Paleoanthropology and Evolution of Humankind

Re: # 36

well kamath, first of all we shouldn`t include Gandi in our converstion because he himself was no good for his own people, whenever he said and did for purly political not for the sake of humanity, he was only taking popularity by his half naked act. By the way, your so called great Gandi has tken others credit and has straighten his own neck, such example are his 3 monkey when was given in the the HOLY QURAN as `` SUMMMUN BOQMUN OMUN FA HUM LA YARJAHOON`` which tranlates in english as we have made the unbeliever blind deaf and dum, which your gandi has taken credit for by adding his damm evolutionary ancester. Futhermore, its in indian history that great philosopher (in majority were and still are muslim not buddist or hindu. Beside if you do a little more research then you`ll gonna find that israel on the other hand is the world olders civilization as human activities originated from that part of the world. When muslim rular conquer poor and dead india then some historical made was established. India consider themselve as the creater of zero and boost themselve as the mastermind but the truth my dear is something else, zero was invented by many civilization but turned out to be very different in design.

When islamic era arosed, muslim scientist translated every single bit of information and compiled them together for their research work and studies. they later notice that zero meaning this circle shape ``0`` is more easily to generate and means a lot therefore they made indian symbol of zero popular and that what india still takes credit for, which is a total misconception. if you don`t trust me then maybe you may have encarta encyclopedia check that out.

On the contrary M.Gill works is far more then professional 2 thumps up

Re: # 34
burpinder yaa`r:
I read many years ago a book by eminent economist Kenneth Galbraith-an author of at least two dozen + plus books. He wrote, ``... some write for others and some write for their own enjoyment ..``. Tell me why should M.Gill be guided by a criterion set by others? Why shouldn`t he write to interact with other`s ideas for his own intellectual gratification or even simple enjoyment? Reading from diverse cultures, societies etc should make you a bit more curious and humble and acknowledge immense contributions by others and diverse societies.

Libraries are everywhere in N.America and costs you absolutely nothing. Why not spend your time reading one book, just one, a year than listening to Bhangra and watching bollywood movies?

Reading good books makes a person a better citizen, yaa`r.,

kamath:

Thanks for the correction. I mixed up Radhakrishnan with Rajendra Prasad. I was making a point that there are many varieties of philosophy and philosophers. While there are many, many philosophers and metaphysicians in India and Pakistan, there is a scarcity of philosophers of science in both countries.

Mr. Burpinder, thanks for your suggestion. I am basically what I am. I read many books and papers not for the sake of imitating any particular author. I don`t like so many books myself; it is natural. If I find that a certain book is not to my taste, I leave it alone. I don`t blame the book nor the author. I haven`t read any Harry Potter`s book nor, I hope, shall I. But that doesn`t mean there is anything wrong with them. There are many who appreciate and love them. Thanks nonetheless for your comments.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 32
FYI
Rajendra Prasad became the first president of India. His qualifications were a devout follower of Gandhian politics, a long time freedom fighter and by training alawyer-a Vakil to be more exact. Nothing else. He is not a philosopher in any sense!

Perhaps the most eminent philosophers of India in modern times was Srvapalli Radhakrishnan. He was a prof of religion in Mysore university, and Oxford and Harvard etc, a prolific author of many books, ambassdor to Russia in 40`s, Chancellor of Banaras Hindu university, finally Preident of India. He was well known to architect of bringing Indian Philosophy to the attention of the West and great collaborator in writings with other Western Philosophers. He was really a universal man.

India has along history of so many philosophers in Hinduism and Buddhism over the past 2 millenia both in thiestic , agnostic and athiestic philosophies. Philosophical ideas of Buddhism travelled to China from 1st century BCE to 10th century AD. It made extraordinary penetrations in Chinese civillizations, Sri Lanka, Burma Indonesia, Near East and far East . This is only in a nutshell. That is why India more than a just a country. It is one of the oldest world civilizations of great historic depth.

Did Dr.Gill purchase a copy of the esteemed author JK Rowling`s latest literary work Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince?.Oh, i forgot, they are sure to have a copy at the Detroit Public Library.

Dr. Gill,

I have no beef with your writings. I just think they are dry and academic. If you really want a guide to writing science books ``for the masses``, I suggest you read Bill Bryson`s Ä Short History of Almost Everything``. I am not comparing your training and scientific acumen with Bryson in any way(!) but am speaking purely from a stylistic perspective.

I am sick of the assumption of several on this thread, including BeeJay who for some reason always uses my name in quotes, that I don`t appreciate your articles because I am not capable of understanding them.

Thanks a lot.

Re: # 30

Oh God!!.If this isn`t the holy grail of `kissing up`??.Shady?.You clean as a whistle, eh?.

BeeJay:

There is no need for you to be apologetic about lack of philosophers in India. Dr. Rajendra Prasad was of international fame. Of course, what may probably be lacking are the Philosophers of Science. India has produced some great scientists such as S. Bose (a particle is named after him which is called boson) and Chandrasekhar (of the fame of blackholes), among others.

