecture, hypothesis, or philosophical theory, if you will, but science uses only that theory which is supported by empirical evidence. So there is no conflict between science and philosophy on that account.

I thought that I was talking with a person to whom I already discussed the issues of rational vs empirical. I already had stated in one of my previous intereacts the following true procedure that science should follow:

Sensory Information>>Logical Conclusions>>Empirical Verification>>Logical Interpretation of Empirical Test

I also had explained that I am actually against pure rationalism. You can read my interacts on your article about strings theory. I never say that science can be developed from only logic. What I say is that logic is integral part of science, like empirical evidence is also integral part of science.

Contemporary science disregards logic and do not treat logic as integral part of science. Proof is that theory of logic is not the part of syllabus of science at any level.

You say there is no conflict between science and philosophy on this issue. I say there is conflict. Why science disregards theory of logic and why discriminate logic by not making it the part of its syllabus?

You wrote, “..let’s say the First Law of Motion is a complete Logical Law.” Of course it is. It’s not only the first law of motion, all scientific theories are logically consistent. But if you are implying that pure rationalism led Newton to formulate his laws, you’re wrong.

Actually a functional human mind works logically. I remember I could write logical assertions in those times also when I knew nothing of the theory of logic. I still have premises-conclusion patterned my own writings of that time. Scientists are also sane persons in all respects. They may not formally know the theory of logic but unconsciously, they do keep scientific theories in proper logical order. I do not say that scientists are ``illogical``. If I thought so then why I tried to show in the previous interact that many many theories of science are the product of logic? Scientists are logical. I accept this. But they are logical just unformally and unconsciously. They do not know that they act, behave and think in accordence with the principles of logic. They disregard theory of logic on the basis of certain intellectual mistakes.

And I do not think that first law was the product of ``pure rationalism``.? I already had explained the difference between ``pure rationalism`` and ``true rationalism``. Pure rationalim is axiom based deductive process whereas ``True rationalism`` takes input from empirical data. Newton was ``True Rationalist`` and NOT ``Pure Rationalist``. And first law was the result of ``True Rationalm`` and was not the product of ``Pure Rationalism`` or even ``Pure Empiricism``.

You must also understand that scientific theories are not eternal (same is true of philosophy). All scientific theories are temporal and empirically verified. Newton’s laws of motion are replaced by theory of relativity when the motions of extremely fast objects (moving near the speed of light) are considered. However, Newton’s laws of motion are still valid for our planet. It is also not important if Newton did any experiment himself or simply used the data of others. As long as his laws conform to empirical evidence, they are good. There is a breed of scientists who are called theoretical scientists. They don’t need to go to laboratories to collect data, they use data collected by others. Einstein was a theoretical scientist and so was Salam and are Weinberg, Glashow, etc. Notably, the string theorists are all theoretical scientists.

About Theoretical Scientists:

Please visit following page of ``Indian Logic Forum`` where discussion specially about me is going on. I already have explained the concept of ``Theoretical Scientists`` before others in this page. Check following link:

http://nyaya.darsana.org/topic115.html

And I am more passionate advocate of the idea of only the temporal validity of most (about 99%) theories of science and philosophy. You are saying that Newton`s laws have been replaced by relativity for the cases of very high speed objects. I don`t know why you avoided to mention that these laws are replaced by Quantum Physics also on the level of micro scale objects like particles. But you and ``science`` still hold that Newton`s laws are still valid for the cases of ordinary massive objects having ordinary speeds. I do not even think so. I think that science is sleeping. If it is not sleeping then it should see that Newton`s laws are no more valid even for the cases of ordinary objects having ordinary speeds. Newton was a person of 17th century. How his observations can still be perfectly valid...??? He had made his first and second law only on the basis of few experiments which Galilieo had conducted. Is ``motion`` so simple a phenomenon that could be described in just three simple laws? I do not think so. Newton was logical but only in his own time. Because he had not observed some those kinds of motion which we, the people of 20th and 21st century can observe. I believe that in the context of our contemporary world view, Newton`s laws are not free of logical mistakes. Science is dogmatic because it is not going to digest this thing. So I am not going to present this thing.

You also wrote that “obviously such a law can only be empirically tested in the time-scale of infinite period…” No, sir. A scientific theory that is being constructed at present time needs only to be verified by the data that is available now. If the future data falsifies it, it will be revised and updated.

Sir please come to the point. First law is saying that object ALWAYS shall remain in rest or uniform speed etc. Word ``ALWAYS`` is integral part of theory and theory should be ``empirically tested`` in ``always`` span of time in order to become ``empirical``. Otherwise, it is ``logical`` and not ``empirical``.


