khuram

Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

All about Philosophy.

What is Aristotle’s law of motion? What are its applications?

Posted by khuram on December 14, 2016

What is Aristotle’s law of motion? What are its applications? by Khuram Rafique

Answer by Khuram Rafique:

For Aristotle, there are four objects (i) earth, (ii) water, (iii) air and; (iv) fire.

First two are heavier objects and last two are lighter objects.

Natural tendency for heavier objects is to move downside due to ‘gravity’.

Natural tendency for lighter objects is to move upside due to ‘lavity’.

Law of Motion: Natural tendency for the moving objects is to stop. If motion is to be continued, force is required.

Aristotle knows that objects move in resistant or viscous medium that’s why they eventually stop.

But Aristotle also thinks that objects cannot move in vacuum. For Aristotle, resistant medium is required for the motion to occur.

For example, a projectile is thrown with hand … after the contact of hand is removed then how motion is continued? Aristotle’s answer is that projectile is moving through resistant medium which is air. When it is moving forward, there will be sudden vacuum at the back side of object and then this vacuum will be suddenly filled by the surrounding air. This sudden vacuum filling by the surrounding air will generate a forward thrust and object will be able to move forward even at time when contact of throwing hand is removed.

However the resistance force of resistant medium will eventually overcome the forward thrust and at the end object will stop.

For Aristotle, first of all any motion in vacuum is not possible due to missing thrust. Secondly, if we accept any motion in vacuum then it would lead to absurdities that object will acquire infinite motion due to absence of resistant medium.

So what was absurd in view of Aristotle, that thing was finally shown as natural by Newton.

What is Aristotle’s law of motion? What are its applications?

Advertisements

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Physics | Leave a Comment »

Simple Thought Experiment to Disprove Relative Constant Speed of Light.

Posted by khuram on October 5, 2016

Light Speed is said to be constant irrespective of relative motion of observer.

Moon is about 1.3 light seconds away from us. Suppose moon is looking like a clock such that moon clock is behind your watch by 1.3 seconds.

Now you start moving towards moon with a normal speed of 100 km/hr. Moon is 384400 KM away so your journey will take about 160 days.

Normal speed is assumed so that there should be no alleged effect of time dilation due to ultra high speed.

So after 160 days you will be on moon and what will be the difference in time of your watch and moon clock…???

There will be no difference. Means that due to your relative motion, light of moon clock has traveled up to you at speed c+100 km/hr i.e. with speed c+v.

If you are still reading moon clock as 1.3 seconds behind your watch then it means that from an ordinary distance, light is taking 1.3 seconds to reach you so again constant speed of light postulate is disproved.

Above is only a thought experiment. Now we do a real experiment. So now moon is looking like normal moon and not like a clock. And from earth we see moon which is 1.3 seconds younger than its actual age.

Now we do not suppose, we actually start moving towards moon at normal speed of 100 km/hr. And after 160 days we reach at the surface of moon.

By standing on surface of moon we are looking at moon which is not younger by 1.3 seconds but are looking at moon that exists right now. It means that during whole of our journey we had been receiving light of moon with c+v formula.

If by standing on surface of moon we are watching moon which is 1.3 seconds younger than its actual age, it means that light is taking extra 1.3 seconds to reach our eyes and again constant speed of light postulate is disproved.

 

 

Posted in -Home-, Mathematics, Philosophy of Science, Physics, Space & Time | Leave a Comment »

Difference in Daytime and Nighttime Stars:

Posted by khuram on March 18, 2011

Daytime and Nighttime Stars:

I just google searched to see some information about any possible difference between Daytime and Nighttime sky but first few pages however could not satisfy my query. So here I am writing down my understanding of the issue. First of all there must be stars in Daytime. Secondly, those stars must be different from those what we observe in Night Sky.

Why there must be stars in Day Sky?

Well, I never have seen. I read somewhere that stars are visible in daytime from deep vertical coal mines. I also heard/read that stars become apparent during complete solar eclipse etc. Apart from these reasons, sun is also a star and is visible in daytime.

Why Nighttime stars should be different from those what we observe in Night Sky?

As we cannot see The Sun in the night sky, so we should not be able to see other objects of Day Sky at Nighttime. The Sun is above of us at Daytime but it is beneath of us in Nighttime. So other Daytime fixed objects (stars) also should be beneath of us at Nighttime.

