Call of a genuine social scientist homo islamicus

" I cannot live like a social scientist who compartmentalizes his mind and refuses to study life directly. I cannot mis-treat supra-rational, or super-natural experiences i encounter in my life, and by ignoring them dispose them in favor of this compartmentalization of knowledge. i refuse to follow the current fashions of mind which commit such intellectual sins. i rebel against it." (Highly prosaic, phrases not accurate... me "nalaiq")

- my beloved professor...

Personal Temperament & Religion

"We pick and choose points from Religion according to our own temperaments and likings. Then we give these selected points central importance to which every other aspect of Religion is just peripheral in our mind." To give you a personal example: Yesterday, I was going through the archives of Cambridge Khutabs of Shaykh Abdal-Hakim Murad (Muslim sermons and talks in English). I saw a variety of topics there: Such titles as 'resisting injustics', 'humility', 'compassion', 'purity of heart', etc. appealed to me least, mournfully; But such titles, 'Islamic perspectives on gender', 'corruption on earth', 'islam and modernity', 'God, science and atheism', which have least business to do with my own self, my own ethical character, interested me most. I evaded the former ones, accepted the later ones. It speaks for itself what kind of a Muslim I must be.

This happens, what the quote already quoted points to, perhaps, with most of us, especially those who appear to be much more religious than others. It can be a grave problem and an intellectual disease, if it blinds us to the whole truth. The real true, or Truth (al-haqq) should be our goal, not that what is more appealing to our nafs.

The Philosophy of Life

"Search of truth is the ultimate aim of intellect. Applying truth in every action is called justice. Search for truth begins with oneself, try to know who, what, why you are? This is the first and most vital step. Then comes the long process of doing good for the greater happiness of greater number."

A few years back, upon asking my teacher about the aim of intellect and philosophy of life, he gave me this comprehensive and splendid answer. I was amazed at the coherence of the message of the intellectual and its practicality. In those days, I was seeking, and still am, 'the secrets of self'. Now I need to stop and self-examine a bit. And i shall be brief. From the early teenage days, when my faculties of discernment were flourishing, I dreamed of knowing the Quran so much so that I'd be able to decode the philosophy of life. What I failed to do was to take the necessary steps to achieve such a monumental task, i.e., I did not only failed to learn how to properly recite it, I didn't also give any attention to know its meaning. This is a precise sorrow, regretful glimpse of my past. What now I am going to do about? Now i am acting on the advice of my 12-year old friend! He, Raees Jamal, said to me,"You should learn Quran, and I believe you can, the way a molvi (traditional scholar) did. Well, he took 8 years to learn up one surah of Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah. He used to learn one ayat daily, and after knowing its translation he acted upon it and then moved forward. This is how he learned the whole surah." I appreciated his zeal, and decided to use this knowledge. Just to correct secondary details that this man was none other than Hazrat Abdullah, son of the second Calip hazrat Umar, who himself learned the same chapter of Quran in 12 years. Curiously, he had a mastery over Arabic, he witnessed the events of Revelation, yet he exhausted 8 years to learn a single chapter of 286 verses? It was because, as Mufti Taqi explains, he had to learn and master all the relevant sciences to know the meaning of Quran. (See The Quranic Sciences of Quran, by Mufti Taqi Usmani.) That's the best thing I can do.

Sufism

Dr. Agha: I have your image in my eyes so much that whatever I perceive I think it is you. This is Sufism.

I am my beloved and my beloved is I,
We are two spirits residing in one body,
So when you see me you see her,
and when you see her you see me.

Mansoor Hallaj

The Concept of God & Western Philosophy

Umer: Having read the concept of God among great philosophers, I'm intrigued to know how Platonic "philo" approached this problem. Did they divorce intellect from reason? Did they too solve the problem through rationalism?

Master Agha: Purpose and design behind the creation of universe and life are missing in Western philosophy. Western philosophy deals with such issues on the basis of speculations and imperfect intellect. While we believe that revelation is essential to understand such questions.

