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 Nigerian-jn,review his book on his Unified Theory? I dont think you would do that to yourself if you were convinced you have made in that book a discovery that is a climax of  humanity's quest for knowledge,a godlike achievement eloquently described by Afolabi " every field theory, every known physical force in the universe (gravity, electricity, magnetic force, nuclear weak and strong forces, everything[unified]in a single mathematical equation".

2. On your use of  Kuhn and Popper.

First,Popper's falsifiability concept.That of course plays to the same point I am making. Scientific work needs to be examined in terms of whether or not it can be falsified in terms of the criteria that determines truth or falsehood in the relevant discipline.Does Oyibo's claim to have achieved a Unified Theory prove to  be  truthful or is the claim   false?

Whatever Popper might have written about mind-body relationships  he would not argue that Oyibo's work does not need to be assessed and by criteria that would judge  whether or not it achieves the goals  it claims.My understanding of Popper's career is that he worked to expand the criteria and make even more rigorous the scope of intellectual enquiry.This is the man who argued persuasively that Plato's Republic demonstrated him as an enemy of an open society and as having betrayed the spirit of Socrates.

2.As for Kuhn,his argument about the conditions that shape scientific revolution imply that a scientist should  be assessed to understand  the conditions that shape the character of their work and influence its reception and impact.In regard to Oyibo, we need to know why he is presenting his Grand Unified Theory  work almost exclusively  in non-scientific fora.We should not create a hypothetical case for him as you are trying to do.The answer to that will help determine why could get a PhD and publish peer reviewed papers through following the rules of his profession and now chooses to ignore them when his so called greatest work has emerged.Is he dodging the rigour of this  assessment?  If he believes he will not be understood,has he tried?

On your concluding points:

1."Dare Afolabi has  peer reviewed Oyibo's work and mentioned that Pozzi, Carot, Animalu, and  a few others have done so.  Most importantly,he has actually read  the papers of Oyibo. We really do appreciate the assessment. What say you, Toyin?"

I have invited Afolabi to let us know on what authority he declares that Oyibo has successfully  developed a Grand Unified Theory.The papers he has reviewed are not on that theory which Oyibo claims as his right to fame.The argument is about the truth or falsehood of having successfully developed such a theory.

I am not a mathematician  so I cannot claim to understand Oyibo's work much less assess it.My argument is that Oyibo is alone among those qualified to assess his work in claiming that he has developed a successful   Unified Theory.Animalu,who reviewed his book on the subject, does not state Oyiobo  has developed such a theory.He states Oyibo's  work is a framwork for such a theory.Aflolabi state sthat Corot and Pozzi reviewed Oyibo's work on the Navier-Stokes equation.That work  is not Oyibo's self declared  claim to fame.

Why is there only one review of this purportedly fantastic work?

2."At this point in time I would like to ask a rather Popperian question directed at critics. What is wrong with GAGUT, in their perception- and here we should  try to make a distinction between. Is   GAGUT falsifiable?

3."And,  as Kuhn would probably frame it, is there 'a paradigm shift'  in Oyibo's GAGUT,  that makes it difficult for members of the  old, hard -core, inner circle to evaluate the theory? If  so,  how can we get around that impasse".

You need to ask,has Oyibo invited his peers to examine his work? Does he present it in a context that enables his work  to invite serious investigation?  That context is  certainly not Youtube and newspapers.

If yiou really want this man's  claims taken seriously by the scientific establishment and the world at large,get copies of his book where he develops his Grand Unified Theory  and send it to mathematicians  for assessment, preferably to academic journals and academic bodies.I am likely to do that soon myself.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 e it fairly.

Thanks

Toyin

On 21 November 2010 09:21, Emeagwali, Gloria (History) <emeagwali@mail.ccsu.edu> wrote:

>........ particularly in terms of
> understanding of the culture of science and technology....Toyin Adepoju


I suggest that Toyin  Adepoju should read Feyerabend's 'Against Method'
 and  read   Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions again.
I know it is now an old text but it continues to be influential.
He should even  re- read  Lakatos. I am getting
this feeling that his conception of what scientists do, and how they
evaluate their peers, is pretty much  influenced  by 19th century positivism.
In his view of what science is Adepoju is rather old fashioned and seems
 to predate even an old battleaxe like Popper, whose final work was in
 favor of the interaction of body and mind, thus highlighting  the role of
 subjectivity and thus dispelling the myth of some kind of unchanging,
 pure  scientific culture out there. See Popper, K. Knowledge and
 the Body-Mind Problem. Routledge, 1994.

