Toyin Adepoju, On what ground are you able to interpret Gabriel Oyibo's work as soundly valid? As a man who is pursuing every shadow of discourse from his base as a French literary scholar, or as a grounded scientist who is able to distill the full implication of a scientific work? You rabidly pursue all arena and end upsadly muddling yourself even worst than the Dr. Faust(us). Truly, Esu has confused you as you'd sometimes ago beckoned him to do.... You once was the one who falsely propelled one Nigerian as a Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, when there was no factual ground for such erroneous salesmanship of your Medicine Nobel winner! Now, you turn around and you want me to see this apostle of false propaganda as an iconoclasm of truth? Wonders shall never end! The fingerprints I see of Toyin Adepoju is the kind that the late Bola Ige would have us realize is very leprous!
--- On Tue, 11/23/10, toyin adepoju <toyin.adepoju@googlemail.com> wrote:
From: toyin adepoju <toyin.adepoju@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: PROFESSOR TOYIN FALOLA HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE CRITIQUES OF PHILIP EMEAGWALI
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 23, 2010, 9:19 PM
With due respect,I want to state that the significance of a scientific theory,particularly one at the level of abstraction Oyibo is proposing,does not consist primarily in its applicability.It achieves value first as an explanation of an aspect of the universe,or of the whole universe,as a Theory of Everything,which Oyibo claims to have achieved, would propose.Practical applications,in my view,are a development from the value of a theoretical formulation.
Secondly,I think Oyibo has done his own work in formulating his theory which he considers a successful one.I argue that the evidence I have seen so far indicates that he is alone among his peers in the world of science in considering that theory a successful one.
Is the theory so advanced that only he can appreciate its sophistication. Is it like what one writer states of Isaac Newton's epochal Mathematical Principles of Natural philosophy,which is that some of the mathematical techniques in the book were unique to Newton? If that is so,why does Oyibo consistently claim that his professional peers have accredited the success of his theory while he has not produced evidence of this accreditation and it is proving difficult and practically impossible to find such evidence? With an accredited success of that magnitude,Oyibo should be celebrated by now in scientific circles as a god of knowledge,even more that Einstein is lionized.
Lets assume that Oyibo could have done some good work but is going about promoting the work in the wrong way,including fabricating non-existent accreditation in his premature hunger for fame.The next thing is to send the work to various scientists in the field for assessment.If their assessment is negative in terms of the success of the theory,one could hope that it os negative because it is too far advanced and some years in the future the value of the entire theory or aspects of it will become clear.
Meanwhile Oyibo should not be given credit that is not due to him,such as claiming a successful theory when he is alone in that assessment among those qualified to assess his work.
Thanks Toyin
On 23 November 2010 23:04, abyD <great.arc@gmail.com> wrote: This arguments might sound more productive if the debate is about if
(GA)GUT works or can be applied to real life? Although, Prof. Oyibo
will be in best position to prove this. At least, Navier-Stokes
equation, Einstein equation and numerous top mathematical relations
have found useful practical applications in Fluid Mechanics, Nuclear
Science, etc. Till (GA)GUT or whatever GUT becomes useful, it is only
fit for either research desks or garbage!
On Nov 23, 1:59 pm, "Anunoby, Ogugua" < Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote: > "It is your decision to focus on questions that are not part of the debate and in which Oyibo is not guilty,like this one, that leads me to conclude that not only are you mounting a defense of Oyibo that is not aligned with the charges against him..." > > Ta > > Oyibo "guilty"? Is the evidence against oyibo's claim conclusive and has a court found him quilty after a fair trial? > "Charges against him"? Who filed the charges? I always thought that allegations were being made against Oyibo. When and why have allegations transformed into charges. Who midwife the transformation? > > It is not proven that the claims of either man are crimes. The use of words like "guilty" and "charges" seem to me to be over the top. > > Forum participants are well advised to be always careful in their choice of words. An inappropriate or incorrect choice of words may suggest less than noble intention and bias even when the chooser/user meant well. > I would like to believe that all, the critics of Philip Emeagwali and Dr. Oyibo are seeking, is the truth about the claims of both men. A careless choice of words might cause open-minded followers of the commentaries on both men to question the intention, agenda, and integrity of the men's critics. > The truth can be established without the use of loaded language and careless misrepresentation. > > oa > From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of toyin adepoju > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 11:16 AM > To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: PROFESSOR TOYIN FALOLA HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE CRITIQUES OF PHILIP EMEAGWALI > > Gloria, > > The argument is not about whether or not Oyibo has appropriated anybody's work.The question is whether or not he has developed a successful Grand Unified Theory a he claims.It is your decision to focus on questions that are not part of the debate and in which Oyibo is not guilty,like this one,that leads me to conclude that not only are you mounting a defense of Oyibo that is not aligned with the charges against him you are trying to recreate him in terms that will present him in a positive light by casting him in terms of such issues as the possibility race discrimination and possible discrimination of the scientific establishment against unorthodox work,none of which represents the reality of the history of this case or even of Oyibo's self presentation.On his site,he argues that his Grand Unified Theory has been acclaimed by his fellow scientists in prestigious academic institutions and he gives names of supportive reviewers and institutions.The trouble is that there is no evidence of this accreditation.I will continue to search anyway. > > .We need to address the question in this debate: > > Has Oyibo developed a successful Grand Unified Theory? If so,how is that to be assessed? > > The questions is also not whether or not he has published those papers your list.The question is not so much whether or not he has published that single paper in an academic journal on his self acclaimed Unified Theory,the question is,in relation to that one academic paper he has published,why is the accreditation of its success