ബൂലോകത്തു ഉത്തരം മുട്ടുമ്പോല് കൊഞ്ഞനം കുത്തുന്നതും, തെറി വിളിക്കുന്നതും കണ്ടിട്ടുണ്ടു , പക്ഷേ താങ്കളുടെ പ്രതികരണം ഒരു പുത്തന് അനുഭവം ആയിരുന്നു.
Two days back when i wrote the following comment, never in my wildest dreams i was expecting a reply of the kind which i got later from Mr. Hussain. As you can see, i was pointing out his odd behavior of asking for replies without even reading 2-3 my previous comments. First i thought he was doing only with me. Then i saw he shot a similar question to another blogger - Manushya
Mr. Hussain, Is this a new one from your bag of infinite tricks ? Manushya had sent a reply 8 hrs before you sent this mail. You have been asking for response from intelligent readers. From his arguments, i can see you finally got one. But i am pretty sure you will be in a perpetual state of being an unsinkable rubber duck even with him. Yesterday you posted a comment to me without even reading my 2-3 comments posted before. /JR
Instead Hussain re-appeared donning the role of Sherlock Holmes by accusing me of creating another blogger identity - Manushya and started refuting his comments. He claims to have found the evidence based on two observations after a paragraph of bragging how intelligent he is and nobody can con him easily because he isn't short of information and logic. You can read the full paragraph below.
There are a lot of tricks that are played by the actors in accordance with their ability.I shall provide you an apparent example.Same person uses different identities, one original and the other fabricated to get rid of the trap he is holed in.But a person may be able to forge an extra name , email or passport but he cannot effectively manufacture an entirely different language style ,logic or information and thus he would be trapped by a smart intelligence officer. The problem is he was dumb enough to think that there is only one or two ways to identify a bogus man. In my case, there is no need of such tricks ,even a single one. Particularly because I’m not short of information and logic.
(1)I had already replied to all of your arguments and it was you people who failed to provide me explanation for my many critical comments( Jack in one stage declared to withdraw without giving an explanation for many points ).
The point is he thinks he has replied to all (mine and Manushya's arguments) and instead we have a backlog to his questions.
Earlier i had posted a saying i have stopped replying to him and i will join the debate only if he tries to hoodwink the readers by misrepresenting any scientific facts and none has yet pointed out. Later he posted a in a discussion between me and Subair which prompted me to join back again.
Let us see his first evidence
(2)Both people equally and exactly misunderstood my word ‘generalisation’( an intelligent person can easily identify this as a case of an identity fabrication). In the philosophy of science generalisation means inductive reasoning.A law is generalised by inductive reasoning on the basis of a limited observation.This induction rules out exceptions. Without understanding this primary notion in philosophy of science you blunderous identical twins have written so many wastes . Both people equally and exactly misunderstood my word ‘generalisation’( an intelligent person can easily identify this as a case of an identity fabrication). In the philosophy of science generalisation means inductive reasoning.A law is generalised by inductive reasoning on the basis of a limited observation.This induction rules out exceptions. Without understanding this primary notion in philosophy of science you blunderous identical twins have written so many wastes
Long story short, he is finding both Manushya and myself aren't agreeing with his version of philosophy of science and how science is practiced. Both of us raise same objection to his understanding what does a scientific law means and the role of observations which agrees and disagrees with the law. (I will reply on this later below). His reply was later followed by taking my comments and replying to Manushya and vice versa.
Second evidence was both of us pooh-poohed his knowledge in quantum mechanics and both of us objected to his statement that quantum mechanics has led to the demise of rationalism ( I haven't quoted his comments here. Interested readers can refer to his comments on my previous post)
So based on these two evidences he applied his reasoning and infers both Manushya and myself are same person and accused me of forging an identity (Manushya) and mounting a similar attack to relieve the pressure on Jack rabbit.
Let us see whether our smart intelligent officer is closer to Sherlock Holmes or to Jacques Clouseau (starring Peter Sellers). I wish he had read A Study in Scarlet to learn more of Holmes' methods.
Let us see what evidence he has left out to make this conclusion. (There is no surprise here as Hussain thinks scientific laws are generalization by leaving out exceptions)
1. I have been debating Hussain for more than two weeks now. We have had three long mail exchanges on which any intelligent reader can figure out what was the conclusion
2. We have discussed many topics covering logic, cosmology, evolution, philosophy, quantum mechanics etc. So far Manushya's (no offense inteneded) comments were restricted to philosophy of science and quantum mechanics.