 Note that this great philosopher of science never accepted the idea of
verification, and  'proof''  in the conventional sense, but  invented the concept
 of falsification and falsifiability. In other words   a theory  is scientific if is
falsifiable and can be proven wrong. I cite him because he is one of the classic
 pioneers in the history and philosophy of science and I still find his insights useful.

Remember, also,  Kuhn's argument that mob psychology governs the view
 of scientists and academics in general,  and sometimes they are unable,
 or even afraid to deal with an outside theory, a different view, and we may
 add to that,   'outsiders'.........people outside of   the race, geographical
space and the inner circle of the scientific community in question. In short, in the
world of scholarship in general,  racism and xenophobia exist. You quoted him
some time ago.

 Does anyone  really seriously believe that all academically sound/ good articles
 or books submitted for publication, whether in the arts or sciences, have
 been accepted? And  what of all the racist rants that made it to the
academic presses? The most difficult book to publish is one that challenges
 the orthodox view of a subject, or threatens to challenge an intellectual icon.
 The  book may never see the light of day. Paul Feyerabend, a renowned
philosopher of science,  made the point that he sent his book on  for
publication to London in 1972. It disappeared 'under mysterious circumstances.'
In the long run he got it published by Verso Press which was not highly regarded
then, but  the work  turned out to be one of the truly great  works in the
 philosophy of science.

I am happy for Afolabi's  reminder that  Oyibo's search for a
 'theory of everything' is not  a bit of pomposity on his part,  but a rather normal
 quest in science. I got the impression from a previous commentator,
a few weeks ago,  that  somehow, by searching for  Grand Unified Theory,
Oyibo was engaging in some kind of ridiculous impossibility that amounted
 to sorcery. That misconception should be put to rest  and we
should encourage more of our scientists to search for and construct GUT.
 In fact I admire Oyibo for embarking on this field of research, granted that we
are still in the process of evaluating his work.

Dare Afolabi has  peer reviewed Oyibo's work and mentioned that
 Pozzi, Carot, Animalu, and  a few others have done so.  Most importantly,
he has actually read  the papers of Oyibo. We really do appreciate the
assessment. What say you, Toyin?

At this point in time I would like to ask a rather
Popperian question directed at critics. What is wrong with GAGUT,
in their perception- and here we should  try to make a distinction between
Oyibo, the man, and his theory GAGUT, as much as possible.
Is   GAGUT falsifiable?

And,  as Kuhn would probably frame it, is there 'a paradigm shift'  in Oyibo's
GAGUT,  that makes it difficult for members of the  old, hard -core, inner circle to
evaluate the theory? If  so,  how can we get around that impasse.


The following publications by Oyibo are listed by Scott Williams:

Oyibo, Gabriel A. Complex variable theorem for the general fundamental
 solutions for the full Navier Stokes equations. Int. J. Math. Game
Theory Algebra 9 (1999), no. 4, 277--320.
Oyibo, Gabriel A. Mathematical modelling for fluid and gas dynamic
turbulence, Nova J. Math. Game Theory Algebra 6 (1997), no. 4,
223--274 also published in Applied Mathematics: Methods and
Applications (1995), 519--563.
Oyibo, Gabriel A. Exact closed form solutions to the full Navier-
Stokes equations and new perceptions for fluid and gas dynamics,
Nova J. Math. Game Theory Algebra 7 (1997), 13-74 also
 published in Applied Mathematics: Methods and Applications
 (1995), 401--476.
Oyibo, Gabriel A.Generalized mathematical proof of Einstein's
theory using a new group theory, Nova J. Math. Game Theory
Algebra 4 (1996), 1-24 also published in Applied Mathematics:
Methods and Applications (1995), 205--223
John Jara Nutakor and Gabriel Oyibo, An investigation of a
solution technique for the three-dimensional hodograph equation,
Applied Mathematics: Methods and Applications (1995), 103--158.
Oyibo, Gabriel A.Closed-form solutions for nonlinear quasi-unsteady
transonc aerodynamics, AIAA J. 27 (1989), 1572-1578.
Oyibo, Gabriel A.; Brunelle, Eugene J., Vibrations of circular
orthotropic plates in affine space, AIAA J. 23, 296-300 (1985).
Brunelle, E.J.; Oyibo, G.A. Generic buckling curves for specially
orthotropic rectangular plates, AIAA J. 21, 1150-1156 (1983).
Oyibo, Gabriel A. Unified aeroelastic flutter theory for very low
 aspect ratio panels, AIAA J. 21, 1581-1587 (1983).
Oyibo, Gabriel A. Grand unified theorem representing the unified
 field theory or the theory of everything. Int. J. Math. Game Theory
 Algebra 9.