A Thoughtful Sitting

March 11, '09.

Today's experience with a serious and thoughtful sitting, unlike any silly, futile chit-chat between retarded "buddies", forces me to pen down the thoughts I could gather from the participants who were dying to be self-critical. Thoughts so rudimentary, so practical that I wish to keep them somewhere in the backyard of my human memory, and more to share them and spread. Today was a beginning of a new day in my quest of my Self. A quest to find 'meaning' in this otherwise, apparently, haphazard life in which to question the very disorder of it. We have formed a little society, headed by a sociology teacher, who speaks of his own science nothing more than a thin layer of ice over an iceberg! And he is very true. Because the very purpose of this informal sitting group is to penetrate the symbols of life. Thus, owing to this serious aim, the whole base of the group's medium of expression tends to be of metaphysical nature, which is very profound. Here's the problem for us. Metaphysics is the supreme science, as S. H. Nasr says. Therefore, it requires a lot of spiritual preparation to open up our intelligence, in order to know the existence and the nature of reality. Metaphysics never weds itself to clever thinking, it weds to a pure heart and to the intelligence whose functioning is proper and receptive to this supreme science.

This realization has still to dawn upon the imagination of many in our group. However, some took a brave start today and found themselves giving a voice to their own ongoing journeys, sometimes forgotten and in places like these, revisited. And one such voice triumphed in my eyes, no matter how poorly.

"What is life?," when asked the gentleman replies, "I used to ponder on this. And I concluded after observing the ever absence of jinns in the present scheme of this universe. Then I pondered on why humans were created in place of jinns? We know that they were very violent and enmity always prevailed among their communities. And that among jinns there was no peace and love conceivable. God hoped from this man that he would maintain peace among themselves. He would know what angels never knew. That he would love his fellow beings. I don't think there's a hell." He finishes presenting his views on the purpose of life here, although most of the time we were much preoccupied by the very question of purpose's possibility in human life. A view so real and persistent, I can never think why I never thought of it. A strict Muslim may call the last part of the conversion a blasphemy, and he or she may. But the existence of peace and love as a purpose of human beings is as much real to me as I am.

Logic - A Definition

Umer: What is Logic?

Master Khuram: It is refinement of thinking towadrs its validity and consistency. Having a logical mind, you start feeling inconsistent and self-contradictory things as invalid. Invalid things don't satisfy your mind. Rules of logic however are not rules of thinking. Rules of logic can only analyze product of thinking, i.e., verbally or written expressed thinking in the form of statements. In technical terms, we use word "propositions" instead of statements. A proposition is a statement which asserts or denies something.

Do you agree with his definition? If you do, then to what extent?

Of Maslow's Hierarchy: A Discussion on Self-Actualization

Umer: (Talking of A. H. Maslow's Hierarchy, as shown in the diagram.) I feel that A. Maslow (or, his hierarchy of human needs) is mistaken when he says that needs, such as of food, etc., are necessary in order to self-actualize oneself or to attain moments of ecstasy and great illuminations. Because in mysticism, such as of Islam or even simple spiritual life (given that the believer is highly motivated for such acts), self-restrain and self-control on 'certain human needs (as shown in the hierarchy)' is unavoidable and necessary! And, like in certain many other conditions. Therefore, what is your reaction to this point I've tried to put here?

Moreover, my question to you is, as some scholars have criticized, how do I reach at the level of self-actualization, when I have fulfilled the basic needs of life and I continue to? What process is behind in achieving the penetrable self-actualization?

The Expert:  Well the first thing to say is that Maslow's Hierarchy is a model, and as George Box said, 'All models are wrong, but some are useful' Many find it useful to help explain things, which is why it is popular. At the same time it is very limited: we do not have five, very separate levels of need and there is not a strict hierarchical nature to them. We can be reaching for self-actualization whilst also struggling with health and safety. However,

when many of us are ill or feel threatened, thoughts of social position and improvement tend to fade.

It's also worth noting that it's a very Western model and hence reflects Western sociological and cultural values. People are people wherever they are and there are common needs, but there are also cultural layers that modulate these.