3. Any smart investigator always looks for what was the motive for any crime. Here i had no motive to mount a separate attack as i wasn't the one trailing on the arguments. Being an anonymous blogger (for professional reasons) i stand to gain nothing from my posts/comments in terms of recognition and acceptance from anybody. Only thing i get is a feedback from many readers whether there was any flaw in my understanding which i had overlooked. So from my side, the material incentives are almost none to continue or discontinue the debate.
Let us examine it from Mr. Hussain's side. Hussain desperately wants to show he is the last man standing in the debate by any means and was always on the top. It is understandable as he is the only one who is making a living out of these by royalties from his books (mis-representing evolution, Holocaust denial..), giving talks etc. So is it the act of desperation to silence the opposition and to continue his magnum opus of remaining 28 articles refuting Dawkins ?
Or could it be something else ? The very act is a text book example of Fregoli delusion.
The Fregoli delusion or the delusion of doubles is a rare disorder in which a person holds a delusional belief that different people are in fact a single person who changes appearance or is in disguise. The syndrome may be related to a brain lesion, and is often of a paranoid nature with the delusional person believing themselves persecuted by the person they believe is in disguise.
As you saw earlier, Hussain thought he was being attacked by me (Jack Rabbit) and a clone/twin (he is calling all these names) - Manushya and both are same persons. (QED)
This isn't the first time Hussain is showing delusion of any kind. Remember his classic self description -ലോകോത്തര നിരീശ്വരവാദ ബുദ്ധിജീവിയായ ഡോക്കിന്സിന്റെ ഒരു കൃതിയെ തന്നെ ഖണ്ഡിക്കാന് ഇറങ്ങിത്തിരിച്ച ഞാന് . This is an example of delusions of grandeur.
Bertrand Russell has once said: "One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important".
Some of his well wishers fan those flames
എനിക്കു തോന്നുന്നത് ഹുസൈന് സാറുമായി സംവദിക്കാന് കഴിവുള്ളവരൊന്നും ബൂലോകത്ത് ഇല്ല എന്നാണ്.ഡോക്കിന്സോളമില്ലെങ്കിലും വേണ്ടില്ല മിനിമം ഒരു ശങ്കരാചാര്യരുടെ നിലവാരമെങ്കിലും വേണ്ടെ? അതു പോലുമില്ലാത്തവരുമായി സംവദിക്കാനേ പോകരുത് എന്നാണ് എന്റെ എളിയ അഭിപ്രായം.
From all these discussions, i can safely conclude that Hussain needs somebody from Shankara's era to win a debate on scientific arguments.
On the other hand, it is quite likely Hussain may argue i thought and planned about all these in advance to put him in a trap or i may even be an intellectual crusader recruited by CIA/Mossad to denigrate our "self-styled public intellectual" in front of his well wishers and publishers (if anyone is reading).
Let me conclude this post by replying to Hussain's few blunders (always coming up like an unsinkable rubber duck)
(1) Both people(Manushyan) equally and exactly misunderstood my word ‘generalisation’( an intelligent person can easily identify this as a case of an identity fabrication). In the philosophy of science generalisation means inductive reasoning.A law is generalised by inductive reasoning on the basis of a limited observation.This induction rules out exceptions. Without understanding this primary notion in philosophy of science you blunderous identical twins have written so many wastes. Your assertion shows a lack of exposure to scientific methodology”. “In short, scientific laws doesn't represent 99.99% of observations, but 100% of observations. There are no exceptions here. If there were one, law would have been dead. ...”
Here Hussain is acting like Aristotle. Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths.
Hussain could have checked by searching for the definition of scientific law.
This was the original definition i gave and i still stand by that. See how it ends. Scientific laws have always been observed to be true.
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
I challenge Hussain to show a scientific law which fail for some exceptions.
This was one of the issues Manushya and I agree where Hussian was horribly wrong.
Lord Kelvin famously remarked there are only two small clouds in the clear sky of understanding of 19th century physicists. Infact those two clouds, Michelson-Morley expt and black body radiation resulted in relativity and quantum mechanics respectively. Imagine what would have happened if we continue to generalize and threw out those exceptions.
(2) Regarding the philosophical impact of QM, Jack Rabbit quoted my words as follows:
“In the case of Quantum Mechanics,See the following words of Dr.Paul Davies: “… the new physics …find closer accord with mysticism than materialism”.
Actually what I claimed was a simple and widely accepted observation on philosophical impact of QM.But Jack and Manushyan are ignorant followers of blind materialism.Please remember that though Davies is a populariser of science,he is a reputed physicist also and got his PhD in QM”.
What was his reply? See:
See one of my old post on Paul Davies here
Also see Paul Davies' own reply from his site after getting Templeton prize to advance the world's understanding of God and/or spirituality
I carefully read both of these links but there was no counter explanation against my view in these posts.Moreover both of these pieces were not even slightely related with issue in the discussion that is philosophical impact of QM. So this is an outright lie and deception from the part of Mr.Jack Rabbit.
