A Scientific Theory is The One That Can Be Disproved

Image source: Flickr (LSE Library)

This might sound contrary to common sense. Normally, we give credence to a theory if it proves something but modern philosophy took a new turn here. Regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of 20th century, Karl Popper presented his theory of Falsifiability which gave the world a whole new vision of scientific theories.

For instance if someone asks "Does God exist?" then according to Karl Popper, this isn't a scientific theory as there is no way we can disprove it. Better still, another example I found in Dailymail post by Julian Baggini is as follows:

Similarly, you could argue that the theory that God does what is best for us is not scientific, because whatever happens, believers insist it must be for the greater good. God's goodness may be a theological claim but it's not evidential. 

It sounds rational. There's no way we can prove that whatever God does is for our own good because whatever the reason put against it, the believer will insist that the it might be for some greater good. Going further, the idea of Heaven persuades every believer that the ultimate good might be a perfect life in the midst of God's blessings in heaven. So, as Julian Baggini said, "God's goodness may be a theological claim but it's not evidential." stands correct and I think the same.
Having said that, it does not mean that the theories that can't follow the Principle of Falsifiability should be rejected or neglected. Come to think of it, many branches of social sciences can't even be considered scientific if we follow Popper but they are vital for human advancements. It's just philosophy moulding the thoughts and perception. We can't assume that only scientific theories give a pat on the back of humanity. Feelings, beliefs and their study is a foundation which supported mankind for centuries. If not for them, the world wouldn't have found it's pace by now. Myths, however non-scientific, bring out the most authentic nature of humanity. Though covered in folds of lies and secrecy, myths turn up pretty amazing stuff if you look deep.

The Picture of Dorian Gray

Image Source: Flickr (Delany Dean's Collection) 

Following is an excerpt from what I believe a truly genius novel by Oscar Wilde:

“What of Art?
-It is a malady.
--Love?
-An Illusion.
--Religion?
-The fashionable substitute for Belief.
--You are a sceptic.
-Never! Scepticism is the beginning of Faith.
--What are you?
-To define is to limit.”       (The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde)

Behind those Veils

Image Source: Flickr (Montse PB) CC by 2.0

Recently, the world media has been thrown into deep debates due to a single piece of cloth used to cover the head, face and body of a woman. Commonly named as niqab or burka, these ‘veils’ are widely associated with Islam. Though mostly associated with Islam, veils however have a history dating back to Greek civilization where it was used by women and called as kalyptra. There are three kinds of veils in use in Islam, namely:

• Hijab: It’s a dress covering all the parts of a woman’s body except the face.
• Niqab: It’s a dress covering all the parts of a woman’s body, including the face but leaving the eyes visible.
• Burka: Though uncommon but largely used in countries like Afghanistan, this is the dress covering the whole body of a woman, including the face and the eyes, leaving a mesh for the eyes to see through them. However no peripheral vision is there.

Anyway, enough with history and stuff – I might write about its history in some other post in another time. Not now though. I want you to decide if it’s acceptable or not acceptable and enlighten me in the comments after the post. For the sake of ease and understanding, I’ll be calling both niqab and burka as ‘burka’ in this post from now on.

Recently, France has banned this practice of covering faces in its public schools and places, mainly because it is a barrier against a woman’s identity. Following in France’s footsteps, Belgium did the same. With other trend-followers, burka has been put into jeopardy in modern era. Is it for the better or worse? You decide.

Not long ago, Dr. Taj Hargey, a Muslim Imam of Oxford Islamic Congregation and Director of Muslim Education Centre of Oxford launched a nationwide campaign to put a ban on burka in Britain. Apart from that, in 1899, and Egyptian scholar Qasim Amin published his book ‘The Liberation of Women’ in which he argued that face veil (or burka) should be abolished. I understand that non-Muslims have many many reasons for opposing burka but what might be the reason of this Muslim to go against something of his own religion? Maybe the answer lies in the explanation that burka is not a part of Islam but a part of culture.

So far as my little research on burka goes, I realized that even in the times of (as someone would say) true Islam, the complete covering of face was not practiced. Burka or niqab was limited to the covering of head and the whole body, except the face. True Islam gave the rightful identities to its women but as the time proceeded, and culture was molded according to needs, the covering of head soon changed into the covering of face as well and thus the whole identity of Muslim women was put behind a barrier.