Finally, has Oyibo appropriated someone else's theory or invention and
 claimed that it was his?


Gloria Emeagwali
www.africahistory.net
..............................

________________________________________
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dare Afolabi [afolabi.dare@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 2:47 PM
To: USA Africa Dialogue SeriesPHILIP EMEAGWALI


Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: PROFESSOR TOYIN FALOLA HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE CRITIQUES OF Toyin,

My defense of Prof Oyibo is predicated upon the fact that I have
actually read almost every one, if not all, of the mathematical papers
he has written since 1983. I am also familiar with his 1981 PhD
thesis.

I have also read many of Professor Animalu's papers, three of them
relating to Oyibo's work on GUT, the Grand Unified Theorem. I do see
that you've quoted two words, "viable framework" from page 2 of
Animalu's 27-page review paper on Oyibo's GUT to suggest that Animalu
somehow casts doubt on Oyibo's work. Such a suggestion, if that is
what you wanted to make, is actually orthogonal to the truth. I think
you would have seen this if, instead of going to the bottom of page 2,
you had merely glanced at the top of page 1. There you would have seen
the title of the paper from which you quote: "A Review of Oyibo's
GRAND UNIFIED THEOREM With Realizations of a Hierarchy of Oyibo-
Einstein Relativities." And here is the complete sentence your quote
is excised from: "We are, therefore, led to the conclusion that
Professor Oyibo's GUT has a sound mathematical and physical basis and
is a viable frame work for a Grand Unified Field Theory of
Everything."

Please take note of the phrase, "Oyibo-Einstein Relativities," in the
title. Please note also the conclusion of Animalu that Oyibo's
Relativity "has a sound mathematical and physical basis." May I add
that Oyibo's Relativity is a superset of Einstein's Special and
General Relativities.

Kindly permit me a digression here. When you hear of Oyibo using the
phrase "Theory of Everything" (ToE) please note that he did not
concoct the term. ToE is sometimes used as an alias for Grand Unified
Theorem, or Grand Unified Theory, (GUT). GUT is the container, as it
were, of everything--every field theory, every known physical force in
the universe (gravity, electricity, magnetic force, nuclear weak and
strong forces, everything--in a single mathematical equation. These
two terms, GUT and ToE, are widely used by physicists. Everyone's been
looking for GUT. Oyibo, the Nigerian, found it first. But Oyibo, in
documenting his equations for GUT, added that it was not really his
own work but that of God Almighty (GA), hence he prepended GA to the
existing GUT and called his theorem GAGUT: God Almighty's Grand
Unified Theorem. GAGUT, as Oyibo insists on calling GUT, is an
irritant which does not endear him to some influential but atheistic
or agnostic physicists who resent this upstart African coming from
engineering to upturn the neatly laid out order of things in their
exclusive playground. Who does he think he is to change GUT to GAGUT?
And what is his pedigree? Was he an apprentice to anyone in our club?
(Herein lies the root of one of his problems. It is not new for him,
in his article on transonic aerodynamics published in the AIAA
_Journal_, 27(11):1572-1578 (1989), Oyibo wrote, "This paper is
dedicated to God for His inspiration"). End of digression.

In my opinion, Professor Oyibo's claim to uncommon fame is founded on
at least two monumental, scientific achievements:

(1) he obtained closed-form solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations
of mathematical fluid dynamics, and

(2) he derived the elusive but highly sought-after equations of GUT of
mathematical physics. (Did I say a Nigerian found it first?)

You say you have searched for Oyibo's publications and found only one
on "scientific cosmology." I don't know what you mean by that. But if
you mean the theory of relativity, then you should continue the search
because, eventually, you should find more. They are out there. You
also assert that Oyibo has shielded his work from the scientific
scrutiny of his peers. This is, again, not congruent with the truth.
Here, for example, are some readily verifiable facts to contradict
your claim in this regard.

Let us take Oyibo's work on (1) and (2) above.

