Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com>: May 09 12:20PM -0500
Nimi,
I do not think that folks are dismissing belief and faith as unworthy of
study. That would be unscholarly. Why do we have theology and religious
studies as fields in academia?
What folks are pushing against is the consecration of certain claims as as
"factual" before such claims have been researched and tested and rendered
verifiable. What folks object to is the conflation of claims founded on
faith and belief with demonstrated scientific principles--in Nwolise's
example, witchcraft and the TV remote control. I think it was Gloria who
said Nwolise's offense is that he jumped the gun and declared a conclusion
that has not been demonstrated by any replicable research, experiments,
principles, and rigorous logic. I concur.
I hope we don't end up talking past one another. Let's take your Bohr
anecdote and Falola's position as a point of departure.
Bohr says "I don't believe in it. But I have it there because people say it
works whether one believes it or not."
Falola says: "I don't believe in it but many Nigerians do and I want to
know why, I want to understand why"
I don't know anyone in this discussion who has or would disagree with these
two positions, since as we earlier stated, there are many scientists,
academics, and purveyors of scientific knowledge who also subscribe to
various faiths, beliefs, and systems that contradict the principles of
science and logic. There is no debate there. We're all complex beings and
can subscribe to mutually exclusive ideas and ideologies and find ways to
compartmentalize them.
Returning to the two positions, neither Bohr nor Falola says "witchcraft
and belief in using doorpost objects to ward off evil spirits are factual
and are the equivalent of the tested and verifiable principle of the
workings of a TV remote." If they said that then they would have crossed
into Nwolise's territory.
For me it is even unnecessary for scholars and scientists to apologize for
their beliefs or non-beliefs or to preface their remarks with disclaimers
of non-belief in something. In fact, I would not even have a problem if
Falola and Bohr said they believe in witchcraft and practices deemed
capable of combatting evil spirits--they are entitled to their personal
beliefs as I'm entitled to mine--as long as they do not leap to the
conclusion, as Nwolise does, that their belief is factual and that it is
the equivalent of scientific principles that emerged through rigorous
experimentation, peer review, replication, verification, etc.
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:24 AM Toyin Falola <toyin...@austin.utexas.edu>
wrote:
|
Toyin Falola <toyin...@austin.utexas.edu>: May 09 10:02PM
Moses:
Alas! Phenomenology, a respected branch of knowledge, actually tells us to treat what Nwolise says as “fact”. The Obatala created the Yoruba people with a chain from heaven that took him to earth is treated by you and I as mythology. It is a fact to whoever originally invented it. He is not a crook, to be sure.
If you experience consciousness, you and only you, as you dreamt that a tiger pounced on you and before it kills you, you woke up. It is a fact; it has to be treated as a fact, and we proceed to its analysis. I think only fools will dismiss you—the wise ones will reflect upon what you say.
If Nwolise tells me that last year, he flew in the middle of the night to Nashville, I can proceed to treat it as a fact, unless we had ten bottles of Gulder together the night before! I cannot ask him for evidence, which he does not have, and I cannot produce an evidence, as it outside the realm of his cultural cognitions. Facts operate in a context as they do not always have autonomous legs to stand. Sometimes they do, in raw forms, uninterpreted, unprocessed.
Cultural cognitions are so powerful, and they produce so many facts. Drugs have been invented to alter those “facts”.
When I went to greet AB Assensoh, one of my best friends in the world, we stopped at a gas station to play lottery—one of those that you will win millions and millions, and we spent a long time spending the money. Here, we took a decision that produced a fiction, based on facts, which in turn produced other facts. You cannot deny the reality that I was a multi-millionaire for a certain moment in that trance! I was one, and I established hundreds of scholarships, eliminating poverty in Kumasi, built a house next to AB, etc.
Fact itself is plastic, unfortunately.
TF
Toyin Falola
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin
104 Inner Campus Drive
Austin, TX 78712-0220
USA
512 475 7224
512 475 7222 (fax)
http://sites.utexas.edu/yoruba-studies-review/
http://www.toyinfalola.com
http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa
http://groups.google.com/group/yorubaaffairs
http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
From: dialogue <usaafric...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of moses <meoc...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: dialogue <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:41 PM
To: dialogue <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Nigeriais Doomed and Her Academics are Culpable
Nimi,
I do not think that folks are dismissing belief and faith as unworthy of study. That would be unscholarly. Why do we have theology and religious studies as fields in academia?
What folks are pushing against is the consecration of certain claims as as "factual" before such claims have been researched and tested and rendered verifiable. What folks object to is the conflation of claims founded on faith and belief with demonstrated scientific principles--in Nwolise's example, witchcraft and the TV remote control. I think it was Gloria who said Nwolise's offense is that he jumped the gun and declared a conclusion that has not been demonstrated by any replicable research, experiments, principles, and rigorous logic. I concur.
I hope we don't end up talking past one another. Let's take your Bohr anecdote and Falola's position as a point of departure.
