Scientism
©Prax Maskaren, Bombay. 21st March 2003.
An Indian Anesthesiologist in Arkansas has thrown me a challenge, superciliously attacking some unstated position of mine. Once again, and for the last time, I challenge him to point out specific errors... and refute his basic premise: my 'ignorance'.
From: Srikanthan Kandasamy
To: Prax Maskaren
Subject: your Letter
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:38:51 -0600
Prakash,
Go back to primary school and read some history and Geography. Improve your IQ
Good Luck
SK
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 05:47:18 +0000 (GMT)
From: Prax Maskaren
Subject: Re: your Letter
To: Srikanthan Kandasamy
Perhaps you could be more specific? Of course, you may think of yourself as the present avartar of Albert Einstein, but since that blinding insight has not yet dawned upon us peasants, you might condescend to get off your high hobby horse and bestow some of your great intellect upon us.
Prax Maskaren
Scientism
Am I ignorant? That would depend on the definer.
I am certainly not omniscient, nor do I aspire to be. I am certainly not all wise, nor do I even pretend that I am a wise man: I know my defects and my limitations. As some poet once wrote, "The fool that knows that he is a fool, a pundit at least in this he is." I confess to be one such fool.
Recently somebody wrote me a letter right out of the blue. I do not know this man, and he does not say what he is reacting to, except that it is in response to some letter I had written. Now of course I write a lot, but am not aware of having written him any. Therefore, I do not know what his problem is or what he perceives my defect to be. But of course, merely from the letter I can deduce certain facts: 1. that its author labours, as is customary in his class, under a delusion that because he is, for example, a medical doctor, he is therefore constituted an arbiter of all knowledge. 2. That he believes that I am deficient in knowledge in all aspects (this in evident reaction to my 'one' letter, which he does not specify).
I confess to a grievance at this strange and unexplained attack, and I do not think that I am unreasonable in demanding an explanation, or a clarification: It is not unreasonable of me, I hope, to resent being attacked by a perfect stranger and for no explained cause. However, my assailant thinks that he is above all this, perhaps precisely because he is so wise that he does not need to exchange words with the hoi polloi, or perhaps by doing so he would pollute his Brahminic purity.
On the contrary, if he thinks that by his unexplained attack, I will be disturbed and distracted and unable to attend to any other issue while he chuckles off in his dark corner to himself about his brilliance, he is misguided. For I will allow myself to be distracted only so much and no farther. When I receive no reply to this, I shall assume that my assailant attacked me for no other reason than that he suffers from momentary fits of insanity and put it out of my mind.
It is one of the modern delusions, and especially it is so among the technicians of the various 'sciences', (such as for example, some anesthesiologist in the University of Arkansas, Srikanthan Kandasamy, M.D.), that because they are 'scientists' or experts in some or the other field, they have been confirmed as being arbiters of thought on one and all subjects. And so, these modern druids and shamans condescend to pontificate upon one subject or the other, of which they are blissfully ignorant of even the basics, confident that they are the oracles of living wisdom. But this ignorantism masquerading as science is not really science but that foolish delusion that is fondly called scientism, and which is more precisely called pseudo-science.
It is one such idiot who would have me restudy history and geography. That is because I have overcome the utter nonsense that I was fed in the Indian school system and have begun to think for myself and to find that all the old nostrums fed me in school are mere garbage.
Thus for example, I was taught in school that India was ruled by the British. I ask, Where they British, or were they English? If British, do they speak British? But no, they speak English! The conundrum is explained when one examines the history of 'Britain' and finds that it is a fraud, a concotion by Protestant traitors endeavouring to destroy Catholic England, Catholic Scotland and Catholic Ireland by forging a new, Protestant 'nation'.
I was taught that India was a British Colony. Now a colony is composed of people who are descended from the mother country or city that sent out the colonists, and the place they colonized is called the colony. And in a colony, naturally enough, the population must be predominantly made up of the colonists or immigrants, not of the aborigines.
So, is or was India a British Colony? Of course not!
The confusion is explained when one sees that dependencies are being confused with colonies. They are not necessarily the same. A dependency might be converted into a colony, but, on the other hand, not. Again, it is not necessary that a colony should be dependent upon its metropolis but it can be independent from day one.
I was taught that the British committed atrocities in India. I ask, if so, why did and do you not bring up the issue and agitate for justice? Why are those who are accused of being the perpetrators of these crimes not being pursued and sought as criminals? The logic of this fails me.
I was taught that India is a nation. But a nation is a naturally occuring entity, not an artifice. And a nation is defined by its unique language. Now, it is a fact that India has no one unique language. Therefore, it is not true that India is a nation. But India is inhabitated by many nations, most of which have a relationship between themselves, and this unity of these nations can be called a family of nations.
The Concept of India as a nation is a modern and state dogma, one that is religiously imbibed into pupils. But it has no foundation in fact.
Again, therefore, Hindi is not India's national language. In fact, it is a contrived tongue.
And so on and on. In all this, I have followed faithfully at least one thing that I was taught in school, as a concept, although I was never taught or encouraged to follow it and even punished for applying it: Everyone must think for oneself!
And I have demonstrated, amply I hope, that I have originality and intelligence, though it is not for me to boast and blow my own trumpet. But it is an idolator of handed-down human knowledge as incontrovertible and irreformable that takes issue with me.
I am always ready to meet any such challenge. Will the great Professor of anesthesiology condescend to cross swords with me? I am willing to meet with him in debate at any time.
Prax Maskaren