Archive for the ‘Theory of Knowledge’ Category

About Epistemological issues..

Education System is Fake!

Posted by Magellanic Cloud 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 Magellanic Cloud 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 Magellanic Cloud 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 »

What is the difference between Intellect and Rationality?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud 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 »

Society, Culture and Civilization. What they mean?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud 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 »

What is Mind? What is its relationship with Brain?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on November 13, 2008

“Mind” is an abstract term. Mind is not the name of any physical thing. Word “Mind” is different from word “Brain”. “Brain” is the name of a physical thing.

In most simple terms, Mind is sum total of knowledge, information, opinions and attitudes of a person. Mind is conscious of itself.

Relationship of mind and brain is that of software and hardware. But brain is not based on binary technology. Therefore nature of mind is different from the nature of computer softwares. For example, if most basic element in computer software is “data”, then most basic element of mind is not data … the most basic element of mind is “information” i.e. a “proposition”.

Mind gets basic input of “information”. Mind organizes this information in various styles. And the so “organized” information is the “knowledge”.

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Theory of Knowledge | 7 Comments »

Can a deaf and blind person think?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on October 23, 2008

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.

Humans have senses. And Humans have Mind. Senses do not “Think”. It is “Mind” who “Thinks”. Senses only “sense”.

Mind suitably and meaningfully “organizes” those “senses”.

Mind consciously reminds, reviews, recalls, reflects and analyzes that “organized stuff”. And this is the act of “Thinking”!

Mind can organize sensory data only in few possible styles. I will try to explain this point in my future posts.

In order that mind learns some standard language … it MUST be able to listen. Or it must have been familiar to listening experience, may be of just early life!

A born (totally) deaf and blind person can never learn any language.

And … a person devoid of all the senses canNOT “Think”!

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

Do we get wisdom through success? or through failure?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on October 15, 2008

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.

Failure and success both can give wisdom. Success takes you above … in skies … Your view ultimately broadens. You see things from above.

Failure may take you closer to your own self. You can better understand your own existence. Failure may take you to the depths. Your view deepens.

Not all people get wisdom though success or failure. Those who can get wisdom, get it from both failures and successes.

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Theory of Knowledge | 7 Comments »

What is the origin of reasoning? And is mind just a “Tabula Raza” (Blank Slate)?

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on January 26, 2008

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.

What is the origin of reasoning? And is mind just a “Tabula Raza” (Blank Slate)?

Reasoning is the way human mind works. Mind works on experimental data. Mind is not like just a “tebula raza”. Mind is an effective machine that can do very complicated works on the “raw materials” of experimental or “sensory” data.”Knowledge” is the final product. Raw material is the “sensory data”. And this “sensory data” cannot be converted to “knowledge” without the involvement of a proper mechine which is “human mind”!

And how this machine works? In simple form, it works by making analogies and simple generalizations. In complicated form, it becomes deductive, mathematical, grammatical as well as poetically and musically balanced.

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Theory of Knowledge | 2 Comments »

Nature of Science – Rational or Empirical…???

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on August 24, 2007

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.
Nature of Science – Rational or Empirical…???

There is widespread misconception among many supporters of modern established science that scientific facts and theories are all empirical in nature and this so-called “empirical” knowledge is superior to any kind of “rational” knowledge. Sometimes back, I had a little debate with supporters of the idea of so-called “empirical science”. In that debate, I pointed out that modern science’s over-emphasis on “empirical methods” is based on following false and misleading point of view:

“The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.”

In my opinion, the above-quoted point of view is misleading. First of all I do not accept the idea of “pure rational reasoning”. For me, the idea of a Rationalist that mind can find the first principle without any involvement of sensory information is WRONG AB INITIO.

In this connection, for me, point of view of John Locke is true that all basic knowledge comes only through the channel of senses. Mind cannot reach to any first principle without involvement of sensory information.

A Rationalist like Descartes or Hegel says that mind, at its own, can reach to first principle. All other knowledge of reality then can be deduced out of that first principle. Thus this form of Pure Rationalism works on deductive logic.

Now I try to explain that this “Pure Rationalism” is deductive logically inaccurate. Consider the following simple deductive argument:

All A is B
All B is C
Conclusion: All A is C

Now I try to analyze this “conclusion”. This deductive conclusion consists of four words which are (i) All, (ii) A, (iii) is (iv) C

In this conclusion, not a single word is anything new. All these four words are already contained in the premises. So in any deductive conclusion, all the contents of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In the conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed.

Now take the example of a renowned first principle i.e. “Cogito Ergo Sum”. Descartes claims that this is the first principle of his philosophy. In the Pure Rationalism, all other contents of philosophy must have to be deduced out of this first principle.

Now we know that in any deductive conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed. What it means? If Descartes` philosophy is really a Pure Rationalism, then there should not be more than three words in his whole detailed philosophy.

Pure Rationalism is logically wrong….!!! because actually there are so many words in the philosophy of Descartes. Descartes is having a false claim that he is pure Rationalist Philosopher. In the real sense, his Philosophy could not go against the basic idea of John Locke. That`s why his detailed philosophy is having so many words … which are although seeming to be the part of reasoning … but actually have come from sensory information.