Mohammad Gill

#28 Freethinker

Thanks Dr. Gill. I admit that Philosophy is not exactly an easy subject for lowly janitors. However, I have often wondered why things did not evolve in the same way in the Indian subcontinent. Who are our philosophers? And why didn’t we develop the same analytical thinking, which could have perhaps been the preliminary foundation for a sound scientific approach to solve our problems? I realize that this could become a topic which could be discussed at length, so I would perhaps not expect (and in view of the seriousness which I attach to it, would not prefer) an answer here on this board. But I will be extremely happy if at some point in time, you considered an article along those lines – comparing the “European/Western” versus the “Desi/subcontinental” evolution of the scientific thought processes, in particular who were our (subcontinental) giants and which factors held us back over time! I also believe that an article along those lines will give us some very useful insight into ourselves (not to mention the fact that it will probably appeal to a much wider audience).

#various
Cayenne, Kaura, “Burpinder”, and other shady (I emphasize though – not seedy) creatures of the chowk jungle

I would like to thank you all from the bottom of my heart for making me look so much better in Dr. Gill’s book – strictly by comparison, of course! And after all the naughty things that I have done, too!

This is what i inferred from `reading` this essay.........

Q: What do monkeys wear when they are cooking?

A: Ape-rons

---

Q: Why do apes have big nostrils?

A: Because they have big fingers!

---

Q: What is a monkey`s favourite flower?

A: A chim-pansy!!

---

What do you call a bad-tempered gorilla?

A: Sir!

---

kauray, how can there be any doubt now, that the chimpanzee cannot be our ancestor??.Unless ofcourse, a chimpanzee could have explained it better???.

BeeJay:

Philosophy and science are intertwined to some extent. But when you disentangle their knots, the differences start becoming apparent. Philosophy is literally pursuit of wisdom. According to the Webster dictionary, philosophy is a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means. Observational data, on the other hand, is the bedrock of science.

Philosophy began with rational concepts, hypotheses, and theories with the Greek philosophers. At that time, science was not a separate discipline; it was part of philosophy. Aristotle`s philosophy included physics and the branch of philosophy that he discussed after physics, he called metaphysics. This tradition of including science in philosophy was so well-entrenched that even until now, the research degrees in science (even engineering) are called Ph.D`s (doctorate in philosophy). Greek philosophy put a great deal of emphasis on rational thinking without bothering to verify their theories by actual observations of the phenomena they were speculating about. As a consequence, Earth became the centre of the universe and Galileo had to suffer house arrest for challenging this precept.

In the twentieth century, philosophy has largely been disentangled from science. A scientific theory has to have empirical verification.

If you needed to discuss this issue further, I would be glad to do so. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

#25 by kaurasach
[…the problem with internet interactions is that we are limited in our ability to communicate clearly.]
Yes Kaura, go for it! He is listed in the phone book!

#24 by freethinker
[…But let me mention also that philosophy is not science.]
Then why is it that one of the earliest Scientific journals was the “Philosophical Journal”?

#22 by kaurasach
[… to a point that I think I`ve a psychological disorder.]
You realize of course that you are handing over to MANY people here some powerful ammunition for the future.

[…. I do not claim to be a genius - just immitating their habits.]
Very un-chowk-like – in both respects!

kaura:
Our exchange was really good. This is the way I can appreciate criticism. I can at least respond if I know what the other person is talking about. I believe that snide remarks are demeaning of the person who is making them. Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill

Mr Gill,

my final thoughts - even if philosophy is not a science, one can apply the concepts and knowledge of one discipline to another. Many significant inventions were produced by imaginative persons who were not confined to the rigid line and theories.

the computer was `invented` by a weaver. no empirical data is needed to form a scientifically or natural theory. michaelangelo and other renaissance inventors used mostly imagination to invent.

the wonders of ancient world were achieved by simple observation. their empirical data gathering was negligible to today`s.

this should be in no way taken as insignificance of empirical data.

the problem with internet interactions is that we are limited in our ability to communicate clearly. yet it was a good exchange.

rgrds,

kaura


Cayenne,

there is no solid proof or fact that we and chimpanzees have or have not a common ``ancestor``. For the same reasons, our common ancestor is also a common ancestor of an amoeba, reptiles, if we go far back with the theory of evolution.

Kaura:

A good scientist, whose views really matter, does not support or reject a theory without evidence. I gave instance of the Piltdown man in my article. Although it was a hoax, it took more than forty years before it was proven that it was a hoax.

Let me give you an example of original work. It took me almost three years to publish my first paper on regime theory (sediment transport in canals). My theoretical work was all done and was consistent. My paper was put on tenterhooks insisting that I should support my theoretical work (formulas) with empirical data, which I didn’t have. When I went to Imperial College and got the data from the library and gave empirical support to my work, only then the paper was published. I have learnt my lessons the hard way. Your subjective opinion is as good (or bad) as anybody else’s. Why bother to press it?

I also noted that you mentioned about your philosophical background, which is admirable. But let me mention also that philosophy is not science. I can give you factual examples where a scientific fact was found different from a philosophical thesis. You said, “Theories are not fact,” but good theories are derived from (empirical) facts.”. Or, in other words, a theory is not a scientific theory until it is verified by empirical data.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill