A WORD OR TWO TO THE RESEARCHERS ON NETAJI BY WAY OF HUMBLE SUBMISSION
The ability to concisely answer a question to the point without undue digression or attempted deflection ought to be the hallmark of a Netaji researcher who wishes to substantiate his claim that Netaji had survived the purported 1945 air-crash. Inconsequential elaboration of points off the course of the discussion cannot lend weight to the argument posited to prove the point. Hence, it is an imperative for researchers to stick to the point and answer point-blank the questions posed by inquirers in case they are in the knowledge of such or to flat admit that they cannot answer them owing to lack of knowledge on the same.
The problem is not only one of articulation of facts but also one of insufficient training in the scientific method following what is called the rational rigour. Mere assortment of facts and claims do not make a theory. The narrative must be well-connected and the facts presented in an orderly manner so as to carry conviction with the audience, assuming that the facts are verified and verifiable as such. Loose logic with a pitfall hither and a pitfall thither will not do. Neither will emotional effusion on Netaji suffice to carry the day, nor Gandhi-Nehru-Mountbatten-b
It seems, as I have earlier many times mentioned, that researchers, for want of the attribute of articulation and the capacity for clear rational thinking as becomes a historian who has not been perverted from his professional integrity by considerations of the copper coin, need to undergo training both in the science of rational thinking and in the art of articulate presentation of their matter. In the absence of this training there will abound gaps galore in their statements which will not only arm adversaries to counter their points effectively but also nullify the conclusions they have erroneously drawn about their subject matter.
One more point and this is most significant. There is a human tendency to first draw a preferred conclusion about an episode as per personal predilection and then to somehow try and fit facts into the narrative to substantiate the claim. This, in the case of a historical analysis and inference-building exercise, is ruinous for it is patently a dishonest means of achieving an erroneous end. This ought not to be in the case of unravelling the Netaji mystery. Researchers must scrupulously adhere to intellectual honesty and base their conclusions or the lack of it strictly on evidence that is legally tenable and also can stand the test of rational rigour beyond the domain of legislated acts.
I have made my presentation and exhort researchers now to read it, reflect and come to reasonable adjustments in the marshalling of their argumentative arsenal so that they can pulverise perfidious opposition to the surfacing of truth.
Jai Hind !
Written by Sugata Bose
The ability to concisely answer a question to the point without undue digression or attempted deflection ought to be the hallmark of a Netaji researcher who wishes to substantiate his claim that Netaji had survived the purported 1945 air-crash. Inconsequential elaboration of points off the course of the discussion cannot lend weight to the argument posited to prove the point. Hence, it is an imperative for researchers to stick to the point and answer point-blank the questions posed by inquirers in case they are in the knowledge of such or to flat admit that they cannot answer them owing to lack of knowledge on the same.
The problem is not only one of articulation of facts but also one of insufficient training in the scientific method following what is called the rational rigour. Mere assortment of facts and claims do not make a theory. The narrative must be well-connected and the facts presented in an orderly manner so as to carry conviction with the audience, assuming that the facts are verified and verifiable as such. Loose logic with a pitfall hither and a pitfall thither will not do. Neither will emotional effusion on Netaji suffice to carry the day, nor Gandhi-Nehru-Mountbatten-b
It seems, as I have earlier many times mentioned, that researchers, for want of the attribute of articulation and the capacity for clear rational thinking as becomes a historian who has not been perverted from his professional integrity by considerations of the copper coin, need to undergo training both in the science of rational thinking and in the art of articulate presentation of their matter. In the absence of this training there will abound gaps galore in their statements which will not only arm adversaries to counter their points effectively but also nullify the conclusions they have erroneously drawn about their subject matter.
One more point and this is most significant. There is a human tendency to first draw a preferred conclusion about an episode as per personal predilection and then to somehow try and fit facts into the narrative to substantiate the claim. This, in the case of a historical analysis and inference-building exercise, is ruinous for it is patently a dishonest means of achieving an erroneous end. This ought not to be in the case of unravelling the Netaji mystery. Researchers must scrupulously adhere to intellectual honesty and base their conclusions or the lack of it strictly on evidence that is legally tenable and also can stand the test of rational rigour beyond the domain of legislated acts.
I have made my presentation and exhort researchers now to read it, reflect and come to reasonable adjustments in the marshalling of their argumentative arsenal so that they can pulverise perfidious opposition to the surfacing of truth.
Jai Hind !
Written by Sugata Bose
No comments:
Post a Comment