Now I again come to the above-quoted statement, which, in my opinion, is a completely misleading point of view. I reproduce that statement below:

“The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.”

In this connection, my opinion is that sensory information is considered to be opposed to rational reasoning by the “Pure Rationalist Philosophers”. Pure Rationalists` point of view is logically wrong so this statement is also logically wrong.

Fact is not that reasoning is opposed to sensory information. Fact is that reasoning is actually a RE-ARRANGEMENT of sensory information.

My opinion is that all knowkledge is basically empirical … because point of view of John Locke i.e. an Empiricist, was right, in my assessment.

But in my opinion, there is no clash between “empirical knowledge” and the so-called “rational knowledge”. Rational Knowledge is actually just a re-arrangement of empirical knowledge. This point of view, basically, was originated by David Hume.

Here, an objection can be raised that point of view of modern science is not akin to the philosophy of “Pure Rationalism” because modern science doesn’t work on any given “first principle”.

My point of view is that mere fact that science doesn’t work on any given first principle doesn’t make it purely empirical in nature. Modern science is still very much “rational”, in my opinion. But modern science is not “rational” in the sense of “pure rationalism philosophy”. Modern science is “rational” only in the true sense of rationalism. And the true rational sense is that product of reasoning has to be a “re-arrangement” of sensory data. So in this right sense, we should not find any clash between product of reasoning and any empirical knowledge. If we try to look more closly, we shall find that product of reasoning, being the “re-arrangement” of sensory information, can be considered to be the final product. Mere sensory information can be regarded as just raw material in this right sense. In this way, rational knowledge i.e. the product of reasoning, should be considered to be superior form of knowledge because of being the final product in essence. Mere empirical knowledge is actually inferior because it is just like raw material which still has to go through the process of rational reasoning. The mistake of modern science is that it considers itself only empirical in nature. It is important to highlight that modern science, mistakenly, not only disowns, but also degrades all the forms of rational reasoning. As a collateral mistake, modern science considers only empirical knowledge to be the superior most form of knowledge. And as a result of this kind of mistakes, modern science doesn’t officially recognize any valid role of logical reasoning in it’s research procedures. It’s proof is that theory of logic is not the part of syllabus of study of science at any level.

I have mentioned earlier that in the “true rational sense”, product of logical reasoning has to be a “re-arrangement” of empirical knowledge. I have no objection against a True Rationalist. I have objections against only Pure Rationalist. A True Rationalist knows the importance of sensory or empirical information. But he doesn`t confine himself to just empirical procedures. The procedure of a True Rationalist can be stated like:

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

I have objections against “established” scientists also. They are Not True Rationalists because they ignore the LOGIC part of this true procedure. If anyone is a PhD. in Physics, I am hopeful that he/ she migh not have seen Theory of Logic as a part of his/ her syllabus.

Here I am in need to clearly differentiate between “True Rationalism” and “Pure Rationalism”. Accepted definition of Pure Rationalism is “such a Philosophical view that accepts the possibility that mind can reach to first principle (i.e. axiom) without help or involvement of sensory information.” This form of Pure Rationalism downgrades sensory information, by assigning superiority to only Pure Rational Knowledge. All the detailed philosophy of reality is supposed to be rationally deducible out of that first principle. In this way pure rationality can find everything about reality even in complete absence of sensory information. This philosophical view has created a misconception as if there is some clash between sensory knowledge and rational knowledge.

In the times of Galileo, Johannes Cappler 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 were 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. Although the scientists do sometime talk of ‘rationality’ as well and it is also true that their concept of ‘rationality’ is not akin to the philosophy of Pure Rationalism, but still their concept of rationality cannot be regarded as true rationality. It seems that scientists are not clear on the issue of type and nature of ‘rationality’ that should be the part of their procedures. In above discussion, I mentioned the True Rational Procedure in following way:

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

Currently, scientists are disregarding “Rational Knowledge” and “Theory of Logic” as well. The true rational procedure, as identified above involves application of the theory of logic at two important stages.

Just the “Empirical Verification” cannot become a solid proof until and unless such “Empirical Verification” has been logically interpreted and explained. Those who are not scientists may not believe in the just simple truths of scientists. I believe that many illogical and inaccurate theories are still the part of established science.

Modern science emphasizes on its so-called “empirical methods” so much that it tends to almost completely deny any valid role of logical reasoning or the theory of logic in the process of development of new scientific theories. This position of modern science can be described in the words of a so-called scientist in following way:

“While all credible scientific theories are logically consistent, logic by itself has seldom, if ever, discovered any scientific theory.”

My comments:

It is a super false idea. I already had discussed the complete logical development of first law of motion by Newton in the above discussion.

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 True Rational 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 constructed 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, readers 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.

So science should not be restricted to just “empirical procedures”. There is valid role of rational reasoning in the process of discovery of new scientific facts. So there is need to include theory of rational reasoning in the research procedures of science as well as in the syllabus of science education.

Posted in -Home-, Philosophy, Philosophy in Pakistan, Philosophy of Science, Physics, Theory of Knowledge | 7 Comments »