At Night, we see those things which were beneath of us at Daytime. This is very simple position. I do not know the official position of Science on this issue. I may be wrong but this is what I can understand at my own.

Update on April 27, 2011:

Last night I observed apparent movement of ‘fixed stars’ in sky. Today I google searched to see details of movements of stars. What I learn is that stars, just like sun, also rise in east and set in the west.

Following web page discusses this thing:

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/skymotion.htm

So if Stars also change positions like sun, then obviously daytime stars are different from nighttime stars.

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Physics, Space & Time, Various General Topics | 6 Comments »

Education System is Fake!

Posted by khuram on July 12, 2010

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
Education System is Fake:

Protesters parade a herd of 'fake degree' donkeys through the streets

Fake Degrees of our Parliamentarians is the hot issue of these days. There are lots of condemnations and protests against fake degree holders. There are opinions that donkeys are better than those fake degree holders. Our so highly qualified nation also made fun of CM Balochistan’s statement on this issue in which he said, “Degree is degree; whether it is genuine or fake!”.

Well, people may continue to think that donkeys are better than fake degree holders, but in my opinion … a donkey and a degree minded person are same.

I wrote somewhere else also. I am reproducing it below:

“Degree makes you eligible to apply for the job. It does not even guarantee that your application shall be replied. It also does not give guarantee that you will not be expelled. It makes young people lazy. They tend to look around them who is going to create some economic activity for them to participate. They loose all confidence to create a new economic activity for themselves and for other people. In many big cities, fresh Master degree holders (M.Com, MBA etc.) are given jobs for as low salaries as Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/-. Especially this commerce and business education is a big fraud with youth. Whole purpose of this education is to ensure regular supply of trained servants for less educated capitalists (Masters). Role of these degree holders is like spare parts of this capital system machine. New spare parts are inducted and then replaced. Good spare parts move to richer parts of this whole machine. This is the all system.

Few days back, I google searched to see exactly why employers demand degree certificates from job applicants. One convincing argument that I found was that presence of degree/certificate gives enough surety that the applicant is determined … he has spent 24/25 years of his life in order to become a good employee. He is submissive and he shall obey the commands of employer. Employers don’t like that employees be able to “plan” the things by themselves. Employers tend to keep planning aspects in their own hands. They prefer and like their own planning. They don’t really need employees competent enough to plan the things. They only need obedient people who have good track record of completing “assignments” in time.”

Education system may be all good in terms of recognition in employment sector. But role of education system is not to spread knowledge. It’s role is to produce obedient people to meet the ongoing demands of employers.

 

Task of education system is NOT to spread knowledge or wisdom. Basically it’s function is to produce a sort of ranking, or some objective eligibility criteria.

We also should understand what “objectivity” or “objective criteria” really mean.

Take the example of some murder case proceedings in a court where Judge personally knows that accused is the murderer. But in case there is lack of evidence, the same Judge will have to release that accused person.

Here lack of evidence means lack of objective evidence.

The need of objectivity arises only in group life. Main usage of objectivity is to regulate and harmonize the group life. People settle their disputes while the criteria for decisions are objective. Here objectivity has no direct concern with the reality or truth. Decisions based on objective facts may be misleading. For example if a judge personally knows that the accused is murderer but he has no objective evidence, he will have to release that person. Here the decision is not based on real situation. Objectivity, for the most part makes our group life more convenient. Just for the sake of this ‘convenience’, the society can prefer objectivity to reality. To base our decisions in a society on reality, which is not supported by objectivity, creates various types of social problems. To worship idols may be objective kind of duty in an idol worshiping country/society but it may not be the real duty for them. If any person in that society denies performing this objective duty and insist on real (which is subjective) duty, that person shall create various types of social problems for himself.

In the same way, this Education System has been designed to regulate group life. Its primary function is only to produce certain eligibility rankings which everyone should easily accept. To acquire your desired ranking, you need NOT to acquire knowledge or wisdom. You only need to show your compliance to rules and regulations of degree awarding authority, which is usually a university. You can show this compliance by rote memorizing certain syllabus books … you can show this compliance by getting your assignments completed by your more talented friends or even by professionals who offer their “professional” services to students. And you also can show this compliance by giving all the fee/dues/fines/other charges to the educational institution.