Reaching self-actualization is not a simple process that can be explained. Many seek it and some find it through various means. Some get there through academics and study. Others through contemplation and prayer. Still others by not trying -- just by being. And others again use many combinations.

A common factor seems to be escape from the self. When you are focusing on yourself, including, bizarrely, seeking self-actualization (the self is in here), then it is difficult to become one with whatever higher planes of existence there are. To join one thing, you often have to let go of a previous thing. Even the notion of 'thing' may need to be let go as you enter a state where language cannot be.

You can contact them at: http://changingminds.org/

A Mesmerizing Answer On Success

PS: If you could choose one characteristic you have that brought you success in life, what would it be?

Master Khuram: Well, actually I still have to get success. I have been failed in getting many “achievements”. But “success”, in a better sense, is beyond some minor achievements. The actual state of being “successful” may never be “achieved” as well. In the words of Hazrat Wasif Ali Wasif, “destination” is the name of “being in journey”. Actually we are successful as long as we are trying to pursue success. Stage of “success” may never come however. We actually fail … when we stop doing efforts.

Another person, mentor and guide to me, said, similar to what said in preceding penned lines, "The pleasure of [this] journey shall dissolve the desire for destination." Don't mistake yourself by glancing on these words causally. Feel them and decode the symbols.

A Bit of Poetic Symbolism

Umer: What is the difference between art and entertainment?

A Young Artist: A lot of.

Umer: But its too vague.

A Young Artist: Art can amuse others but ones own entertainment can't.

Umer: Art  for amusement, then entertainment is for what?

A Young Artist: Its just for putting ones own stress away.

Umer: Then what is the utilisation of art?

A Young Artist: Its actually for same purpose, but on social level.

A Young Artist:  For example.I can explain that:

                                  

                                  An actor is an artist and entertainer.                                

                                  A viewer is only one being entertained.

Umer: According to Herbert Read art may not be a serious intellectual activity as M. Arnold said [he said which M. Iqbal also quoted in his one book, "Art is the criticism of life."]; "Art is rather an expression of our deepest instincts and emotions; it is a serious activity whose end is not so much to divert as to vitalise," he is of the view.

A Young Artist: Its something we like to tell and others want to hear; its something we like to make and others like to see; its a move we want to move and others like to see it.

A Young Artist: Its bullet in the the heart that has its value when obtained by careful operation and expressed to the world.

A Young Artist: Its a bit poetic symbolism.

Do you agree with 'his' analysis on art? And, why?

Natural Practices

Umer: You say that if someone transgresses from the 'eternal principles' of morality as taught by your religion of Islam [trying to be funny] and 'time', it's going to hurt society. But, then why your religion promote fanaticism, fundamentalism and extremism (in one single breath of wispher)?

Master Agha: They, the so-called extremists too transgress from the 'ruh' (essence) of it. Secondly, let me tell you this: be very, very careful and clear when using 'terms'. Terms have denotative and connotative meanings, as you know, unlike mere words which are not like concepts. This term 'fundamentalism' has been dubbed wrongly for Islam, out-of-context. Fundamentalism was originated in Christianity. There was a sect which wanted to implementt its own made rules as absolute, which no one could challenge or oppose. This sect was called Fundamentalist Christians, [added with the a particular name of the sect]. Islam, on the other hand, is the most liberal, most natural religion in religions [said with firmness]. But as I said they too transgress from the 'ruh' (essence) of it.

Umer: (Impatiently) Well, but [notice yes-but syndrome] how does your Islam differ here from Christianity, on this particular point?

Master Agha: It has no 'priesthood'.

[Umer was silenced.]

Of Our Language 'Urdu' - An Opinion

Umer: Do you think we lack cultural expression, in our idiom and language? Is it unoriginal?

A Philosopher: I think Urdu language is the most developed of all the local languages of sub-continent. This language is comparable to English. Urdu can excellently express feelings, emotions, events and stories. It also can express philosophies. The only edge of English is the better capacity of it to express and preserve scientific and technical knowledge. Quantitatively Urdu literature is not sufficient as compared to English. But Urdu has manifested quality literature comparable to that of  English.