The rest of your discussion is repetitive. There is no real conflict between rationalism and empiricism in science. A purely rational theory can be wrong but if it is verified by empirical evidence, it is accepted as a valid scientific theory – not an eternal one but a temporal one. It’s good as long as it is not falsified.

This is exactly what I also want to say.

Regards!

Johannes Kepler – A Mysterious Cosmographist [...] -- While all credible scientific theories are logically consistent, logic by itself has seldom, if ever, discovered any scientific theory. -- [...]

It is a super false idea. I already had discussed the complete logical development of first law of motion by Newton in one of my interacts on the article about ``String Theory``. Here I am copying below the relevant portion of that interact:

In the times of Galileo, Johannes Kapler and Newton etc. when Old Greek ``rational`` (i.e. pure rational ... as supposed) theories were found to be wrong as per experimental tests, then sensory or empirical data/ information got superiority over the so-called pure rational knowledge. Then scientists started degrading all the forms of rational knowledge because no one bothered to see that actually rational knowledge was not any entity which could exist independently of empirical knowledge. General idea was that empirical knowledge and rational knowledge were having separate and independent sources of origin and that now onwards, only empirical knowledge became standard of truth. Newton`s laws of Motion declared to be Empirical Laws whereas fact is that let`s say First Law of Motion is a complete Logical Law. My question is that what is the empirical proof that an object shall always remain in the state of rest until and unless it is impressed upon by a net positive force? What could be the ``empirical proof`` for such a law? Obviously such a law can only be empirically tested in the time-scale of infinite period because the thing to be empirically confirmed here is that the object shall ALWAYS remain in the state of rest. So the complete empirical test can be performed only over an infinite period of time. Not only that this law cannot be empirically tested, it is also not the product of any empirical test but is the product of Logic. In order to develop this law, Newton himself had not conducted any experiment. This law happened to be the Logical Conclusion of those experiments which Galileo had performed on inclined plane. Galileo had found that a ball, in a double inclined plane, when moves downwards on downside plane, it accelerates. And the same ball when moves upside, on the other upside plane, the ball decelerates. Galileo reached to its logical conclusion that if ball is neither moving downside, nor upside; then it would neither accelerate nor decelerate. The logical conclusion, to which Newton reached was that if a ball is neither accelerating nor decelerating, then the ball shall be in the state of rest or uniform speed. And since Newton knew the concept of Force of Gravitation, so he drew another logical conclusion that downside acceleration and upside deceleration of ball was due to net downside force and net upside force respectively. The next logical conclusion was that in the absence of any ``force``, the ball shall neither accelerate nor decelerate. And the other logical conclusion was that a ball, if neither accelerating, nor decelerating, it means that either it is at rest or it is moving with uniform speed. And the final logical conclusion was a simple generalization that any object, as long as it is not impressed by any net positive force, it shall either remain in the state of rest, or shall remain in continuous straight and uniform speed motion.

So despite this complete logical construction, this law is still considered to be an ``Empirical Law``, and therefore, a part of ``Empirical Knowledge``. Any ``Rational Knowledge`` is still disregarded, as scientists believe in the erroneous idea of some clash between empirical and rational knowledge.

So previously, I had shown that first law of motion was the product of ``LOGIC``. Now I try to show that second law also had come from the door of LOGIC. As first law was stating the logical results of the complete absence of force, second law just stated the logical results of presence of force. In the first law, the logical result of the absence of force was non-acceleration. This non-acceleration had two logical states which were (i) complete rest and; (ii) uniform velocity motion.

Now come to see what was the second law in fact. Second law just had introduced the element of ``force`` in the same situation of first law. In the first law, the absence of force had given the result of ``non-acceleration``. So the LOGICAL result in second law, of the ``presence`` of ``force`` was the ``acceleration``. Second law of motion was outcome of just mere logic up to this point. The next problem was that ok there had to be ``acceleration`` in the presence of ``force`` ... but how much acceleration...??? The issue of ``how much acceleration`` required experimental works as well as application of mathematics. For the development of second law of motion, logic played primary role whereas experimental and mathematical works had secondary function.

Perhaps science is having complete pragmatic self-conception, which may be useful but may not be acceptable to Philosophy because of being inconsistent with facts. Science only sees if ``outcome`` is useful or profitable or not. Science focuses only on end results and doesn`t bother to see or evaluate the sources of origin of scientific theories.