To make some objective criteria is not any bad thing. But bad thing in Education System is that it makes this criterion in the name of knowledge and wisdom. Whereas fact is that these universities never recognize knowledge/wisdom of people outside of this system. Universities do not award Masters Literature Degree to a real poet/author. He shall never be eligible to get a teacher job in some university even though he is Mirza Ghalib or Shakespeare. Even Micheal Faraday who invented Dynmo Generator … he will not be eligible to get admission in BSc. class. For the reasons that perhaps he is under matric.

In our present world, if real Aristotle comes, he will not be given job of teacher of Philosophy in any university. Even, he will not be given any PhD Degree for the reason he got no Masters Degree. And he will not be given Masters Degree for the reason he possesses no Graduate Degree and so on.

Education System itself is fake. It pretends and promises to give knowledge and Wisdom … but practically it gives only a sort of eligibility ranking.

As Education System is “competent” to draw eligibility rankings … it gets a sort of authority which it uses, misuses and even manipulates. Universities do blackmail intelligent students who lack financial resources to pay their dues. Many types of fines/charges etc. are collected by manipulating compulsions on rich/poor students and their parents. Teachers also blackmail students and demonstrate their authority. They even warn students of destroying their careers.

Education System is conscious of its authority and power. To promote degree culture is in the direct interest of this stupid education system.

That’s why I really liked CM Balochistan’s statement: “Degree Degree Hota hai; Asli ho ya Naqli…!!!” (Degree is Degree; whether Genuine or Fake!)

And I am happy that CM Balochistan cannot be blamed for having/presenting fake degree. Degree paper is important for “ranking” minded people. But this “paper” is NOT important for knowledge seeking people.

This is less “Education” and more of a “System”. The meaning of “System” is nothing more than “lining up as per regulations” and waiting for the promised rewards that may or may not be provided in the end.

From the Internet:

Views of an Educator that Grades are Stupid.

His analysis also reveals that Education System tries to make students submissive as per the requirements of their future bosses. Following is a quote out of his article:

But it also means that the main skill a student is being measured on is the ability to fulfill the expectations of another person.

In one sense, this is valuable — particularly if you’re the boss and you’re looking for somebody who can follow your directions and do what’s expected of them. In another, it’s not — particularly if pleasing a boss isn’t the most important outcome of one’s work.

See also More than schooling
A critique of the modern education system, by Sandeep Pandey.

Following are some quotes from Sandeep Pandey’s article:

The need for such an examination arises because everything does not seem to be going alright with the education system. The ground reality is that in most of the schools and colleges of India, students, teachers and administrators are apathetic towards the process of education, fraudulent ways are beings adopted to complete the process and a large number of educated youth find themselves without jobs.

More precisely, the perceived goal of education to make the individual and the society ‘better’ in some qualitative sense, seems to missing in its current form.

Most of the people will refuse to link the malaise in the system to the basic nature of the system itself, considering it to be a disorder which could be taken care of by implementing a proper machinery. Such assumptions need to be questioned.

When so much resources and the prime time of our children and youth are being given over to the education system, we as a society need to find out the achievement of this system in real terms.

for on close examination this kind of education system itself appears to be at fault.

The roots of our education system are in the Imperial days, where it was essentially meant to produce a class of people who would assist the British in running the administration of this country.

Even today the education system continues to serve the same function.

It produces a salaried middle class which acts as an appendage to the ruling class and helps keep a primarily coercive administrative system in place. Since the nature of such jobs is essentially of clerical type and there is almost no scope to exercise an individual’s creativity. Most people, even those possessing highest of academic qualifications, cannot derive satisfaction out of their jobs. To compensate for their unproductive nature of jobs they have to be paid higher wages than can be earned otherwise.

Since the education system is also designed to produce merely a ‘clerical’ class, upon the completion of their education programmes the youth seek fixed salary and low risk secure jobs.

Since what is needed to demonstrate when applying for a job is the certificate and not actual competence, people have devised ways of completing the process of obtaining the certificates without actually putting in the hard work to go through the entire exercise involved in the process of education.

The teachers are content drawing their salaries. As the number of people possessing certificates, diplomas and degrees has gone up, so has the competition for jobs and the number of unemployed. Since the education system prepares a job mentality in people, a person is called unemployed if he/she is not in a salaried job.

In fact, the education system can be blamed for ruining the best years of our youth, whether unsuccessful or successful in getting a job.