Bohr says "I don't believe in it. But I have it there because people say it works whether one believes it or not."
Falola says: "I don't believe in it but many Nigerians do and I want to know why, I want to understand why"
I don't know anyone in this discussion who has or would disagree with these two positions, since as we earlier stated, there are many scientists, academics, and purveyors of scientific knowledge who also subscribe to various faiths, beliefs, and systems that contradict the principles of science and logic. There is no debate there. We're all complex beings and can subscribe to mutually exclusive ideas and ideologies and find ways to compartmentalize them.
Returning to the two positions, neither Bohr nor Falola says "witchcraft and belief in using doorpost objects to ward off evil spirits are factual and are the equivalent of the tested and verifiable principle of the workings of a TV remote." If they said that then they would have crossed into Nwolise's territory.
For me it is even unnecessary for scholars and scientists to apologize for their beliefs or non-beliefs or to preface their remarks with disclaimers of non-belief in something. In fact, I would not even have a problem if Falola and Bohr said they believe in witchcraft and practices deemed capable of combatting evil spirits--they are entitled to their personal beliefs as I'm entitled to mine--as long as they do not leap to the conclusion, as Nwolise does, that their belief is factual and that it is the equivalent of scientific principles that emerged through rigorous experimentation, peer review, replication, verification, etc.
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:24 AM Toyin Falola <toyin...@austin.utexas.edu<mailto:toyin...@austin.utexas.edu>> wrote:
Great one:
I am presenting the Convocation Lecture at Babcock on June 2nd, titled “Faith, Fact and Fiction”. It has been a very tough essay for me to write. I have written 75 pages, and I will stop at 100, and I just still cannot conclude—one element of the essay undercuts the other. Why is it difficult for me to conclude? Because my knowledge is inadequate, and in some ways grossly deficient.
Scholarship is a difficult enterprise, and I often wonder why I am not a tailor like my dad, just making attire for people and drinking beer in the evening.
Sometimes, I think that scholarship is not my line.
TF
Toyin Falola
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin
104 Inner Campus Drive
Austin, TX 78712-0220
USA
512 475 7224
512 475 7222 (fax)
http://sites.utexas.edu/yoruba-studies-review/
http://www.toyinfalola.com
http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa
http://groups.google.com/group/yorubaaffairs
http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
From: dialogue <usaafric...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of nimi <nimi...@msn.com<mailto:nimi...@msn.com>>
Reply-To: dialogue <usaafric...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com>>
Date: Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 9:15 AM
To: dialogue <usaafric...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Nigeriais Doomed and Her Academics are Culpable
Dear Friends:
This debate over Prof. Nwolise has generated some comments that are surprising to me. I cannot understand why a scholar will state that “there is really no knowledge in religion.” This statement is so easy to refute that I did not expect it to be made here. For instance if a religion like Islam states that its founder fought wars, is there no real knowledge in this statement? Have historians denied that Prophet Mohammed existed and fought wars to establish Islam in the Arabia?
I take the Falola’s position that all knowledge systems and worldviews need to studied, and this endeavor does not mean that we cannot differentiate science from religion. Falola’s point is that if a knowledge system works for a people we should not regard them as lunatics, but as scholars study their epistemology and bring it into a comparative analysis with those from other peoples, regions, or periods. We need to study a system of thought even if we do not believe in it.
Yesterday, I wrote that some of TF’s position reminds me of the anecdote about the world famous physicist Neils Bohr. The joke about Bohr is that he was doing something he did not believe in because people said it works. My point is that even the great physicist was not so dismissive about alternate forms of knowledge as some on this forum do. I see the same ethos in Falola’s scholarship and his interventions on the matter we are debating. This does not mean that Bohr or Falola confuse science with mere faith or religious mumbo jumbo.
Besides, there are epistemological issues in the quote about Bohr: Can we separate belief from efficaciousness of a phenomenon? Can a person not believe in something, but put it into practical use? Can a person not believe in religion, but recognize its benefits? A soldier may not believe in religion or the ideas of Nwolise, but can still find usefulness for them if he knows that it can play a function in defeating the enemy. Didn’t some colonial officials manipulate religious fears in Africa and Asia to dominate their subjects? Is this not the way democracy works in many countries as Zizek argues? Zizek’s point is that people often do things (including participating in democracy) that they do not really believe in. (Is there no separation between belief in democracy and its effectivity in Africa—in this case non-positive effectiveness?)
As a reminder this is the yesterday’s quote about Bohr from Zizek.
“Surprised at seeing a horse-shoe above the door of Bohr’s country house, a fellow scientist exclaimed that he did not share the superstitious belief that horse-shoes kept evil spirits away, to which Bohr snapped back, ‘I don’t believe in it either. I have it there because I was told that it works even when one doesn’t believe in it.’ This is indeed how ideology functions today: nobody takes democracy or justice seriously, we are all aware of their corrupted nature, but we participate in them, we display our belief in them, because we assume that they work even if we do not believe in them.” (Slavoj Žižek, First as Tragedy Then as Farce (New York: Verso, 2009, 51)
So let me add by quoting what Albert Einstein said about Nobel-Prize winning quantum physicist Niels Bohr: “He utters his opinions like one perpetually groping and never like one who believes himself to be in possession of definite truth.”