(i) Please look up item MR1799334 (2001j:76032) in the Mathematical
Reviews database, MathSciNet, published by the American Mathematical
Society (AMS). After reading the 50-page, 1997 journal article
authored by Oyibo, the Reviewer states, "The author presents an exact
solution of the steady Navier-Stokes equations, for the incompressible
flow around a cylinder, obtained by means of the transformation group
technique." The Reviewer concludes with the statement, "Certainly an
analytical solution of the Navier-Stokes equations for a basic
geometry represents an important contribution to the knowledge of
fluid mechanics." By the way, Pozzi the Reviewer is not a Nigerian.
And AMS only asks experts in the field to do their reviews.

(ii) Also, look up item MR1455591 (98e:83007) in the same AMS
MathSciNet database. This was reviewed by Jaume J. Carot, an expert on
Relativity and Differential Geometry. As allowed under the rules for
AMS Reviewers, if a Reviewer agrees with the paper, he may simply use
the author's abstract or summary as the text of his review, instead of
writing his own review _ab initio_. This is what Carot did.

As far as I know, Oyibo's work in GUT has been published in journals,
presented in conferences before competent scholars, printed in
Conference Proceedings, before being finally published in book forms.
This is a normal progression, at least in engineering, as far as I
know: after presentation in conferences, publication in journals, new
materials end up in textbooks.

But you take some effort to disparage his publication sequence and
outlets. Assuming arguendo that the facts were as you assert, that his
outlets were irreputable indeed, don't you know that in mathematics
the outlet does not really matter? It does not matter one jot whether
one writes the equations on the back of an envelope, on toilet paper,
or on a golden tablet presented before the Royal Society of London:
the equations speak for themselves. Are his equations right or wrong?
That is the question.

Let me tell you something, sir. If you are an expert in mathematical
fluid dynamics, and one day you arrive at the office to meet a request
from the American Mathematical Society to review, for their world-
renowned database, a journal article by a "mad" man claiming to have
found closed-form solutions to the celebrated Navier-Stokes equations,
that is an assignment you are not going to take lightly. For one
thing, it is a solution you yourself would have been looking to find.
And it would be a golden opportunity for you to put this "mad" man in
his place. You are now about to write the most stinking rebuke to
teach him and any future upstarts a lesson they would never forget;
they would never again waste your time or that of the AMS. But that is
not what happened. Pozzi wrote that Oyibo's paper he was asked to
review is "an important contribution to the knowledge of fluid
mechanics." Wow!

If you don't do Navier-Stokes, or earn your keeps by knowing
relativity inside out, then the names Pozzi and Carot may not ring a
bell. Suffice to know that these are scholars of no mean repute.
People who are not experts in the field can repeat, over and over
again, that Oyibo's work has not been peer-reviewed, that it is 419,
etc. Yet, they have obviously not even read the Oyibo papers under
debate, nor Animalu's reviews of them, nor the reviews of them by
Carot. As for me, I know what or who to believe: my own eyes, the
brains of Animalu and Carot, and the AMS review process.

And, dear Toyin, what do you mean by "peer review" anyway? Isn't an
AMS review of a mathematical paper a form of peer review? It is after
all a *review*, done by a highly knowledgeable *peer* who is,
moreover, identified in *public*. A public peer review process.

Animalu has reviewed it for the Nigerian Mathematical Center, it is
not good enough for you.

Carot has reviewed it for the American Mathematical Society, it is not
good enough for you.

I am open-minded by training and disposition. So, I am ready to
entertain the possibility that Animalu and Carot don't know squat in
relativity. So, let's cut through the chase. Give me a name, the name
of the reviewer who is good enough for you.

Somebody please tell me: why would Animalu who worked with Dirac
(Nobel Physics Laureate) at Cambridge, a Past President of the
Nigerian Academy of Science, an expert on Relativity; why on earth
should he ruin his reputation for Oyibo who was relatively obscure at
the time he was asked to do the review by the Nigerian Mathematical
Centre headed by Professor Ale? Why would an AMS Reviewer, Pozzi, lie
to the whole world and say that Oyibo made important contributions to
fluid mechanics if he, Oyibo, did not? And Carot; why, oh why, would
Carot risk his prestige for a Nigerian scammer he had never met? And
if, through some ingenious scheme, the non-Nigerian scientists Pozzi
and Carot were hypnotized and scammed by Oyibo some ten years ago, why
are they still in stupor? Isn't it time for them to wake up and admit
they've been had?