Contrary to the popular opinion that education opens up more job opportunities, it rewards only a minuscule percentage of the population, mostly coming from socio-economically privileged groups. It is only the dream of getting these small number of high salaried coveted jobs that has sustained the view that education opens up more job opportunities. If we consider the hard reality, education system today makes many more people jobless than it is able to provide jobs to.

The sooner we agree to examine the myth that the present education system is a desirable thing, the better it would be for our society. A completely new form of education system with a different purpose altogether, has to be worked out for creating a healthy society.

So long as the primary function of our education system continues to be serving the interests of the ruling class, no change can be expected to be brought about by it. Fortunately we are forced to re- examine our education system because, firstly, it is failing to provide jobs to everybody, and, secondly, to the people it has provided jobs, it is failing to provide satisfaction. In any case, the myth that education opens up more job opportunities needs to be dispensed with.

However, when several groups of people, including school teachers and college students from Delhi, Kanpur and Ballia were questioned on exactly how they were advanced compared to people who did not get a chance to go to school, people were at a loss to come up with convincing answers.

The educated people would readily agree that inspite of enjoying more material comforts they do not think that they have become any more happy than the uneducated people. Also, education does not make any person a better human being. The educated people are not any more sensitive or sympathetic towards other human beings. Neither are they any more honest or responsible.

Education does not free a person of superstition or blind belief in hypothetical concepts of super natural powers. An educated person is seen to be as much of a fatalist as an uneducated one. People possessing highest degrees in sciences are seen to behave in highly irrational and inexplicable ways. A document published when the Kishore Bharati experiment was wound up, points out that scientific rational way of thinking evaporates when economic and political interests of the people come in their way. Hence upon an honest evaluation it turns out that qualitatively there is not much of a difference between the educated and the uneducated people.

The science education in schools and colleges is no less dogmatic than the teachings of religion. What you can do in the name of science is clearly spelled out by the authorities, allowing no freedom for change even in enquiry. It obviously does not conform to the notion of science offering openness of thought and is certainly far removed from the concept of knowledge. It must be recognized very well that modern education system is not a programme of knowledge seeking even though it does maintain an illusion of that in the name of science.

The examinations, for which the skill of writing is necessary, can be passed by reproducing certain information or at the most by manipulation of this information. A person who is the product of modern education system and has completed most advanced of its programmes does not feel contended or knowledgeable enough to be able to provide answers to all queries relating to his/her specialization and certainly not comfortable answering the basic questions about life and existence in the realm of philosophy even though the education system may have honoured them with Doctor of Philosophy degrees. This is yet another proof of modern education system not being a knowledge seeking exercise. In fact, there appears to be a lot of confusion among people on what exactly is the nature of knowledge and the ways of going about acquiring it.

 

Posted in -Home-, Education & Examination System, Pakistan, Pakistan Internal Affairs, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Subjectivity/ Objectivity and Scientific Method | 6 Comments »

“Degree is Degree — Whether it is Fake or Genuine!” (CM Balochistan):

Posted by khuram on June 30, 2010

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
“Degree is Degree — Whether it is Fake or Genuine!” (CM Balochistan)

Well … I am supporter of this statement … but not in feudal sense.

My following words basically deal with the issues of “Strong Institutions” Vs. “Strong Personalities” and “Competency Vs. Merit”. I will criticize the concept of “Strong Institutions” including “Education System” and will supports CM Balochistan’s recent statement: “Degree is Degree — Whether it is Fake or Genuine”.

One common point of view is that lack of proper institutionalization is the core problem Pakistan is facing these days. Once I dared to disagree with this opinion. I got following response from a friend:

So you think that there is no need for strong institutions like courts, police etc. Strength doesn’t mean anything else than independent decisions, decisions on merit. If you are against decision on merits than you can say that our country needs strong personalities above all rules, above all codes.

My Reply:

Well, I am not against the existence of institutions. But institutions should not be so big fools as to be not able to recognize what could be the real best option in various particular situations. I presented the case of a candidate whose over-all 62% marks (In that case, Passing Marks were 40%) could not save her from being declared FAIL in written exam just because she failed only in one paper (out of 12) on account of one short number. May be you cannot realize the stupidity of examination body (the institution) in this case. One can better realize it if one personally goes through similar instances.

Secondly I am in need to clarify what meaning I take of ‘strong’ person and ‘strong’ institution.