[Do you agree?]

On Logic of Induction and Cause

(There is no formal, or even informal definition or explanation of either logic or inductive logic, its sub-branch. But a simple discussion.)

Master Agha:

I told you before that saying of Voltaire that even if there was no God, man would have created it.....!

.... Look, J. S. Mill has tried to fooled the whole world with an illogical argument. When we talk about humans, we're forced to acknowledge something is behind him, of course inductively, whereas deductive language is 'formal' enough not be discussed here. The thing that is behind him (i.e, man) cannot be like him, it thus follows. It is acknowledged by these logicians that there must be some criteria of the Perfect and how 'it' is to distinguished from the 'relative' and 'imperfect'. Man is imperfect. It is a burning human rights issue that why man has no independent will over the choice of his birth? That he should have the liberty to choose to be born or not to be born? But he has, practically, no control over it and like on many other things. So man is imperfecter than 'he' who created him and sustains him. Thus, inductively even J. S. Mill, whose blunder I'll mention later, could not refute the argument that following must be the criteria for the perfecter being who created imperfect man:

He must be infinite,
He must be eternal, independent of time,
He must not procreate, i.e, all-powerful,

Read Surah -e- Ikhlas from the Koran, you'll find the same logic. It is but natural that the thing which is the 'final cause' of all causes must have no 'cause', as Aristotle said. J. S. Mill refuted this argument by putting forward his counter-argument like this way:

'monday' comes before 'sunday'. Is 'sunday' the cause of 'monday', he questions? That is, did 'sunday' create' monday', or did 'saturday' create 'sunday' and so on and so forth? Obiviously not.

We ask him, k bhai, time is indivisible, you're dividing time into separate things. Moreover, time is a separate thing from something which could be behind man. We have divided time into days and months for our own comfort, time does not become divisible by saying so. This is how his argument, that there can be nothing behind man who is the final cause of all causes, becomes invalid, without going into further dtail.

So, Mr. Umer now you understand that he who knows himself knows his Lord?

A Young Man's Quest (I)

(*Intro*: A letter once a time ago I wrote for dispatching it with the book Spiritual Perspectives and Human Facts, by Frithjof Schoun, I presented to my teacher (not in the formal sense), which I as usual forgot to dispatch with the book. Written with an unconscious manner, it amuses me often how much wordplay I like.)

********

A Letter To A Teacher Far Far Away

Once A. K. Coomaraswamy, the great twentieth-century Indian expert on traditional metaphysics and art, said, “In Modern society the artist is a very special kind of person, while in traditional society every person is a special kind of artist.” Seyyed Hossien Nasr adds that this holds true for traditional Islamic society as well, where no distinction was made between fine arts and industrial arts or major and minor arts or religious and secular art.

While I recognize in you, every time, blend of both these kinds of artists, as, primarily, a special person and a special artist too. Because you made it possible for me to imagine and comprehend that this is a world an integrated form and element of psychic and material, i.e. in our terminology, soul and body. What Martin Lings made me aware recently of, is the world of Spirit, which happens to be transcending both the psychic and material world. But to be able to reach there, they say one needs highly tuned intellectual intuitions and a fitting mind to receive its rays - a discerning, discriminating mind, not merely a ‘brainy’ one.

This book which you have very graciously accepted bears testament and account to this world, i.e., of Spirit. What true intellect or art is, as this book lay bare is in transcending both psychic and material world (I know its confusing). The purpose of this practice is to evolve meaning out of weary material and psychological etc, facts which are evidences of that transcendent world. This is to find an end, purposeful and meaningful in our vision. Love of wisdom- philosophy- is to find our ways to reach that end, a journey that might never end in this mortal life. This quest, this question - who are we? - and many more like it, I am enthralled to observe in the mind of every child, every human being, no matter what his/her intellectual or religious environment be (and there fairy tale(s) help a child a lot in providing him answers to such universal questions, in a contemplative manner, not in scientific or rational).