And so when all is said and done, we are asked to believe that all
these great minds, masters of their own trade, have been serially
snookered in their own turfs by a "mad" 419 scam artist, a mere jack
of all trades hopping from engineering to physics and pretending to be
a mathematician. Hear what they imply: this Oyibo apprentice has
successfully scammed these master mathematicians with mathematics! And
who should we believe in their stead? Who are the smart alecks able to
see through Oyibo's scam? A hoard of internet keyboard operators who
obviously have not even read a single page of the mathematical volumes
under review?

I see.

Please give Oyibo a break. <http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/
articles/guest-articles/give-gabriel-oyibo-a-break.html>

By Dare Afolabi.


On Nov 19, 10:37 am, toyin adepoju <toyin.adep...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Dare,
>
> Having read your defense of Oyibo,the point of yours I identify with is that
> we should locate  what is genuine in Oyibo's claims to achievement in
> cosmology.
>
> We are in the process of doing so.Ogonna,the other day,presented a review by
> a Nigerian mathematician,Animalu, of a book by Oyibo.Animalu  states that
> the book provides a viable framework for a Unified Theory..Ogonna argues
> that the term "viable framework" is equal to developing a successful
> framework.I dont think that argument is tenable.
>
> The manner in which Oyibo is carrying out his quest for recognition suggests
> to me that he does not expect to get such recognition from the scientific
> community and is working on the gullibility of Nigerians emerging from the
> generally low level of understanding about science  in the country,along
> with the hunger for heroes,as Emeagwali does.
>
> I am of this view beceause the central plank of Oyibo's method of
> communicating his ideas are non-scientific  fora,not fora  where scientists
>  qualified to assess his work will  do so,and henceforth educate the general
> public.
>
> Having done a search of his publications I can see one in a scientific
> publication  that addresses his ideas in scientific cosmology. The others in
> scientific publications address other subjects,different from the fields of
> the discoveries he claims. The other publication of his in terms of his self
> described discoveries   seems to be a book publication by a non-academic
> press.That is problematic beceause of the problem of quality control.The
> value of an academic press is that scholars in the relevant field examine
> the work and decide if it is fit for publication in terms of  contributing
> to knowledge in the field.
>
> Even if Oyibo did publish in scholarly channels,does his work achieve the
> goal of creating a Theory of Everything as he claims it does?
> Why is his work not reviewed by other scientists,  particularly in fora
> where it can be examined by his peers in the scientific community? Does he
> submit the work to journals for publication and the book for review by
> academic journals? If he has published in scientific fora anything relevant
> to his  claims to  discoveries beyond that paper I saw it is certainly not
> easy to find.That would be odd for a person who is so sure of his
> achievement.
>
> I have read that he claims that prominent scientists have examined his
> discoveries  and given their accreditation.I am yet to see any
> review,anywhere,apart from that by Animalu,which, tellingly enough, as far
> as I remember,  is on a website on Black scientists at the University of
> Buffalo,,a  website that takes pains to describe Oyibo's claims as
> fraudulent.
>
> I am of the view that Oyibo is not likely to be telling the truth about
> those reviews by scientists.I would be  happy to be proved wrong. I could be
> proved wrong in my near conviction that no reviews by those scientists
> exist. I would be  pleased to be proved wrong in my conviction that even if
> they exist,they do not agree that Oyibo has developed a successful Theory of
> Everything.
>
> If such accreditation had been achieved  these arguments  would be
> unnecessary. The claim that racism is behind Oyibo's  not being celebrated
> by the global scientific community will not hold.
>
> Oyibo has made enough noise for his case to have achieved positive attention
> from his peers,if he has a case. I am curious to know in terms of what
> scenario Oyibo could have achieved  all he claims and yet receive no acclaim
> from his peers  and resorts to focusing his claims of achievement  on  his
> website,the media and Youtube.
>
> Having addressed the question of Oyibo's relationship to the scientific
> community in the context  of  his self described cosmological discoveries,I
> want to address his focus on the media.
>
> I have read a quote purportedly from Oyibo claiming that the Nigerian papers
> need to bring his work to the limelight the way the New York Times did for
> Einstein,claiming  that as a central  method by which scientific works come
> to light. That is only partly true and is  a distortion of the story of
> Einstein whose work achieved prominence well before his fame in the US.
>
> I will not dwell on Oyibo's  use of Youtube because it has its value.The
> bottom line,though,is that the best assessors of the work of scientist is
> not the general public but other scientists.
>