In this connection, we generally denote ‘strong person’ as a person who does not care for rules and regulations for negative purposes or for personal selfish reasons. This is the popular meaning and it is a negative meaning.

But I had not used ‘strong person’ with this negative meaning. For me, ‘strong person’ would be that one who does not care for rules and regulations for good and positive reasons.

Now about strong Institutions:

You say:

“Strength doesn’t mean anything else than independent decisions, decisions on merit.”

Well, if you are talking of ‘strong institutions’ in that sense which you are favoring, then let me point out that under the system of ‘strong institutions’ which you favor, decisions are NOT independent and decisions don’t have the basis of COMPETENCY (here I have replaced ‘competency’ for ‘merit’).

Because in ‘strong institutions’, decisions DEPEND on rigid rules and policies, whereas meaning of ‘merit’ is NOT level of competency but is just ‘level of compliance to written rules and policies’.

I ask you a simple question. There are two students who are doing Masters in Physics. University has designed a predefined syllabus for Physics. First student is research minded and he takes pain in trying to find new facts about Physics. For this purpose he has to spend time in his research activities.

Second student is good crammer of syllabus books. What shall happen in the University exam…??? Crammer of syllabus books shall come on MERIT. On the other hand, research minded student might fail in University exam because he had been full time busy in his research activities.

My question to you is that who is more competent…???

If you say that research minded person is more competent … Then you are in favor of strong personalities because in this case your decision has been INDEPENDENT OF RULES AND POLICIES OF UNIVERSITY.

If you say that person who is good crammer of syllabus books is more competent … then you are in favor of strong institutions because your decision has been BASED ON RULES AND POLICIES OF UNIVERSITY.

In my opinion, research minded person is REAL competent whereas crammer has just come on merit.

My another question to you is that: “Competency Vs Merit” … What do you like…???

Competency can go anywhere … it can set its own direction also … Merit is just a blind chase of rigid rules and policies. Competency is the quality of leaders. Merit is the quality of followers. Leaders are those who show others some direction. Remember that any new direction could not be contained in the way of rigid compliance to previously written rules and policies. Those who are only to follow the already written rules and policies how can they go to any new direction…??? A person who does not go to any new direction, how can he show any new direction to others…??? And a person who does not show the new direction to others … simply he is not leader. Perhaps he is such a ‘manager’ who cannot take many independent decisions … Because his decisions would depend on written rules and policies.

Yes I am against decisions on merit … but in the above mentioned sense. And yes there should be strong personalities … above all rules, above all codes … but they must be allowed to go beyond all rules and all codes only for good and positive reasons. Practically it is possible to be allowed to only head of the institution and/or heads of department/section.

My Friend Replied:

Just consider an example if you have a very good car latest model (institution) with an average driver one who can drive like you and me, and on the other hand if you have very old car with so many faults in it, weak engine out dated model with an expert driver (strong personality), what do you think who will win the race? Now a philosopher will favor the expert and a realistic one will favor the latest model machine. In simple words if you have strong institutions then you can utilize your mind otherwise its useless.

My Reply:

Yes if we make our institutions ‘strong’ (within your meaning) then we would not be in need of competent persons … just like an incompetent driver of a better car can win the race against a competent driver, who drives an old car.

Well … we already have shortage of competent persons … Do you want to cover this deficiency in this way…??? By eliminating the role of any human competency…???

But you have forgotten that the incompetent driver shall be able to win the race only when a competent person would already have invented a better car. Actually these ‘strong institutions’ only make our lives more mechanical. Nothing would happen if you replace all the persons in your ‘strong institution’ with mechanical computer aided robots. So there would be no need of humans in your ‘strong institutions’. I again have given all the philosophical reasons in support of my views. I can give examples of ground realities also where so-called strength of institutions have given the results of miseries for general public and have opened the avenues for corruption in many government departments. Our official taxation laws, for instance, are so harsh that tax liabilities of small businessmen can reach to such amounts, which may be more than total capital employed. For example (real example) a business had to be closed just because that businessman made payments to his supplier in cash instead of through banking channel which was required as per law. Otherwise that businessman had been a regular tax payer and he had deposited all his due taxes. He committed only this procedural mistake i.e. of not making payments to supplier through banking channels. In this way he has attracted penalties amounting to more than the total capital of business.

