Difference between poetry and chemistry
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Maswood Alam Khan
THE other day, two scholars from two diametric domains were invited as guests to participate in an episode of Tritio Matra, a very popular 'talk show' aired daily by the private television station 'Channel-I'. One guest was Dr Madhab Acharya, an astrologer by vocation and the other was Dr M Shamsher Ali, a scientist by profession.
"Whether astrology, as a science, can help us foresee our future" was basically the moot point of the chitchat. It was an inquisitive debate, a refreshing departure from the as-usual political tug-of-war which has been the domineering character of this talk show for a couple of years.
Though for a long time I was an avid viewer of Tritio Matra to have an insight into the state of our politics, at one point I was frustrated and stopped viewing the talk show because some funny characters started frequenting the program. To many viewers' discomfort, some guests who couldn't really stimulate any intellectual curiosity were found only to slag off opposing viewpoints, not based on arguments to the points of contention, but to discredit other's response, ultimately settling at mud-slinging that brought nothing to the discussion except venoms to poison the whole atmosphere.
But the debate between a scientist and an astrologer in the recent episode was inspiring indeed. The theme of the argument 'whether we can see tomorrows' must have provoked a storm of curiosities among the viewers because the question 'what awaits us in future' really boggles the mind.
The vice-chancellor of Southeast University, Dr Shamsher Ali, as I found him in the talk show, was very specific in asking questions on astrology and narrating some unknown phenomena on astronomy. On the other hand Dr Acharya who at times had dared to find flaws in science mostly retreated to verbosity in his explaining away the magic of astrology in vague terms and tables.
Dr Ali was loud and clear in his elucidation of the science of cosmology in perfect brevity and Dr Acharya was somewhat fidgety in connecting the science of astronomy with his own science of astrology.
Dr Acharya appeared palpably smart with a costly jacket and a matching shirt, its collar prettily snuggled around his throat and a necktie perfectly knotted. Dr Ali on the other hand appeared callously dressed without a necktie and with a jacket having sleeves too short. Maybe, sleeves of his shirt were rather too long. Of course, a laid-back attitude towards costumes is also a fashion.
Coincidentally, the sleeve-cuff ratio of the jackets and the shirts both Dr Ali and Dr Acharya wore was not perfect from a clothier's point of view; both wore a jacket with sleeves way too much short or a shirt with sleeves way too much long reflecting their tastes not so palatable. Maybe, the jackets and/or the shirts were too ancient.
But Zillur, the host, always wears his costumes like a Rajput, hardly repeating a dress that one television viewer can easily remember he wore in a recent episode. His sartorial taste is perfect, no doubt; his costly dress gives a subtle illusion that he is either very wealthy or all the bills for his clothing and tailoring are footed by the Channel-I authority.
Zillur's sense of humor, his style of shepherding the debaters, his mastery in assimilating points of discussion, his sense of timing and tuning are all flawless. His Bangla pronunciation is perfect to the pinpoint accuracy, but his English pronunciation is terrible and also horrible.
Let's come to the point. Astrologers claim that astrology, like astronomy, is science. But the claim is no more valid. Astronomy, a pure science, deals with objects and phenomena in the space to tell how the havens are behaving in the Milky Way and astrology, a form of divination, tinkles with apparent positions of celestial objects as the arbitrary basis to foretell what will happen in future.
A debate between an astrologer and an astronomer in a television talk show, to my view, is like a duel between a boxer on the ground and an angel in the air in a fairy tale.
During the chitchat Dr Ali nagged at Dr Acharya time and again to teach the commoners and the television viewers how to draw astrological charts to tabulate elements that can foretell a fate.
But Dr Ali missed a point. Dr Ali was in some way asking Dr Acharya to define the difference between poetry and chemistry---a difficult puzzle indeed for a doctor of philosophy in fortunetelling from Banaras Hindu University to solve.
The best Dr Acharya could perhaps do was define the difference in a quizzical manner the way a puzzled pupil, if asked "What is the difference between a primary school master and a railway station master?" may answer: "One trains the mind, the other minds the train".
We hope Zillur would soon organize similar mind-boggling debates in some of his next episodes of Tritio Matra. One such fairy debate, I dare suggest, could be between a qualified physician practicing in a city and a popular quack practicing in a village.