A Qur’anic Verse:

I came across a Qur’anic verse a few days ago while surfing through the net. I checked its authenticity and turns out it’s authentic. The author, Chris Moore, puts forward an interesting fact. Let’s have a look at the verse first:

[24:31] And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is apparent. They shall cover their chests with their ‘Khimaar’.

So, the author explains the word ‘Khimaar’ in the above verse. It’s better if I quote him:

Most of the translators, obviously influenced by the hadith translate the word as VEIL and thus mislead people into believing that this verse is advocating the covering of the head and hair, some even go to the extent of claiming that 24:31 implies the covering of the face!
But the truth is that the word khimaar simply means a cover, any cover is called khimaar in Arabic.

No Burka at Kaaba:

It might be interesting to know that at the Muslims’ pilgrimage, or commonly called Hajj, the Muslim women are not allowed to cover their faces. They are obligated to cover all the parts of their bodies, but not the face. How come?

So, my research tells me that Islam commands the women to cover their heads and bodies but there is no reference to the covering of face. Therefore, hijab might be a logical and better way for Muslim women rather than a burka or niqab. Anyone might infer that covering of faces is not a free choice for women, but a forced one.

What is your opinion?

Did Humans come from Earth?

Image Source: Flickr (Cheryl) CC by-SA 2.0

We are taught from the beginning of our school lives about biology and evolution. Scientists believe that life originated on Earth from simple living organisms ‘bacteria’. With passing ticks of time, you start imagining different ways life could have originated on Earth. Let me rewind the time to a few years when I came up with an idea of how life could have originated on Earth. Sure I neglected the evolutionary theory while I kept thinking about making my theory more and more realistic. Anyway, here’s what I concluded: humans are not from Earth, they were put here by some alien species.

Now let me state here that last year, Dr Ellis Silverpublished a book named, “Humans are not from Earth: a scientific evaluation ofthe evidence”. My theory is much similar to his. According to him, the back pains, sunburns, labor pain etc all are proof that humans didn’t originate from Earth.

·         Bad backs are because of the reason that humans actually came from a planet with gravity much weaker than that of Earth’s.

·         Sunburns prove that humans’ skins aren’t suited for Earth’s sun and can’t sunbath for more than a week or two like other native organisms e.g. lizards.

·         Labor Pains due to the big size of baby’s head is abnormal when juxtaposed with every other animal on Earth. This proves that humans didn’t share evolution with native animals of Earth.

·         Less liking for natural food is more prevalent in humans than in any other animal of the Earth.

The aforementioned reasons were given by the Phd Dr. Ellis Silver. I agree to them alright. I just don’t agree with the reason for labor pains. And Dr. Ellis also claimed that Earth maybe a prison planet to make humans behave themselves because they’re naturally violent. But I don’t agree with that too.

Anyway, my reasons for believing in this theory were different. I used a little bit of theology too to get to my point. I’ll list my reasons below:

·         Humans haven’t been given natural defences or anything that might help them in surviving here like other animals. For instance, we don’t have claws, we can’t digest plants and our teeth are not strong enough for tearing uncooked meat. We actually use our brains to change the natural nutrients into something which is eatable.

·         We have to rely on artificial things for survival. Air conditioner in summer, heater and blankets in winter.

·         If you come to think of it, maybe we unconsciously try to imitate the conditions of our original planet as much as possible.

Let’s stop here and think for a second how our original planet must be like. Using my little knowledge of theology and religion, I used the example of Adam and Eve. Imagine they weren't actually two individual humans but a complete group of humans, namely males and females. Imagine that paradise was actually our original planet from where we came. Now imagine what paradise must be like: abundant tasty food, moderate weather, no fear of dying, and no instinct of survival, no pain, no worry etc. That’s just a few things to start with.

What I concluded was that the human has been trying to artificially create the conditions of paradise on Earth. He hungers for more even if he has more than enough. He demands security. He tries as much as he can to enjoy his life rather than working hard as the Earth demands.

This is just a theory and I don’t think it can challenge whole decades of research on evolution. But still, it’s a good debate topic. What are your views?