Since our BLIND ‘strong institutions’ cannot see the on ground facts and they only can follow the written rules and policies … So as a result, now that business has been closed. I myself have won the case (being the representative of department in the judicial proceedings) against that businessman at Departmental Tribunal level. In my private meetings with the advocate of businessman, I admitted that no revenue loss was involved in that case because taxpayer had duly deposited all the payable taxes. Only fault was procedural in nature where no government revenue loss was involved. But the penalties involved for such procedural mistake would amount to more than the capital employed by the business. During the judicial proceedings before the Tribunal, I argued that taxpayer had violated such and such rules and sections of Law so he may be penalized for it. So I myself played the role of ‘strong institution’. In another case, taxpayer had made such mistake which had little effect on government revenue. But he was charged with heavy penalty for the procedural mistake. Case already had been decided in favor of tax payer by the lower adjudication forum. Adjudication officer might be some “strong person” within my meanings … So he had taken the decision in favor of taxpayer because amount of revenue loss was really just minor.

On the next forum i.e. before Appellate Tribunal, I represented the department before Tribunal. I won the case on first hearing in favor of department by arguing that tax payer had violated such and such rules and laws. Again I played the role of ‘strong institution’ and ‘weak personality’… And I promoted real injustice in this way because taxpayer had committed only immaterial type of procedural mistake which would have just minor impact on government revenue. Now that person shall pay heavy fines.

I also knew and Judges also knew that there had been no significant loss to government treasury in that case. But my role and the role of judges had been to just blindly follow the written policies and procedures. And this is what we really did. So how can you say that strong institutions shall solve all the problems of nation…??? Strong institutions themselves are a big problem … because they are blind … because they prevent the personalities from applying their minds for the betterment of country … because institutions possess no working mind … because they possess only mechanical written policies which might not be in the best interest of country in all the situations.

I give another example of a so-called “Strong Institution” which is our prevalent Education System. Yesterday, on a TV program, Mr.Tallat Hussain asked Voice Chancellor, Punjab University, “Suppose a student genuinely gets good marks in B.A (Graduation) exams but after some years it comes out that his F.A (Intermediate) certificate was fake (or his marks in F.A were not sufficient to get admission in B.A.) then what will happen to the status of his B.A degree?”

Voice Chancellor categorically replied, “His B.A degree will become liable to be canceled”.

It’s simple meaning is that Education System, as an institution, is not there to spread any knowledge or wisdom. It only ensures certain good percentage of compliance to written rules and policies. One who manages to get more knowledge/wisdom than offered by the Education System but does not manage to follow written rules and policies of university, SHALL NOT BE AWARDED DEGREE by the University. Sometimes universities bypass their written rules and policies when they award some persons honorary degrees. But in such cases, generally, those personalities already would have proven their competency before whole world. In this way, universities prove themselves BLIND as they cannot see competency outside of Education System as long as the world already recognizes that competency.

In short, I liked yesterday’s statement of Chief Minister Balochistan: “Degree is degree — whether it is fake or genuine!”.

Posted in -Home-, Education & Examination System, Essays on Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan Internal Affairs, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Subjectivity/ Objectivity and Scientific Method, Theory of Knowledge | 1 Comment »

Why Qualification is a Must for getting a Job…???

Posted by khuram on June 16, 2010

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
Yesterday I google searched to see exactly why employers demand degree certificates from job applicants. One convincing argument that I found was that presence of degree/certificate gives enough surety that the applicant is determined … he has spend 24/25 years of his life in order to become a good employee. He is submissive and he shall obey the commands of employer. Employers don’t like that employees be able to “plan” the things by themselves. Employers tend to keep planning aspects in their own hands. They prefer and like their own plannings. They don’t really need employees competent enough to plan the things. They only need obedient people who have good track record of completing “assignments” in time.

Education system may be all good in terms of recognition in employment sector. But role of education system is not to spread knowledge. It’s role is to produce obedient people to meet the ongoing demands of employers.

Posted in -Home-, Education & Examination System, Pakistan, Philosophy, Theory of Knowledge | Leave a Comment »

Issue of larger brain size of Einstien:

Posted by khuram on July 20, 2009

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
People believe in scientific myths that Einstien got some extraordinary brain:)

Was really E=mc2 anything new???

Not at all…!!!

We already knew K.E=1/2mv2

So, in a sense, there was nothing new in “energy-mass equivalence”.

“c” is only the so-called absolute form of “v”.