TF’s point is that he is groping for knowledge, not gunning for definite truth either in science or religion. The larger point of TF’s intervention is that there is often epistemic partiality in the academy or personal relationships, and this is an issue analytical philosophers are debating? Why do certain scholars extend more credibility to ideas from their friends or regions? Why do some scientists tend to believe theories of their friends or schools of thought that are non-truth tracking? All this is not to say that knowledge gained from rigorous science is not superior to knowledge derived from mere “faith.”
Finally, as an aside let us go back to the Zizek’s quote. He said ideology works in this way: “This is indeed how ideology functions today: nobody takes democracy or justice seriously, we are all aware of their corrupted nature, but we participate in them, we display our belief in them, because we assume that they work even if we do not believe in them.” Now the question is: does scientific rationality work as ideology for some Nigerians and their leaders? Don’t they participate in science without believing in it? This fact alone warrants a study of their worldview or the imbrication of Nwolise’s type ideas/theories in their science.
Nimi Wariboko
Boston University
From: <usaafric...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of Toyin Falola <toyin...@austin.utexas.edu<mailto:toyin...@austin.utexas.edu>>
Reply-To: "usaafric...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com>" <usaafric...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com>>
Date: Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 9:04 AM
To: "usaafric...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com>" <usaafric...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Nigeriais Doomed and Her Academics are Culpable
Prince:
Just to be clear I have never said “there is not much difference between religion and science”. I apologize if I come across as saying that.
I have said that alternative ways of knowing must be understood, even if it makes no sense to us as scholars. Any knowledge that makes sense to a certain community means something to its members unless we are calling them lunatics. And those members, I argued, will carry their ideas to all spaces where they find themselves, including the classroom.
One African head of state was accused of cannibalism
Another of eating the testicles of his enemies.
What I want to know is the knowledge behind that extreme practice, and my argument is that this knowledge—no matter how silly, misleading, gullible, and unscientific—should not be dismissed.
I don’t agree with Nwolise, but I want to understand the formation of his knowledge system—the source, most especially, how it is applied. I don’t agree with him, but I gain more in understanding if I can track the lineage of his ideas, as he may not just be speaking for himself but a community. Who wakes up at Ibadan in the morning and say that witches in Nigeria can break up my legs in Austin? Call it magic, but what does this tell me?
TF
Toyin Falola
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin
104 Inner Campus Drive
Austin, TX 78712-0220
USA
512 475 7224
512 475 7222 (fax)
http://sites.utexas.edu/yoruba-studies-review/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsites.utexas.edu%2Fyoruba-studies-review%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cea89e21b1d1b473f71ea08d6d47ee301%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636930038785398708&sdata=5Ipi%2FPBgKzp8CSxiirwpnGchBvSeP0YkFdA0ok2EvtI%3D&reserved=0>
http://www.toyinfalola.com<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toyinfalola.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cea89e21b1d1b473f71ea08d6d47ee301%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636930038785408706&sdata=CZbRYS4ngSckCzB7mNGzYBHGeoFoIGroSv%2FFNzu0xmI%3D&reserved=0>
http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.utexas.edu%2Fconferences%2Fafrica&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cea89e21b1d1b473f71ea08d6d47ee301%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636930038785418721&sdata=3tcUjk2VqUtRchRPJaYsmDyJs%2FUlEpTZFi%2FxjLWENnM%3D&reserved=0>
http://groups.google.com/group/yorubaaffairs<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fyorubaaffairs&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cea89e21b1d1b473f71ea08d6d47ee301%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636930038785428732&sdata=4KZg5ik2zGuayXQvW83E7gvAegA%2FbIWwTr8a%2Fh2pyA4%3D&reserved=0>
http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2FUSAAfricaDialogue&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cea89e21b1d1b473f71ea08d6d47ee301%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636930038785438734&sdata=2TCGyoSHe8E1CyUEZqVCxMoHVTTJ6JyMWIlPDArTcHc%3D&reserved=0>
From: dialogue <usaafric...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of agbetuyi <yagb...@hotmail.com<mailto:yagb...@hotmail.com>>
Reply-To: dialogue <usaafric...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com>>
Date: Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 7:27 AM
To: dialogue <usaafric...@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [UTEXAS: SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Nigeriais Doomed and Her Academics are Culpable
TF
You have a point there prof. I have always argued for decades in tandem with circumspect others that as subatomic level of science, to the generality of the pooulace there is not much difference between religion and science: belief in the unverifiable work of the priesthood couched in metaphors. One metaphors of science and the other metaphors of mundane religion.
|