Was Mendeleev`s ``Periodic Table`` not the outcome of logic? He had ordered that table on the basis of ``consitent`` or ``ordered`` properties exibited by certain elements. Is logic not the name of consistency and order? He had placed even some unknown elements of his time in their proper order. The act of placing an unknown thing on its right place was a logical act and cannot be regarded as ``empirical`` act in any way. It is just like as premises come from sense experience whereas right logical conclusion is formed without direct sense perception.

Even the John Dolton`s theory of atom was also logical. Original theory of atom was just the logical answer to such questions as why only specific quantitative combination of different elements result in chemical compounds.

Uptill now I have discussed only the role of deductive logic in the process of development of scientific theories. Actually role of deductive logic is really limited. Most ideas or scientific theories are actually the outcome of ANOLOGY, which is a form of inductive logic. To understand the role of analogy, you will have to go through my following article in complete:

Compound Ideas and Imaginations and how they differ with Invalid Ideas.

In my opinion, Newton had reached the concept of Gravitational Force of earth through the process of analogy. If anyone asks, I can write about it in details as well. Coulumb`s law is very much similar to Newton`s Law of Gravitation. Role of analogy cannot be overlooked in the process of development of Coulumb`s law because analogy works on the basis of ``similarity`` between processes or phenomena or things. Many of the theories of Einstien were ``analogical`` in nature like the idea of ``similarity`` between field of gravitation and an accelerated system. The idea that if accelerated system could bent ray of light then a gravitational field also could bent ray of light, was also analogical idea. And remember that it was this idea which was experimentally verified to be true in 1919 during the time of a solar eclips.

I am having the opinion that more than 95% new ideas come through the process of analogy, i.e. a form of LOGIC. I have given link to my related article for its details.

And secondly, I really used the term ``final theory`` in its usual philosophical sense. I have sympathies with the efforts for finding the unified structure of basic forces of nature. Philosophy can be helpful for this task as well if philosophy is given its due respect.

Regards!

Johannes Kepler – A Mysterious Cosmographist Gill Sahib, surely I shall read your referred article just after few hours as at the moment I am having time to discuss only one point.

[...] -- ``Can philosophy give us any guidance toward a final theory? -- [...]

My counter question is that why philosophy should guide science for any ultimate reality...???

Science has taken even the idea of ``final theory`` out of philosophy. This ``final theory`` was a task of philosophy. Science itself could not know any such thing like ``final theory`` at its own. But I am no advocate of the idea of a ``final theory`` ... perhaps because I feel I am not able enough to find or even understand any final theory.

The only final theory is that human knowledge is evolutionary in nature. It always shall remain ``evolutionary`` for all the times to come. Humans do find certain important realities from time to time. It also happens that humans feel as if they have learnt all the possible reality when they just understand some new important fact. This is a process of curiosity and satisfaction. Soon after a great satisfaction, they may find themselves totally helpless before many other intellectual problems. The final theory is that this process cannot be stopped. Humans can never find the real ultimate reality. But there urge for knowing the ultimate reality does take them from the state of lesser and inferior knowledge to the state of more and superior knowledge. Humans can move from little to broad knowledge. ``Science`` is not ``scientific`` because now it is running after ultimate reality. Now philosophy is more scientific because philosophy knows that only possible achievement is just the movement from the state of lesser and inferior knowledge to the state of more and superior knowledge.

I do know that still there are some philosophers who are running after the illusion of ``ultimate reality``. I am not representing or advocating them. But I am not against them as it is possible that they may really move from their inferior state of knowledge to some superior state of knowledge. Recently I visited a science-cum-philosophy website. Those who are running the website are claiming that they have found the ultimate reality which is that only space exists in the universe. All the space is composed of ``waves``. And matter is formed wherever there is junction of ``in-waves`` and ``out-waves``. The reason for why they are trying to find ultimate reality is that they want that human societies should be based in accordance with the order of nature. I did criticize their basic idea but I avoided to tell them that their claim of having found the ultimate reality is just wrong. What if even we do know that one particular thing is the reality? We do not even know what is the structure of ideas inside of our minds. We do not know where our inner-selves are located in our bodies. We do not know just how do our bodies obey our wills etc. etc. And remember that these are not the problems of science. Science is having a very little vision. Science deals only with those problems which could be ``empirically`` tested. I had pointed out in another of my interacts even such questions as ``whether dreams exist or not?``, are also outside the scope of science. Science cannot tell us whether dreams exist or not because there can be no empirical test for the existence of dreams. We can see dreams only when our eyes are closed and when we lose our normal senses. Since no ``empirical`` test can be performed with closed eyes combined with state of lost senses, so science cannot even tell whether dreams exist or not. Why philosophy should guide this science about any ``ultimate reality`` when science proves it self to be so much incompetent that it cannot even affirm or negate the existence of dreams?