When talking in absolute terms (i.e. not in half terms where K.E is half of Total Energy), then we don’t need “1/2” in the equation of K.E.

We simply get “E=mc2”

It is said that this wonderful formula describes energy equivalent of mass at rest. Since value of c is so high so an ordinary mass at rest will be possessing huge quantity of energy. It is also said that this formula rightly predicted such things as Nuclear Bomb.

Whereas fact is that this formula only describes such an hypothetical situation where velocity “v” of a mass has reached to the standard maximum value i.e. “c”. So actually this formula has nothing to do with state of rest of mass.

It is so assumed that this formula describes energy equivalent of mass at rest because “c” has been considered a “universal constant”. Again, fact is that within the context of matter having mass, “c” is not any “universal constant”. “c” is just the standard maximum value of a “variable” which is velocity “v”. Despite official claims of Science, there are so many unofficial counter claims that speed of light “c” is not constant or even the maximum possible speed. But here we don’t need to go against official claims. Let us accept that speed of light may be constant and may it be the maximum possible value of “v”. But point is that even then “c” cannot be regarded as “universal constant” when talking in terms of matter and mass. Because after all then it is only a value of a variable “v”. So in this sense, if “c” is not a universal constant, it means that formula E=mc2 is not describing state of rest of mass. It is only describing an hypothetical situation where value of speed (i.e. a variable “v”) of certain mass has reached to the standard maximum value which is “c”. In this right context, actually formula E=mc2 is just worthless. It is only the case of such a K.E which, due to the mass having been reached to the maximum value of velocity (may be just hypothetically), has become Total Energy.

Nuclear Bomb was the result of later discoveries of hidden Nuclear forces and was not the result of this formula. Neither this formula has anything to do with those nuclear forces. It is the nature of Nuclear Structure of any atom which determines energy contents of that element. Mere “mass” does not determine it. If it were the case then Scientists should not have needed Uranium etc. because they could get mere mass from other common elements like iron etc. also, for making Nuclear Bomb.

“Professional scientists” are making us fool by saying Einstien had some extraordinary brain…!!!

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Physics | 4 Comments »

What is the difference between Intellect and Rationality?

Posted by khuram on January 23, 2009

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
Intellect is the name of an “ability”. Rationality is an “approach”.

Intellect is the ability of mind that it can store, manipulate, organize and suitably utilize past sensory information. Mind organizes sensory information due to the application of intellect. Knowledge is so organized information.

Rationality is an ideological approach whereby you show confidence in ability of human mind (intellect) that it can lead to truth. In other words, Rationality means using the faculty of intellect with confidence.

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Theory of Knowledge | 6 Comments »

Time – a mental construct or a physical reality?

Posted by khuram on January 5, 2009

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
If we go deeper than our (actually my) understanding abilities, then we are at the level of an idealist. At this level, we are not confirmed whether material world really exists or not. Then we can theorize that time is just a mental construct.

But if we are not at this much level of depth, then we are at the level of a scientist who takes material world a reality.

At this level … time is not any physical thing. But however, time is the name of a physical phenomenon.

Physical events do occur before and after one another. Course of occurrence of physical events is a physical phenomena.

Some events are repetitive in nature and they occur at regular intervals. In normal conditions, regular interval between one kind of physical event can correspond to exact number of intervals between some other regular type physical event.

Time can only be measured by comparing the number of intervals of different regular type events.

Time is duration between events. Duration is measurable by comparing the number of intervals of different regular type events. And that physical duration is the time!

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Space & Time | 5 Comments »

Society, Culture and Civilization. What they mean?

Posted by khuram on December 29, 2008

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
If members of same species live together and facilitate each other’s lives by performing their specific role, then they constitute SOCIETY.

Not only humans, many animals also live in “societies”.

Term CULTURE should be specific to only human societies. Culture is the “material” and “immaterial” LOOKS of any human society.

Housing arrangements, types of buildings, roads and streets, means of communication, means of production of goods and services, level of technology, type of dressing, types of foods etc. etc. constitute the MATERIAL CULTURE of human societies.

On the other hand; language, idologies, beliefs, religion, customs, traditions, music, art etc. constitute IMMATERIAL CULTURE of human society.

Civilization means level of political and social organization of human society, level of ethical and moral standards of individuals of society; integrity, honesty and manners of individuals of that society etc.

Posted in -Home-, Human Mind Vs Animal Mind, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan | 4 Comments »