Chachi, I just understood your first quote.Let me recall it again
"how can there be a perversion of faith, if faith, lackingobjective justification, doesn't have any demonstrable standard topervert"
You are questioning Faith on the basis that its not being falsifiable, arent you? Like a Scientific Theory. Ahem.
I see no way this debate can rage on if you dont see what separates a Scientific Theory from a Theoretical contruct based on faith alone
And another thing, You may draw a parallel even here, as I may have pointed outs some 10000 times. A Scientific theory is strictly representational. Its a toy, with certain "internal" parts, and certain "external" parts of it mimic our world in a purely representaational way.
I'll tell you the precise definition of a "Scientific theory". A theory is said to be "Scientific" if it takes a finite subset of these "World Data", (which, you may recall, is what the "External" parts are supposed to mimic, fixes ALL "internal parts" with this set, and now this toy mimics all the world we can see.
Now what if we choose to have a totally different toy model? We can fix ITS parts using a finite subset of "world data" too, isnt it?So what makes us so vehemently defend what is , in fact one of an infinite set of scientific Theories that describes whatever portion of the world we see?
Some may choose to call it "Faith".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
you know what, I'm not gonna read this. The bottomline is that I'm in LA and you suck. bwhahahahhaahhhaa!!!!! And Sehwag made that double century. NOT OUT. And Gambhir was their next highest scorer. Talk about bad technique, huh?
Gambhir's technique is quite alright, say?
I sense I am going to be trapped somehow in my own argument.
However, nevertheless, here goes
No
gambhir dose not have a good stable technique.
you have played satti, so you must know what I am talking about
an example of a good technique among us was you, and an example of bad technique was me....
When we were both in "form", there wasnt an issue
however when you were out of "form", you could fall back on your technique. you could consciously take your hand back, consciously pronate and sooner or later you'd find your form...
I on the other hand, didnt have a solid technique to fall back on....so when I was in form, I could rip out sexy backhands, but when I was out of form, there was nothing I could do consciously to get it back
i would just have to rely on the statistical fact that it would come back
so...now do you understand why I stress that neither of our openers have a good technique?
and yeah, another thing chachi
i understand you dont understand the game, and the psyche of die hard followers of the game, who have been brought up on it ,much, so dont betray your ignorance any further
the reason i hate watching sehwag and gambhir is not that thay have bad techniques. how could I? I love watching ganguly, who is the perfect example of elegance and a bad technique. I hate watching sehwag and gambhir because they are inelegant
i understand that they have been highly effective. But you cant expect ALL followers of the game to be swayed by effectiveness alone. Sehwag , in fact, is truely what his monicker suggests. he bats like a butcher
Dont quote me on subjects you dont fully understand chachi, and if you have to quote me, at least quote me right
bhaiya ab har cheez ko issue banana hai kya tumhe? if i remember clearly, you had said that Gambhir and Sehwag won't do well because they don't have a good technique, and I had laid my faith on them. Please stick to your words. Elegance wagairah theek hai, but I love unorthodoxy (and the event of someone doing well and making people eat their words like Sehwag has done in his career)...aur haan cricket technique ka gyan nahi hai, aur na hi main uspe bhaashan de raha hoon..wo tum de rahe ho, jo kisi ko nahi chahiye, na samajh aata hai, na hi tumhe utna aata hoga.
waise it was a relief that at last India won when Sehwag batted well...I don't remember that happening very frequently.
me: haann pata hai
1:12 AM now we get to watch sehwag and gambhir :)
mmmm
pronoy007: well
we wont have to watch them for too long
its down to our "golden" middle order
1:14 AM me: naah
Gambhir would succeed for sure
Sehwag's always a gamble, and a treat to watch
pronoy007: gambhir?
:D
you do realize that he has no technique?
1:15 AM where do you make such statements with such certainty?
me: see his form and success in the recent past
anyway, people say that about sehwag too
no technique
pronoy007: ahem
one day!= test cricket
1:16 AM sehwag has hand eye coordination
me: Being successful for 3-4 months == very confident
Gambhir's technique is fine
what's wrong with it?
pronoy007: ok
I wont argue anything with you
you make very naive statements
me: abe
pronoy007: so
1:17 AM ok
fine
me: I asked a simple question
pronoy007: you win
there is everything wrong with gambhir's technique
me: like.....?
pronoy007: a)lack of footwork
b)he shuffles across too much
c)too much bottom hand makes him prone to playing the ball uppishly
1:18 AM d) his head is never still when he plays a stroke
e)his lack of aptience
but anyway
me: ok, but he'd still succeed
pronoy007: on this pitch, he might well score
me: i believe that ;)
pronoy007: i mean this pitch is unbelievably lifeless
ahem
One of the factors in Sehwag being a treat to watch is because of him beating convention.
technique wagairah mujhe utna nahi pata hai, wo satti se argue karo...but tum bahut jyada funday kholte ho aur non-issues pe faaltu baate karte ho
ok ok FINE
you win
:P
waise....read ,my first reply...
i clearly say that I STRESS that gambhir has no technique
and I DONT LIKE him because he is inelegant
the only bad statement I made was that you quoted me wrong...which is partially true, as I NEVER said that I do not LIKE gambhir because he has a BAD TECHNIQUE
I only said that he'll fail in the long term because of that
look at ganguly...with his talent, if he had a better technique, should he not have averaged in the mid 50's?
btw...it seems that sunily is getting extremely pissed off at both of us, so lets stop
:D
for his sake
:D
ahem
one last clarification
:D
my only sources of info on technique are commentators and cricinfo...
:D
I suck at cricket, so I am not really qualified I guess to give Bhashans
:P
Hmm, actually when I said I that Gambhir's technique was alright, I was just comparing him to a lot of successful batsmen today with ugly techniques (pop(such a list) = Pietersen). I too think he is just too impatient to be able to be a good test match player, where, sometimes, you have to play, with nothing but your technique to rest on, to save the match and not to win it. (But, well, he's proved himself a match-winner already, like Sehwag, with his talent bursts, at least in ODIs). It's a pity we hardly see any new players from the sub-continent (which has produced disproportionately high number of technical batsmen in the past) with good technique anymore.
I think that your temperament is a lot more important than the technique..self-belief goes a long way into making or breaking a batsman's innings, or carrier..
How about Lara..did he have a technically correct technique? I loved watching him though, and it has only been a few times :(
hahahahhahahahhah
chachi, you continue to amaze me
brian charles lara does NOT have a bad technique. having a good technique doesnt mean you have to play like CB Fry. you can play copybook from your own book, but there must be certain controllable parameters you can consciously keep at an optimal value, and you must have the knowledge that once you have these parmeters under control, you will do fine
and temparament....well about that, we'll just have to wait and see :P
see, the bottomline, and the ultimate truth of all existence, is that meesum can't play spin.
but meesum hit me for a six :(
Post a Comment