Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[JayUtah]

Qualification to what, to interpret, to research, to relate or to otherwise?

In Bhagchandra Jain's case, to speak with apparent authority on what science has or has not confirmed. He made specific, testable claims regarding what various scientists had allegedly done. He was factually wrong on some points, and scientifically wrong on others. The scientific errors were due to his inability to correctly understand what the relevant scientific understanding was. He is abjectly ignorant about science. That's not science's fault.

Obiously, if he has compared with imperfect science...

No he was factually wrong. Trying to blame that on some supposed imperfection of science or its supposed "hypnotic" effect is absurd.

 

[Kumar]

That's just a tautology, which isn't any sort of proof. If you're back to claiming religion is absolutely and finally correct, you have to explain why your religion is contradicted by fact.

First pls bring A&F facts then ONLY we can judge.

Life & Personal Liberty is supreme essence of all type of rights. No pain, no mercy, no moral, no logic or no otherwise can override it. Whatever overriding is done on it,may it be by any man made rational or otherwise can just be a "Deception" which should be judged on ultimate.

 

[JayUtah]

First pls bring A&F facts then ONLY we can judge.

And around in circles we go. Do you claim Jainism is absolutely and finally -- A&F -- correct?

 

[Kumar]

In Bhagchandra Jain's case, to speak with apparent authority on what science has or has not confirmed. He made specific, testable claims regarding what various scientists had allegedly done. He was factually wrong on some points, and scientifically wrong on others. The scientific errors were due to his inability to correctly understand what the relevant scientific understanding was. He is abjectly ignorant about science. That's not science's fault.



No he was factually wrong. Trying to blame that on some supposed imperfection of science or its supposed "hypnotic" effect is absurd.

Yes, he, inspite a normal person, followed a handicapped person by considered him a, super normal person. Big odd.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, he, inspite a normal person, followed a handicapped person by considered him a, super normal person. Big odd.

Then do you agree he was wrong to speak with apparent authority on subjects he wasn't qualified in?

 

[Kumar]

And around in circles we go. Do you claim Jainism is absolutely and finally -- A&F -- correct?

If you agree that A&F means "benefit without or with lease side affects", then yes A&F in it. Otherwise there is no end of discussions in view of Anekantvad, dim vision and selfish interests. Mango Tree example.

 

[Kumar]

Then do you agree he was wrong to speak with apparent authority on subjects he wasn't qualified in?

I have to go much deep in his history for it. But why, when he was basically wrong to compare superior with inferior.

 

[JayUtah]

I have to go much deep in his history for it.

No. You already conceded he was a layman. I'm asking you to reconcile the consequences of his being a layman with the standard of proof you laid out for expertise. The standard that you're selectively applying.

But why, when he was basically wrong to compare superior with inferior.

I don't agree that his comparison was between "superior" and "inferior" things. It was between Jainism and science. I'll concede that Bhagchandra is an expert on science. He is not, however, an expert on science. He is not even competent. Therefore his conclusion that Jainism is a scientific religion fails because the judgment lacks competence in science. In addition, it has been shown that his claims pertaining to science are factually wrong. This is not an issue of whether the science involved is empirically correct, but whether Bhagchandra has accurately represented the claims made by science.

 

[JayUtah]

If you agree that A&F means "benefit without or with lease side affects", then yes A&F in it.

You're redefining "absolute and final" to mean ascetic. Ascetism is not self-evidently correct.

 

[Kumar]

No. You already conceded he was a layman. I'm asking you to reconcile the consequences of his being a layman with the standard of proof you laid out for expertise. The standard that you're selectively applying.

Yes, that link, was meant for critical assessment from competent people in that science here. If such competent people refute that with equanimity & A&F, I have to endorse it. About his capability of competence, religion, yes, science, to check.

I don't agree that his comparison was between "superior" and "inferior" things. It was between Jainism and science. I'll concede that Bhagchandra is an expert on science. He is not, however, an expert on science. He is not even competent. Therefore his conclusion that Jainism is a scientific religion fails because the judgment lacks competence in science. In addition, it has been shown that his claims pertaining to science are factually wrong. This is not an issue of whether the science involved is empirically correct, but whether Bhagchandra has accurately represented the claims made by science.

I have also to see other such claims. I gave you a common google search link, but you have not cared that in your ego or laziness. You would had got right idea. Not this issue is not fully cooked well.

 

[Kumar]

You're redefining "absolute and final" to mean ascetic. Ascetism is not self-evidently correct.

We have to conform it from religions--real competent authority for it.

 

[JayUtah]

We have to conform it from religions--real competent authority for it.

No. Ascetism is not self-evidently correct.

 

[Mojo]

Mines are just reactions to your and your's types actions. What to do when Newton had justified it(however I am also bit odd in that , logically).

No, you're flat-out wrong. Newton in no way "justified" your stubborn refusal to learn.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry, you are neither a botanical scientist nor a Psychologist, you should not comment on it. We can now maintain our limits.

Ah. Then you wìll practically stop posting, I presume?

Perhaps you could state your area of expertise, so we can monitor if you only comment on that.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

No, you're flat-out wrong. Newton in no way "justified" your stubborn refusal to learn.

But he has justified, for every action there is equal and opposite reaction(however I have some odd for it). So my reactions.

 

[Kumar]

Ah. Then you wìll practically stop posting, I presume?

Perhaps you could state your area of expertise, so we can monitor if you only comment on that.

Hans

My signature.

 

[Kumar]

Now, "Deception" relevance: suppose you grow some flowers and vegetable plants at your home or at your farm for some pre-decided purpose. You nurse them, love them, and be happy on looking their good growth. On a day, when they are at full bloom or vegetable, suddenly you pluck them. By doing it, you discontinue their growth, pollination, seed forming, seed ripening etc., means destroying them and their next generations. What will you call it? A favor to them or a deception? Like, it all other domestication & farming.

 

[Pixel42]

Now, "Deception" relevance: suppose you grow some flowers and vegetable plants at your home or at your farm for some pre-decided purpose. You nurse them, love them, and be happy on looking their good growth. On a day, when they are at full bloom or vegetable, suddenly you pluck them. By doing it, you discontinue their growth, pollination, seed forming, seed ripening etc., means destroying them and their next generations. What will you call it?

Payback for the time and resources I invested.

A favor to them or a deception?

Neither. Plants have no concept of either. Plants have no concepts, period.

 

[Kumar]

Payback for the time and resources I invested.


Neither. Plants have no concept of either. Plants have no concepts, period.

But payback and investment should also match.

Still they are live beings. Moreover others such?

 

[Mojo]

But he has justified, for every action there is equal and opposite reaction(however I have some odd for it). So my reactions.

Kumar, Newton's laws of motion describe how forces act on physical bodies, and the results of that. They are nothing to do with how intelligent beings should behave in a debate.