Regards!

Johannes Kepler – A Mysterious Cosmographist Re: # 3

[...] -- mathematical considerations alone should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis, and that the hypotheses and deductions from these must stand the test of empirical confirmation. (Morris Kline in “Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, p.245) -- [...]

Science is very much confused. If only mathematical considerations should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis then how scientific investigation can be independent of all the philosophies and theologies...??? See that the proposed function of mathematics is only to determine the wisdom of any hypothesis. Also note that ``hypothesis`` itself has not come from mathematics because function of mathematics is only to determine the wisdom of an already available hypothesis. If ``hypothesis`` has not come from ``mathematics``, then it might have come from sources other than mathematics. So what can be the sources other than mathematics...??? Obviously, other sources can be philosophies or even theologies. But if hypothesis itself can come from philosophies and theologies, then how scientific investigation can be independent of all the philosophies and theologies...??? Is the generation of hypothesis is not the part of scientific investigation process...???

Secondly, the quoted statement is saying that ``hypothesis`` and ``deductions`` therefrom must stand the empirical test. Now I ask to please try to find where the ``mathematics`` has gone from all the scientific investigation process. See that ``hypothesis`` itself had not come from mathematics. Secondly ``deductions out of hypothesis`` may not involve any mathematics because meaning of ``deduction`` is the result of ``deductive logic`` and not the result of ``mathematics``.

True logical meanings of this quoted statement itself are that hypothesis must come from sources other than mathematics i.e. may be philosophies or even theologies. Then this hypothesis should go through the process of ``deduction`` (i.e. logic and not mathematics). Then that original hypothesis and results of ``deduction`` should go through the process of empirical test. Now my question is that where mathematics has gone from all this process...???.

True process is actually something like this: At first theologies invoke philoisophies. Then philosophies give birth to many hypothesis. Some of the hypothesises (i.e. not all) may involve quantitative relationships between interrelated variables. Mathematics has to deal only with such hypothesis which involve quantitative relationships between variables. For example, Newton`s first law of motion is such a hypothesis which does not involve aqny quantitative relationship between variables. So there is no application of mathematics in first law of motion. But second law of motion involves quantitative and ``measured`` study of interrelated variables. So only here mathematics comes to scene in the form of equation: ``F = ma``.

Stage of empirical verification may come before works of mathematics or can come after it. For example ``rate of acceleration`` is not possible to calculate without any empirical test. So for the case of second law of motion, empirical verification stage might have come before the mathematical works. The next stage should be the ``logical interpretation`` of results of empirical test. This stage is badly missing in contemporary scientific research procedures.

Mathematics is just a portion of logic. It is the logic of numbers and measurements. Science bb is ignoring logic and emphasizing on mathematics. Only a part is like the whole for this science.

Regards!

Johannes Kepler – A Mysterious Cosmographist [...]

---

Kepler broke radically from authority and tradition by utilizing the ellipse (as opposed to a composition of circular motions) and non-uniform velocities. He hewed firmly to the position that scientific investigations are independent of all philosophical and theological doctrines, that mathematical considerations alone should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis, and that the hypotheses and deductions from these must stand the test of empirical confirmation. (Morris Kline in “Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, p.245)

---

[...]


It is a huge intellectual mistake to think as if scientific investigations are independent of Philosophical or even Theological ideas or doctrines. Kepler himself had given supporting mathematical explanations to some of already existing philosophical views of Copernicus as well. Micheal Farady is good example who had found the principle of Dynmo despite the fact that he was even uneducated of mathematics. He was a poor book binder and he had studied somewhat about Electricity out of those books which he used to bind. Even Einstien was not any expert mathematician at the time when he got popularity. He had learnt detailed mathematics at the time when he was already popular. Contemporary science is very much indebted to ancient as well as modern Philosophy. Both ancient and modern Philosophies are very much indebted to theologies. Science absorbs all the benefits out of theologies and philosophies in such a way that science itself remains unaware of this absorption. Science is very useful because it has invented many useful things. But science is ignorant because it is unaware about its own sources of origin.

Regards!