I cannot help if you aren't able to understand it. It clearly has Paul Davies' views and response by scientists like Lee Smolin. If you think Quantum mechanics is closer to mysticism, how democratic and repeatable are mystic experiences compared to quantum mechanical effects ?
(3) Hussain's words: “In the case of evolution, there is no systematic fossil record. It is really very jerky and you people manufacture a theory out of this exceptions. This shows your approach regarding the knowledge itself is unscientific and irrational. On the other hand , we reject Darwinism on the basis of systematic gaps in the fossil record which very much in accordance with the spirit of science.”
“It is not even two days you paraded your ignorance on evolution.
The following paragraph was my reply to Prof. Wahid also.
Fossilization is a rare occurrence in nature as it demands special conditions. Creationists demand to see fossil records like a movie film roll to agree. Even if we had no fossils, by comparison of sequences (of DNA, RNA and proteins) alone and molecular phylogenetics analysis prove evolution. For those who are looking for a popular account of this, refer to Sean Carroll's The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution. Since you are completely ignorant on this, ask any person who is doing molecular biology or population genetics to verify my statement
Hussain's reply: Your explanation for the rarity of transitional fossils is simply false. Almost all transitional fossils go missing in all important places.This is not due to the rarity of fossilization process. Molecular similarities in no way prove an evolutionary relationship ( For details see the book EVOLUTION : A THEORY IN CRISIS by Dr.Michael Denton)
As i said earlier, no wonder you demand to see all transitional fossils. It is like you have a list of all transitional fossils. You are quoting Denton who initially sided with Christian creationists and left the camp later. You don't even know Sean Carroll. He is world's leading evo-devo biologist. I repeat my statement, even if we hadn't discovered any fossils, we could still figure out evolution happened from many other fields in biology. You are living in a fossil age or stuck in a time-warp to always ask for transitional fossils as if it were the ONLY proof for evolution.
Even NON-SCIENTIFIC BODIES like Catholic Pope in Vatican and judicial courts in US rule in favor of evolution against the Christian creationists (with whom you agree) based on overwhelming evidence. Think who has a bigger face to lose if they are wrong and so how much evidence they might have examined. Or is this another example of delusions of grandeur. ?
(4) See my words and subsequent comment by Jack:
“ Secondly, in the subatomic world fluctuations are a temporary phenomenon and it does not violate cause and effect relationship.
What do you mean by temporary ? What is the timescale you use to differentiate between temporary and permanent ? Do you know aboutCassimir effect and it can be experimentally measured ?”
Firstly, you should study QM. It is a known fact that virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space.Don’t try to teach me any effect as that would affect your remaining image.Actually , you are a wondrful idiot parading as an expert in QM.
Virtual particles aren't special particles. They are same matter/anti-matter particles like electron and positron. Ask anybody who is working in sub-atomic physics or spectroscopy what is the life time of their particles (not even virtual particles) under observation ? You can read my replies to Subair on this issue more. I don't want to repeat all those again here.
(5) There are a number of research journals being published by religious people . Creation Research quarterly , Muslim education quarterly, MASS Journal of Islamic Science,American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences ,Journal for christian theological research,Journal of Creation,Biblical Archaeology Review, Archaeology Odyssey,Biblical Archaeology Review,Biblical Astronomer journal etc. etc.
What kind of research is being published in these journals ? See what Manushya replied to Subair
So stop extrapolating things from both ends. I mean from both ends- i.e., from your scriptures (interpret in such a way that it looks to predict all that science says) and from science (twisting scientific facts and cherry picking to support scriptures). So long theists refrain from the above two, I see no conflicts arising
Most of the research is in middle ground to show scientific evidence for statements in scriptures to get more approval from educated believers. Mr. Hussain, do you agree with conclusions of Christian creationist journals ? Or as earlier, you would like to evade the question and want to reply that you agree in the broad conclusions only and not worried about details. Can anybody get a job in academia or industry (respectable science and technology institution) with research papers published in these journals ? Can you point out at least one ? See my discussion with Subair. Even the creationist leaning Philosopher William Craig published his arguments in a mainstream Philosophy journal and didn't choose any creationist journal. Simply there exists some journals doesn't mean experts value their impact similarly.
(6) Actually you (Appottan) and your atheist tribal people like Jack are living in stone age.
I thought you are a person who denies evolution. Where did you get the concept of stone age and what happened there ? As far as i know, people in any of the religious scriptures never lived in Stone age. It started around 2.5milliion years ago when early hominids were around and was over by around 10,000 BC.
Or is it another Freudian slip ?