I must end this letter here with a request: I am too young and unperceptive to decode the meaning and symbolism of this book. Frankly, I am much desperate in making sense out his symbolism, or of any artist because, firstly, I am not a serious and experienced an artist and intuitionist as you are; secondly, I have such inadequate diet of, no less infinite, ‘human facts’ which an old (not in terms of spirits but period of life) soul keeps locked and manifest in his memory and personality. I know an artist and intuitionist or be an ‘analytical’ mind, penetrates easily into the ideas and theories of the ‘specie’ of his/her kind. I am looking very much forward learning from you, and decipher mysteries and secrets of our cosmos and what may happen to be lying beyond it.

Seeker of the true path,

Yours faithfully,

Muhammad Umer Toor.

Intuition and Intellect: An Expert's View

 Umer:

Hello, I need your elaboration on this topic: "Intellect and intuition:from Islamic Prespective."
 Secondly, I want to ask you, what is the relationship between intellect and intuition? And, how come we achieve sound and reasonable intuition(s) or how come we verify our intuitive knowledge? Thanks.

A Teacher:

Dear Muhammad,

 I know not enough about Islam to be able to give that perspective on intuition, however I can say more about what I understand about intellect and intuition.

Intellect and intuition are both aspects of how our brain and mind works.  We are born with both: what we inherit from our parents and then though our experiences.  Both can be expanded and developed throughout our lives.  Our intellect is developed though our schooling and our interests.  This is a very obvious process - we start atnursery school and eventually might go on to do post graduate work.  I saw a programme about Stephen Hawkins recently and he certainly has an intellect!

 Turning to intuition that is more a silent process and generally not taught in schools.  However, as children we learn by observation how the world works and we develop knowing that is outside our conscious awareness.  Our intuition will communicate with us in non verbal, silent ways for example it will give us a "gut feel" about something and at the time we might not know what that was about.  A little time later it all makes sense so our intuition is fast and often it takes a while for our conscious mind to catch up. 

 What our unconscious mind - intuition - picks up are small signals, makes and judgement about it.  For example, a racing car driver who was approaching a bend suddenly found himself braking hard.  He did not know why but then as he turned into the bend there was a accident ahead and if he had carried on at his normal speed he would have crashed himself.  Was this intuition?  Well yes and no because later he realised he had seen something out of the ordinary which made him brake.  On previous circuits the crowd were looking at him as he approached the bend.  This time they were facing towards the bend and with hindsight he realised they were looking at the crash.  His unconcious processing knew what ahead was not usual and so put the brakes on.  There are lots more examples like this which explains how intuition works.

 Hope this helps!!

 

Logic Went All The Way In The Letter

Umer: [with a yearning heart] I deeply respect math and see in it, through an eye of admirer of Allah, a promising beauty of order, stability and symmetry. Since its all made of humans, it appears to me somewhat challenging, though, for I find difficulty while seeing things through an eye of scientist- which is of course very different in imaging things like him. My intuitions as a scientist, which acc to Einstein is the only really valuable thing, are crude and unrealiable. These wounds have origins in my past for I had not made a life-long struggle, a consistent effort on realizing things about mathematics. Very poor is my past record. But the problem failed solution more because of the ills and evils prevailing about me thrusted on a child's wonder by our society- people serving as teachers, or should I must say destroying a learner's heaven a school, have no talent for authentic creativity and no reverence for cognitive processes, they dull our minds if we don't struggle against it.
          Yes, in my intellectual carrer I failed to do that and passed on over years as lame duck cramming beautiful curious theories and formula, of course, without any realization of them. This is to me pathetic. I now find even anelementary book on this subject a sea of trouble yet I am conscious of the fact that for any breakthrough of great magnitude in field of economics, especially when doing Ph.D, one needs to be a deep and rigorous knower of mathematic. But I hope that with patience and deep meditations; with slow pace, I can get to the bottom of all that seemed to me mysterious.. What your experiences and illuminations have been with math?

Master Khuram: 

Hello, 

Thanks for sharing your ideas... 

Well, I see mathematics as a sub-descipline of Logic. To me, mathematics is the logic of quantities, directions, dimensions and numbers [and, to me is beauty, symmetry...]. Mathematics deal with these things either in material or abstract terms [my point-of-view changed here]. By taking mathematics as a branch of Logic, I am against over-emphasis on mathematics in scientific research methodologies [needs debating here, well let's read fully]. I am against it because officially accepted scientific research method doesn't employ "logic",,, even doesn't want to employ logic... Scientific research method only talks about mathematics. I am not so inspired of any superiority of mathematics. While I am happy with mathematics if it is considered as a branch of logic. [Emphasis added by me]

 Modern Science community even doesn't like any kind of rational or logical analysis. I have explained this thing in my following article: 

Nature of Science - Rational or Empirical…???

Below I m sharing what I wrote on this issue here and there on the Internet:

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

``It is by intuition that we discover and by logic that we prove.`` Henri Poincare, Mathematician...


I want to add that more prcise name of ``intuition`` is actually ``analogical inference``. Whereas branch of logic whose function is to ``prove`` is the ``deductive logic``.

All types of logic works only on sensory data.

There are two main types of ``sensory data``.

First type is ``ordinary or routine sensory information``.

Second type is ``planned``, or ``controlled``, or ``experimental``, or ``laboratory`` oriented sensory information or data.

First type generates ``analogical inferences``, or so-called ``intuitions``.

Then we confirm the validity of analogical inferences through ``controlled observations``, or ``experiments``. 

Then we SHOULD apply deductive logic with the view to interpret the experimental confirmations. Then we should Prove our interpretation by using deductive logic.

---------------------------------------------------------

Scientist do not know what is ``knowledge`` because Knowledge, being an abstract entity, is outside the scope of study of science.

Scientists do not study ``logic`` as well. Because they consider it something opposite to that something about which they know nothing i.e. ``knowledge``.

Even scientific theories take their birth iside of human mind. You cannot say that scientific theories come outside of mind. Mind is also an abstract entity. It is not the physical brain. Scioentists only study physical brain and they don`t study ``mind``. Study of physical brain only can tell reasons of some psychological or other neurological disorders etc. Study of physical brain cannot tell just how scientific or other theories take birth inside of ``mind``. Only study of ``mind`` can tell it.

Only Philosophers can know how any theory can take birth inside of mind. Because only they study such abstract things as ``mind``. So Philosophers can legitimately give their opinion on any theory including scientific theories as well.

Scientists are very poor in abstract conceptions. They can see only visible and solid things which they can count or measure. They become very happy if they successfully count or measure some solid or any detectable entity. That is why they study only mathematics. I was also very much inspired by mathematics when I was not mentally so mature. Just measuring and counting is not equivalent to ``knowledge``.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

``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 replies 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.`` 
 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Secondly, you say that scientists are expert of mathematics, which is strict form of logic.

Here I accept that scientists are expert of mathematics. But Mathematics is not the only ``strict`` form of logic. Deductive Logic is also strict form of logic. Inductive logic is lose form of logic but most of our thinking exists in inductive form. Are scientists not interested in the facts regarding the characteristics of their own minds (i.e. thinking)...???

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

 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``. 

(or can be seen on my following article) 

Nature of Science - Rational or Empirical…???

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.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

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? 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [...] -- 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 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.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------  

 [...]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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

``David Hume wrote about divinity and metaphysics as follows: 

[...]``If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.`` 

Blind faith is risky, to say the least.``[...]

Anyways, I always use to smile whenever I happen to see this famous quotation by David Hume. This quotation itself doesn`t contain any such rational reasoning which can have anything to do with quantity or number. It also doesn`t contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence.

Anyhow, there is nothing solid on which to agree with David Hume on this issue.

******
 End.

[Satisfied?] [And, please do share if your views conflict with given ones.]