Jaane kahan gaye voh din! @ Dost Mitter

This is a value judgement but my bias is clear from the article. I think that the real edge that is missing in the new music (in the context of film music only) is both meaningful lyrics and soulful melodies. Here, I would like to put in a word or two in defence of the new directors - they are simply responding to the changing tastes of their consumers. I have sometimes seen a really soulful song or two in recent films but they rarely become popular. Khayam is still alive but nobody seems to be interested in using his talents.


Jane Kahan Gaye Wo Din
Kehte Thay Chahe Jo Bhi Ho, Audiance Ki Shan Barrhayein Gay
Only Meaningful Lyrics aur Soulful Melodies K Geet Banayein Gay
Ab To Magar Commercial Hain Din
Jo Thirakna Chahte Hain On Ko Sirf Thirkayein Gay
Meaning Ya Soul Se Hum Ko Kia
Hum To Paisa He Bas Kamayein Gay

What I have understood out of the replies of Dost Mitter Sahib and Ranjit Sahib is that there has been no decline in talent or technology. In many respects, there has been improvement in both these things. But old music is still qualitatively superior. Secondly my understanding of why old music was more meaningful and soulful as compared to modern music is that in old days, there were only few channels of media. That was the age of Cinema and Radio. People used to see full feature film whenever they went to Cinema. They used to see the full story in one sitting. Music was more meaningful because in those days, songs had to be wriiten with the view to fit them in the story of film. Now it is the age of multi-channels. People have been accustomed to using remote control and they do not watch any single program or film in a single sitting. They usually ``stop`` switching channels when they see some exposure or action. The issue before music directors is not to fit the meaning of songs in the story of film because the real issue before them is how to get audiance stayed at the their channel for a while. People now really do not see full feature film in one sitting. Even HBO channel repeats English feature films many time so that audiance may see full film in different sittings. So in this way, age of meaning or soul has gone. Future music shall be more loudy, fast etc.

Regards!

God, Religion and Spirituality Spirituality is a belief that individual`s soul can directly communicate, or even can unite with Divine soul. It is possible, as it is believed, only if individual`s soul is pure and strong. Purification and strenght of soul is sought through various spiritual exercises like Muraqbas, Riazats etc. In addition, material social life is also avoided. Its main difference with religion is that aim of religion is usually to bring and maintain harmony and uniformity of social system. Religion strongly dislikes deviance from social norms, religious traditions, Divine told beliefs and various religious customs and rituals. In this way, religion unites people into the shape of large societies whose members think and act in uniform styles. Religion prefers sustainability, continuity and perpetuality of such a uniform society to individual`s freedom and choice. Spirituality, on the other side, prefers individual to even an organized social system. Aim of spirituality is to give strength to individual`s soul. Spiritual people often use to live in jungles where they perform various spiritual exercises. It is however not complete anti-social. More precisely, spirituality recognizes that social system can function even in absence of external religious worships, customs and rituals; and that individuals can establish relationship with Divine without even following the external commands of religion, provided that individuals possess strong souls. Religion wants to establish a uniform pattern society which must be based on the teachings and directions of a central Divine told autority. Spirituality, on the other hand, wants to establish such a society where individuals may seek guidance from the voices of their own purified souls. Here, individuals may differ from other individuals in their thinking and actions because of the absence of any central authority. But a peaceful sociey is still possible because religion doesn`t tolerate diversity whereas spirituality can love diversity.

Regards!

Jaane kahan gaye voh din! A very nice article Sir. Old Indian music is AMAZING. New Music, with loud bass provides more oppertunities to `expose`. I want to ask a common question. There is huge difference between styles of old and new music. Can it be said with surety that old music is qualitatively superior to new music? What is the real edge of old music which is totally missing in new music? Are new singers incompitent? Given the old instruments and old music directors, can they not sing better than old singers? On other side, what are the positive qualities of new style of music, which were missing in old? Still many big names are part of contemporary music industry. Have they not brought any real advancement in music technologies?

Regards!

Teaching Science Badly – and Well [...] ... ``II. Second, good teachers must emphasize learning rather than teaching. The two are different. Learning is a process that progresses from the concrete to the abstract as cognitive abilities slowly improve. But students first need to get acquainted with the things around them such as devices, organisms, materials, shapes, and numbers. They must observe them, collect them, handle them, describe them, become puzzled by them, ask questions about them, argue about them, and then to try to find answers to their questions. Abstractions develop after these experiences, not before.`` ... [...]

Sir, in my assessment, science study is really boring because above mentioned things are really missing in our science education.

