Dr. Parrikar has compounded his problems. His insinuation of the scientific method in the task of judging Robert Newman's credentials is absurd. To make matters worse he conflates the scientific method with his idiosyncratic fixation on a personal interrogation. It is well known that in science, or for that matter, in any other field, including social and cultural anthropology, the competence of a scholar is judged by a critical reading of his writings, and on how well he is regarded and cited by his peers. This judgment does not hang on the availability of a report of a one-on-one interrogation administered by some finicky lay person.
On the issue of Goa, at first Dr. Parrikar appears to be backtracking from his earlier stance by denying that bhaile and ghanti are the root cause of Goa's problems, even though decrying them has been the centerpiece of his sabbatical campaign in Goa. But then he clarifies that they are merely one major problem. The trouble with this, however, is that, once again, he fails to explain exactly what this problem is, let alone provide a coherent rationale for it. Finally, speaking of platitudes, he does not realize that the worst of these banalities involve playing the blame game - the relentless reprobation of bhaile, ghanti and the rest of India for no substantive reason, which has been going on in Goa since the 60's, and on Goanet, since its inception. Dr. Parrikar did not invent these epithets, nor this trite excuse, on his ongoing epiphanic extended vacation in Goa. I don't have to go on a prolonged fact-finding furlough to Goa, or engage in a protracted interrogathon of an indigene on Goan soil, to know that there is nothing original, insightful or sagacious about blaming others for our failings. Cheers, Santosh --- "Rajan P. Parrikar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Be that as it may, opinions and hypotheses must be >(preferably) based on available evidence, which is the >foundation of the scientific method. For an accurate >reckoning of Dr. Newman's knowledge of Goa, I would >need to interrogate him. Past experience has taught >me not > to rely on a man's writings alone in the fields of > cultural and social anthropology. Dr. Helekar > appears to subscribe to a different technique, > one relying on hearsay, the number of believers, > reputation etc. >.................................... > I have made the case several times here that they > represent ONE problem, and in my view, a major one > now. Dr. Helekar can refute or confirm my > assessment, > but only if he would first deign to step into the > field > laboratory. > .................................... > > As things stand, my "xenophobic rant" has one virtue > over Dr. Helekar's pious cant: it comes out of > experience > in the field. Dr. Helekar, on the other hand, seems > to > be no more than a long-distance opinionista. >........................ > The platitudes you write above are all > too > well known. They add nothing to what we already > know. > Insight into the what, why, and, > how-can-we-fix-this- > -mess? takes a great deal more than facile pecks at > the keyboard. >