emerging from Oyibo alone? What do his peers think about it? With Oyibo's relentless self promotion,where have there been no scientists,of any race,who have taken up his case,given the magnitude of its implications for the human race? > > The second point in relation to his publications is his focus on the media and non-academic press as his principal methods of dissemination.Yes,Youtube and Facebook are good for networking but we are not talking about networking per se.We are talking about procedures for verification of sophisticated scientific achievement by highly trained experts who are qualified to make such achievements.Are you arguing that Youtube now plays a role as a primary arena of such verification? If that were so,we might not have been having this argument.As it is,Oyibo's Grand Unified Theory is practically ignored by his colleagues in spite of his fantastic claims for it and his claims that the scientific world celebrates it.So far,the only scientist celebarting it is himself. > > Note that Oyibo is not engaged in indigenous science so the mode of verification of his work will not be identical in all particulars to those of indigenous science.In his choice of reserach topic,his methods of dissemination,however problematic,his method of professional training and his general publication record,he is working squarely within the centring of knowedge in the printed text,the organisation of experts in specialised institutions and the culture of mutual verification of each other's work through specific channels that has come to define modern science.It becomes worrisome that Oyibo chooses to pretend that he no longer wants to play by the rules that defined his career before his self acclaimed theory.Why? > > I also never stated that Oyibo has only one article.I stated that I have seen only one article of his on his Grand Unified Theory published in an academic forum.I wonder why, since he is so hungry for acclaim and knows that the only people who can provide the verification that will make such acclaim indisputable are his qualified peers. > > As I stated,the best thing one can do to verify the validity of Oyibo's claims is to get his peers to review his work in academic fora so that if it has merit the information will spread.Oyibo's failure to do that is most disturbing. > > Thanks > Toyin > On 23 November 2010 02:15, Emeagwali, Gloria (History) < emeagw...@mail.ccsu.edu<mailto: emeagw...@mail.ccsu.edu>> wrote: > "The problem with your defense of Oyibo is ......" Toyin Adepoju > > You started off on a wrong footing. I am sure I did not appoint myself as Oyibo's attorney. > > A great part of my comments were general, although some surely are applicable to this case. > I have always been fascinated by the issue of 'proof' as reflected in the history of science and this seems > to be a possible test case. I have also been interested in the various possibilities for validation > of indigenous science. You may see why Feyerabend attracts me. > > I listed some of Oyibo's articles and the source of the list. I did not think that > these were all his articles. His book(s) were not included. In fact I consider the list a start. > Remember that someone said that he had only one article. > > By the way, I hope you are not behind the times once more. You tube serves a useful purpose > for social networking. Einstein may have used it, too, given the opportunity, but of course > these avenues did not exist then. This is now a multimedia world. The dissemination of information > can take various forms. I believe Stephen Hawkins of 'History of Time' fame actually uses it, too. > > "You have tried to imagine Oyibo as a Black achiever and scientific maverick who needs ......." > > There you go again jumping the gun, putting words into my mouth, making yourself judge and jury at the same time. > Generally I detect an indecent haste to rush to conclusions----- > > "If it is a serious mathematical work, whether or not it achieves a successful Unified Theory, > sooner or later, one is likely to get published reviews that will evaluate it fairly." > > This sentence is promising. A fair evaluation is what I am concerned about. Nothing more. Nothing less. > We are now on the same page. We must always open the door for fair evaluation and let the chips > fall where they may after that. > > You did not answer my last question. Has anyone ever accused Oyibo of appropriating their work in any way? > Thank you. >
> ________________________________
> From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.co m> [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.c om>] On Behalf Of toyin adepoju [toyin.adep...@googlemail.com<mailto:toyin.adep...@googlemail.com>]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 1:03 AM
> To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com<mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.co m>
> Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: PROFESSOR TOYIN FALOLA HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE CRITIQUES OF PHILIP EMEAGWALI
>
> Gloria,
>
> The problem with your defense of Oyibo is that you seem to be substituting a hypothetical situation for the actual situation.
>
> You have tried to imagine Oyibo as a Black achiever and scientific maverick who needs to be defended from the scientific establishment when even Oyibo does not cast that himself in way.If you have any evidence that Oyibo does so,in terms of race at least, let u see it.
>
> You also list Oyibo's peer reviewed papers in fields OTHER than his claim to fame,his Theory of Everything.You will agree that the argument is not about those contributions but about his Grand Unified Theory.
>
> He did not get himself on a Nigerian postage stamp on account of claims from those publications.His Grand Unified Theory is the claim to fame he has been advertising.
>
> Has it achieved what he claims for it?
>
> Now,on your invocation of Kuhn,Popper and Feyerabend and of the sociology of science.You need to look carefully at the points you make and place them in context in order ti evaluate their degree of relevance in this instance. You are stating
>
> 1.That Oyibo's work might be too revolutionary for publication through normal academic channels.Ate you are of any ckaims by Oyibo to have tried to achieve that and failed? Does Oyibo not care for the assessment and peer recognition such assessment would bring if he is proven right? If he does not care,why is he so hard at work on self promotion in the Nigerian cetred media and Youtube? Even having himself put on Nigeria's postage stamp, a man who dies not raise a ripple in the international community of mathematicians of all races?
>
> Is Oyibo arguing that of all the mathematicians in the world,he cannot do better than having only one,a fellow ...
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin. For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogueFor previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.htmlTo post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue- unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
|
No comments:
Post a Comment