Why I oppose the Aryan invasion theory

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by aneeshm


When I was a child, with no preconceived notions, I read those books, because I was taught them. Because I was Brahmin, I did not develop a sense of hatred for upper castes after reading them. Later, when I thought about what I had learnt, I realised that a sense of hatred is precisely what they will encourage everyone except the upper castes to develop. Now I'm looking for proof of this.

Isn't that how the scientific method functions?

Observation (reading for the first time, without bias)
Hypothesis (that they are biased against upper castes)
Experimentation to convert hypothesis into theory (me going looking for evidence confirming my views).





And by the way, I've gone and bought the books for standard six, seven, eight, and nine. Reports to follow (our college is off for the next few days, so I'll have plenty of free time).

I was responding to something else entirely, check the thread to see.
You are changing subject, as usual.

see KH's post for what I was talking about.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by aneeshm


I formed my theories when I was looking at the thing without bias.

Right.
I must have imagined the part where you explained how you were going to copy paste all and only the parts that agreed with your point of view.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


Right.
I must have imagined the part where you explained how you were going to copy paste all and only the parts that agreed with your point of view.

The first time I read them was when I was taught them, in school. I was actually biased just slightly towards them, at that time. This is my second reading, and it's only this time that I'm looking for stuff confirming my suspicions or views.

[aneeshm]

Just to give people here an example of the sort of people I oppose, who use this theory for their own political ends, I'd use the communists.

They supported the British against Gandhi.
They supported the partition of India.
They supported China during the India-China war of 1962.

The lot of them are unpatriotic bastards, who have actively worked against Indian interests in the past. If I had my way, I'd deport them to the China they so praise. Let's see how long they can last before they come begging for us to allow them back .

[Barnabas]

Why are you against the partition of india, would you rather have a few more hundreds of millions of muslims inside your country?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Why are you against the partition of india, would you rather have a few more hundreds of millions of muslims inside your country?

They supported partition not for any ideological reason, but because they wanted Muslim votes and support, which they perceived would lie with the partitionists.

As for partition - I've already thought that it was horribly implemented. Ideally, it should have been a peaceful transfer of populations over a period of five to fifteen years, with the government making it clear that people who stayed on the wrong side were not welcome. They could have stopped the process when, say, Muslims constituted less than 5 % or 3 % of the population (the same for Hindus on the other side), thus removing the possibility of communal strife or religious problems - you don't bother with people you consider insignificant, do you?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The scientific method would be: forming an opinion based on the ruling scientific paradigm.. Coming up with possible things which would contradict your opinion. Coming up with possible things which would confirm your opinion. Explaining away all of the things that contradict your opinion. Dying. A new generation of scientists looks at all of this. Establish a new paradigm that better fits the preponderance of data. Ignoring the data that doesnt fit. Dying. Repeating until forever.

Fixed, as per TS Kuhn

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Fixed, as per TS Kuhn

Feyerabend, Kuhn... You going to pull out Lakatos in a third thread?

[Arrian]

with the government making it clear that people who stayed on the wrong side were not welcome

****ing hell. You really think this would've been a good solution?

Granted that what actually took place isn't particularly good either...

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Fixed, as per TS Kuhn

Some scientists do that. A lot don't. The scientific community has ways of "correcting" the excesses...

[KrazyHorse]

Individual scientists can't get very far. Everybody has mental blocks, or preconceived notions. But everybody's weaknesses are unique. So when you publish, those without your weaknesses can fix your stuff, etc.

My point is that it's rare to see a scientist so totally devoted to a hypothesis that all they do is publish stuff in support of it. Those who do are often known for that, which is not an enviable reputation to have. Older scientists often fall into this trap. Especially those with significant accomplishments which were rendered obsolete.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


****ing hell. You really think this would've been a good solution?

Granted that what actually took place isn't particularly good either...

-Arrian

It would have been a hundred times better than what has happened now.

Hundreds of thousands die during partition.

Pakistan effectively genocides the Hindus unlucky enough to have chosen to stay back after it becomes an Islamic republic.

Muslims retreat into their ghettoes in India, and feel alienated and provide local support for terrorists.


Is this what you want?

I'd rather be politically incorrect, learn from history, say that Muslims and Hindus cannot co-exist, and peacefully partition the country and avoid problems, instead of inflicting the current horror on so many people.

[Arrian]

Hindus and Muslims can live together peacefully, though. It may be, however, that Hindus and Muslims in 20th-century India & Pakistan could not.

Forcing people to move doesn't sound like a good solution to me. I don't think it would have prevented conflict (there would always be those who resented being forced to move, and who blamed the "other side" for it).

It's likely there was no "right way" of doing it, because no matter which approach was chosen, bad things would come of it.

Because people are *******s.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian

Hindus and Muslims can live together peacefully, though. It may be, however, that Hindus and Muslims in 20th-century India & Pakistan could not.

Forcing people to move doesn't sound like a good solution to me. I don't think it would have prevented conflict (there would always be those who resented being forced to move, and who blamed the "other side" for it).

That's the whole point! Even if they hate the other side, there would be no people of the other side to gang up against! You don't riot against people who are so small as to be insignificant, do you?

Originally posted by Arrian

It's likely there was no "right way" of doing it, because no matter which approach was chosen, bad things would come of it.

Because people are *******s.

-Arrian

In anything of this nature and size, shiŧ happens. I'm advocating a way where the least shiŧ would have happened.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Individual scientists can't get very far. Everybody has mental blocks, or preconceived notions. But everybody's weaknesses are unique. So when you publish, those without your weaknesses can fix your stuff, etc.

My point is that it's rare to see a scientist so totally devoted to a hypothesis that all they do is publish stuff in support of it. Those who do are often known for that, which is not an enviable reputation to have. Older scientists often fall into this trap. Especially those with significant accomplishments which were rendered obsolete.

This is true. The scientific community as a whole is much better at sticking to the idealised scientific process. But the overview of the scientific method that you posted in order to ridicule aneeshm is really not how the individual scientist goes about his daily activities, IMO.