AMITABH BACHCHAN PHILOSOPHY AND RIGOROUS THINKING
I have always wondered how and why many people simply present high-sounding concepts that seem to explain much that is inexplicable, at least to me. The person sitting opposite me expounds magnificent concepts, theories, and entire schools of thought. I come out of the meeting amazed at the might of that man's wisdom until one nagging question arises in my mind: What is the evidence to substantiate that man's 'magnificent' theories?
One such Guru told me that all ailments afflicting human beings are due to our weak minds. Thus, diabetes, cancer, diarrhea, TB, gynecological problems—all ailments without exception—are due to weak minds. He also added that even our lack of resistance to germs is entirely due to mental weaknesses. To my astonishment, he even offered to protect me against all illnesses by giving me a medicine made entirely of herbs based on an 'ancient' medical text.
I asked for another meeting with this Guru where I posed the following questions:
- An NRI based in, say, Singapore comes on a visit to India. He drinks nimboo paani at a restaurant. The next day he suffers from loose motions. Is it correct to say that this man—who had no such issues while in Singapore—has suddenly developed a weak mind and was therefore vulnerable to being infected by germs?
- How many people has the guru met or heard of in the whole wide world who have developed their minds to such an extent that they have never fallen ill?
- Why did the Guru's own Guru die of a plethora of illnesses?
- Above all, what is the evidence available to suggest, if not prove, the veracity of his claims and the efficacy of his potions?
At this point, the guru appeared flummoxed, accustomed as he was to the willing suspension of all reason and logic by his shishyaas. He muttered that his claims were 'true' and not amenable to any scientific study and were indeed beyond science. I was about to lose my cool but thought it better to convey my feelings by resorting to that ultimate weapon—Humor. I told him that what he asserted was not different from what politicians caught with their hands in the cookie jar say—'After the scam report, I have won an election hands down. I have won in the court of the people. Thus I cannot be held guilty of any fraud.' In other words, simply by winning an election, this neta suggests that he is beyond the law, much like the Guru who, by virtue of being a guru, feels he is not amenable to any scientific laws.
Evidence of Rigorous Thinking in Other Fields
Is there evidence that my line of rigorous thinking is being applied in other fields? Yes. The latest evidence of how research and evidence are being applied to concepts held almost as sacred is the several studies about Maslow's hierarchy of Needs. Psychologists and management gurus have held that hierarchy of needs as unchallenged. But here comes a whole new look at this sacred line of thinking.
Psychologist Steven Reiss refers to Maslow as a 'nice guy but no scientist.' Reiss based his suggestions on research that suggests that:
- Maslow's categories are invalid.
- Maslow's sequence is invalid.
- Maslow erred in suggesting a one-size-fits-all theory.
Reiss feels that Maslow should be read as a philosopher, not a scientist.
The last sentence is significant. Gurus of the sort I am talking about are either quacks, crooks, or amiable, well-meaning philosophers who are not concerned with experiments, research, result replicability, impartial verification, etc.—they seek exemption from such irritating demands and assert that they are beyond science, much like our crooked netas.
Philosophy in Cinema
A very recent example of high-sounding but meaningless philosophy is the dialogue in the film 'DEPARTMENT'. I saw this movie at a Mumbai multiplex. Sections of the audience, including three men sitting near me, broke into rapturous applause when the character played by Amitabh Bachchan thundered with the dialogue 'Illegally legal'. One of them slapped my thigh and shouted 'kya dialogue maara. Amitabh ko Oscar milna chahiye'. After the movie, I asked these guys what they understood by that piece of dialogue. A few minutes of blank stares later, they looked sheepish and turned away from me.
Good philosophy but poor logic. Many people get away with this nonsense.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
746I have always wondered how and why many people simply present high-sounding concepts that seem to explain much that is inexplicable, at least to me. The person sitting opposite me expounds magnificent concepts, theories, and entire schools of thought. I come out of the meeting amazed at the might of that man's wisdom until one nagging question arises in my mind: What is the evidence to substantiate that man's 'magnificent' theories?
One such Guru told me that all ailments afflicting human beings are due to our weak minds. Thus, diabetes, cancer, diarrhea, TB, gynecological problems—all ailments without exception—are due to weak minds. He also added that even our lack of resistance to germs is entirely due to mental weaknesses. To my astonishment, he even offered to protect me against all illnesses by giving me a medicine made entirely of herbs based on an 'ancient' medical text.
I asked for another meeting with this Guru where I posed the following questions:
- An NRI based in, say, Singapore comes on a visit to India. He drinks nimboo paani at a restaurant. The next day he suffers from loose motions. Is it correct to say that this man—who had no such issues while in Singapore—has suddenly developed a weak mind and was therefore vulnerable to being infected by germs?
- How many people has the guru met or heard of in the whole wide world who have developed their minds to such an extent that they have never fallen ill?
- Why did the Guru's own Guru die of a plethora of illnesses?
- Above all, what is the evidence available to suggest, if not prove, the veracity of his claims and the efficacy of his potions?
At this point, the guru appeared flummoxed, accustomed as he was to the willing suspension of all reason and logic by his shishyaas. He muttered that his claims were 'true' and not amenable to any scientific study and were indeed beyond science. I was about to lose my cool but thought it better to convey my feelings by resorting to that ultimate weapon—Humor. I told him that what he asserted was not different from what politicians caught with their hands in the cookie jar say—'After the scam report, I have won an election hands down. I have won in the court of the people. Thus I cannot be held guilty of any fraud.' In other words, simply by winning an election, this neta suggests that he is beyond the law, much like the Guru who, by virtue of being a guru, feels he is not amenable to any scientific laws.
Evidence of Rigorous Thinking in Other Fields
Is there evidence that my line of rigorous thinking is being applied in other fields? Yes. The latest evidence of how research and evidence are being applied to concepts held almost as sacred is the several studies about Maslow's hierarchy of Needs. Psychologists and management gurus have held that hierarchy of needs as unchallenged. But here comes a whole new look at this sacred line of thinking.
Psychologist Steven Reiss refers to Maslow as a 'nice guy but no scientist.' Reiss based his suggestions on research that suggests that:
- Maslow's categories are invalid.
- Maslow's sequence is invalid.
- Maslow erred in suggesting a one-size-fits-all theory.
Reiss feels that Maslow should be read as a philosopher, not a scientist.
The last sentence is significant. Gurus of the sort I am talking about are either quacks, crooks, or amiable, well-meaning philosophers who are not concerned with experiments, research, result replicability, impartial verification, etc.—they seek exemption from such irritating demands and assert that they are beyond science, much like our crooked netas.
Philosophy in Cinema
A very recent example of high-sounding but meaningless philosophy is the dialogue in the film 'DEPARTMENT'. I saw this movie at a Mumbai multiplex. Sections of the audience, including three men sitting near me, broke into rapturous applause when the character played by Amitabh Bachchan thundered with the dialogue 'Illegally legal'. One of them slapped my thigh and shouted 'kya dialogue maara. Amitabh ko Oscar milna chahiye'. After the movie, I asked these guys what they understood by that piece of dialogue. A few minutes of blank stares later, they looked sheepish and turned away from me.
Good philosophy but poor logic. Many people get away with this nonsense.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Recruitment Analysis of ABC Company.ppt
SWOT analysis.doc
Competencies-an alysis.zip