Perhaps the reason for it lies in an internal contradiction of science itself. Which is following:

[...] ... There cannot be airy-fairy discussions of things. Science refuses to offer an opinion on things that are unobservable, or whose existence is impossible to verify even in principle. What you cannot see may still actually be there, but science is going to be mum about it. It’s as simple as that. ... [...]

My opinion is that Galileo was able to perform experiments on projectile motion and falling objects of different weights mainly because the first phase of this process i.e. ``airy-fairy`` discussions about characteristics of falling objects already had taken place in ancient Greece. Galileo`s achievement was only that he tried to test those ``airy-fairy`` ideas using experimental techniques. My own ``airy-fairy`` idea is that in order to do any experiment whatsoever, at first we need an ``idea`` that may need confirmation, clarification, comprehension or better to say, ``experimental verification``. You have discussed ``hypothesis`` as one of the roots of scientific method. How this ``hypothesis`` is different from an ``airy-fairy`` idea? I think the only difference is that ``hypothesis`` is such ``airy-fairy`` idea which is intended to be experimentally verified. Science is really boring because it is unduly narrowing down its own field/scope. It is denying the importance of subjective ideas. Attitude of science towards subjective ideas is like as if subjective ideas do not exist at all. On the other hand, science claims to be the knowledge of those entities that exist. Science says what cannot be measured, cannot be studied. What cannot be studied, should be ignored and only those entities should be studied that will be left after having ignored many existing entities. Science avoids seeing things in their totality. It emphasizes on ``measurements`` which means that science deals only with ``parts`` of things. Science makes some ``amazing`` attempts to ``measure`` some non-measurable entities as well. Science claims to measure let`s say, ``intelligence``. According to science, this person has this particular number of IQ, and that person has that particular number of IQ. Why? Because those two persons performed differently in a similar nature test...!!! Science says those two persons should have been given similar nature test because they were having same age. In all this process, science ignores many other processes simply because science doesn`t want to study them, may be by calling those processes ``non-measurable``. Science has no explanation that how a lower IQ person can have some edge over higher IQ person in any particular field. Science does not even want to study these matters. Why study of science be not boring...???

Regards!

The Day We Killed Bob Woolmer Re: # 45

Dear, if a person favors others beliefs, it means that either he is under stress or he is really a broad-minded person. And to favor other`s beliefs is included in the belief of broad mindedness. So if a broad minded person favors other beliefs, he actually doesn`t go against his own beliefs. But whoever shall really go against his real (i.e. personal -- not necessarily religious) beliefs, he cannot be relaxed. So if being broad minded person, Woolmer favored others beliefs then he may not be under any stress. I can accept therefore that there may not be any extremist`s pressure on him. I already said that I am not supporter of extremist`s pressure theory.

However, I do not think that a broad minded person can favor unnecessary restrictions because restrictions are opposite to the aim of broad mindedness. If you are a broad minded person, can you stay relaxed under unnecessary restrictions? I think you, being broad minded person, cannot be relaxed then. Because now the situation is against your real beliefs!

Regards!

The Day We Killed Bob Woolmer Re: # 38

That person may not have any serious ill will. But those words were stupid enough that should not have gone on air. When we directly insult someone and that someone, althought might have been broken in innerself, behaves as if he doesn`t bother, it means that he/ she is having strong nerves. To have strong nerves is a positive quality. To die of defeat, or of any other emotional stress, is a negative quality because it is sign of weak nerves.

We should learn from past happenings and should not try to promote negative attitudes. Death of Bob Woolmer on one side may be the symbol of his intense sense of responsibility that could not be successfully met. On the other side, he should not have died just because of a defeat. It is another thing that then our own nation (through Geo TV) would not let him live with proper peace of mind. If you don`t give peace of mind to performers, how will they perform...???

The Day We Killed Bob Woolmer Re: # 36

achha jee

The Day We Killed Bob Woolmer Re: # 30

``On GEO, this morning, there was a news item on the Pakistani cricket team`s defeat and people, on the street, were being asked their opinions. There was this man and in Punjabi he said Woolmer`s death was sad because he died in place of a man who should have died!``

---

How pathetic is that Geo TV presents all the non-sense before International audiance.

The Day We Killed Bob Woolmer PM,

I am no supporter of such allegations like extremist`s influence etc. But try to think over your own post. Why Woolmer had to favor those beliefs which were not his own...??? Can a relaxed person do it...??? A relaxed person would favor his own beliefs. Your own statement is indicating that might be Woolmer was in some sort of stress due to extremists, due to which he could not openly express his own beliefs.