The writer is Editorial Consultant of Financial Express. http://visitmaswood.com. Maswood Alam Khan
THE other day, two scholars from two diametric domains were invited as guests to participate in an episode of Tritio Matra, a very popular 'talk show' aired daily by the private television station 'Channel-I'. One guest was Dr Madhab Acharya, an astrologer by vocation and the other was Dr M Shamsher Ali, a scientist by profession.
"Whether astrology, as a science, can help us foresee our future" was basically the moot point of the chitchat. It was an inquisitive debate, a refreshing departure from the as-usual political tug-of-war which has been the domineering character of this talk show for a couple of years.
Though for a long time I was an avid viewer of Tritio Matra to have an insight into the state of our politics, at one point I was frustrated and stopped viewing the talk show because some funny characters started frequenting the program. To many viewers' discomfort, some guests who couldn't really stimulate any intellectual curiosity were found only to slag off opposing viewpoints, not based on arguments to the points of contention, but to discredit other's response, ultimately settling at mud-slinging that brought nothing to the discussion except venoms to poison the whole atmosphere.
But the debate between a scientist and an astrologer in the recent episode was inspiring indeed. The theme of the argument 'whether we can see tomorrows' must have provoked a storm of curiosities among the viewers because the question 'what awaits us in future' really boggles the mind.
The vice-chancellor of Southeast University, Dr Shamsher Ali, as I found him in the talk show, was very specific in asking questions on astrology and narrating some unknown phenomena on astronomy. On the other hand Dr Acharya who at times had dared to find flaws in science mostly retreated to verbosity in his explaining away the magic of astrology in vague terms and tables.
Dr Ali was loud and clear in his elucidation of the science of cosmology in perfect brevity and Dr Acharya was somewhat fidgety in connecting the science of astronomy with his own science of astrology.
Dr Acharya appeared palpably smart with a costly jacket and a matching shirt, its collar prettily snuggled around his throat and a necktie perfectly knotted. Dr Ali on the other hand appeared callously dressed without a necktie and with a jacket having sleeves too short. Maybe, sleeves of his shirt were rather too long. Of course, a laid-back attitude towards costumes is also a fashion.
Coincidentally, the sleeve-cuff ratio of the jackets and the shirts both Dr Ali and Dr Acharya wore was not perfect from a clothier's point of view; both wore a jacket with sleeves way too much short or a shirt with sleeves way too much long reflecting their tastes not so palatable. Maybe, the jackets and/or the shirts were too ancient.
But Zillur, the host, always wears his costumes like a Rajput, hardly repeating a dress that one television viewer can easily remember he wore in a recent episode. His sartorial taste is perfect, no doubt; his costly dress gives a subtle illusion that he is either very wealthy or all the bills for his clothing and tailoring are footed by the Channel-I authority.
Zillur's sense of humor, his style of shepherding the debaters, his mastery in assimilating points of discussion, his sense of timing and tuning are all flawless. His Bangla pronunciation is perfect to the pinpoint accuracy, but his English pronunciation is terrible and also horrible.
Let's come to the point. Astrologers claim that astrology, like astronomy, is science. But the claim is no more valid. Astronomy, a pure science, deals with objects and phenomena in the space to tell how the havens are behaving in the Milky Way and astrology, a form of divination, tinkles with apparent positions of celestial objects as the arbitrary basis to foretell what will happen in future.
A debate between an astrologer and an astronomer in a television talk show, to my view, is like a duel between a boxer on the ground and an angel in the air in a fairy tale.
During the chitchat Dr Ali nagged at Dr Acharya time and again to teach the commoners and the television viewers how to draw astrological charts to tabulate elements that can foretell a fate.
But Dr Ali missed a point. Dr Ali was in some way asking Dr Acharya to define the difference between poetry and chemistry---a difficult puzzle indeed for a doctor of philosophy in fortunetelling from Banaras Hindu University to solve.
The best Dr Acharya could perhaps do was define the difference in a quizzical manner the way a puzzled pupil, if asked "What is the difference between a primary school master and a railway station master?" may answer: "One trains the mind, the other minds the train".
We hope Zillur would soon organize similar mind-boggling debates in some of his next episodes of Tritio Matra. One such fairy debate, I dare suggest, could be between a qualified physician practicing in a city and a popular quack practicing in a village.
The writer is Editorial Consultant of Financial Express. http://visitmaswood.com. Maswood Alam Khan