> Along those lines,I think your use of the  stories of Einstein and Newton in
> your essay is  misleading. You use those examples to support  your claim
> that the Oyibo case is comparable  to that of those men.I think the way you
> use those examples,without your knowing it,throws up considerations that
> highlight Oyibo's weaknesses and the sense of unseriousness in his approach
> to presenting his self described discoveries.
>
> First, Newton.Yes, Newton engaged in religious,philosophical,occult and
> scientific cosmological exploration   and understood his scientific,
> religious  and philosophical cosmology as unified.Even then,his work in
> scientific cosmology takes pains to work strictly in terms of the
> quantitative tools of scientific cosmology.His magnum opus, the *Mathematical
>  Principles  of Natural Philosophy,* is instructive in this regard. Almost
> all the work  operates in terms of rigorous  quantitative analysis. At the
> conclusion,the General Scholium, he expounds  the philosophical and
> religious conclusions he draws in relation to the scientific work,  but does
> not argue that he can prove those ideas they way he is able to prove such
> concepts in physical cosmology as the laws of gravity and of motion.
>
> He describes the intellectual techniques of observation,induction and
> generalization,in relation to mathematics, through which he has developed
> his physical cosmology. He concludes the work by describing his vision of an
> ultimate unity between celestial mechanics and motion in the human body,but
> concludes that having reached the limits of his scientific abilities he
> cannot prove the factuality of this vision "we are not furnished with such a
> sufficiency of experiments...." or lines almost identical to those.
>
> If Oyibo has discovered a method for being able to prove religious and
> philosophical  conceptions through the quantitative  methods of
> mathematics,or through a unity between quantitative and qualitative
> methods,or through the development of new epistemic categories, is he
> spelling out his methods or engaging in using  ideas that uncritically
> conflate fields of knowledge so as to dazzle the uniformed or does he lack
> the philosophical and methodological sophistication to explain what he
> claims to be doing so as to make clear its terms of reference?
>
> Einstein.You mention that Einstein  was championed by Sir Arthur Eddington
> and Oyibo could do well with a champion. Note that Einstein  worked always
>  within the channels of formal science.His early  three ground breaking
> articles were published in Annanel der Physique,Annals of Physics,I think,a
> prestigious scientific journal, and critiqued  by his peers.Eddington's
> support came later through an experimental verification of Einstein's
>  ideas,thereby complementing the theoretical analysis by the scientific
> community.Oyibo,on the other hand,does not seem to be working within the
> framework of the scientific  establishment and its rigorous rules of
> assessment.He  seems to be the central scientific assessor of his self
> acclaimed work.
>
> Is he arguing, like Grigory Perelman,the Russian scientist awarded the
> $1,000 dollar Fields Medal but who turned it down,that he is opposed to the
> scientific establishment and is going it on his own? Is he arguing that the
> establishment is   too narrow in its perceptions to appreciate the
> revolutionary scope of his work?
>
>   I  dont seem to see such a principled and revolutionary claim in reports
> by and of him.He seems to be arguing that other scientists have given
> credence to his claims of achievement.I am yet to see any evidence of that.
>
> Yes,he has published lot of standard mathematical  work.The  claim to fame
> he  evokes,however,is not for that but for the theory  which is proving so
> nebulous to substantiate.
>
> The fact that the Nigerian government could have put on their postage stamp
> two scientists,Oyibo and Emeagwali, whose work cannot be verified in terms
> of the achievements  they claim, says much about the level  of
> underdevelopment in the country at that time, particularly in terms of
> understanding of the culture of science and technology.
>
> Thanks
> Toyin
>
> On 19 November 2010 11:31, Dare Afolabi <afolabi.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On a related note, I've responded to critics of Professor Gabriel
> > Oyibo in an article on Nigeria Village Square,
> > <http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/guest-articles/give-
> > gabriel-oyibo-a-break.html>.
>
> > Dare Afolabi.
>
> > On Nov 18, 7:32 pm, toyin adepoju <toyin.adep...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > A misconception is passing the rounds of Nigerian centred fora that
> > > Professor Toyin Falola is spearheading the recent critiques  of Philip
> > > Emeagwali, a Nigerian scientist  accused of making false claims about his
> > > achievements.Sakhos Silas Ejiofor even titled his essay on the Emeagwali
> > > affair in the Nigerian Village Square site a
> > > rejoinder<
> >http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/guest-articles/another-l..
> > .>to
> > > a Sahara Reporters article written by Toyin Falola.
>
> > > Please note:
>
> > > Professor Toyin Falola has  not written a word on the Emeagwali saga.The
> > > only connection Toyin Falola has with those critiques is that he hosts
> > the
> > > listerve USAAfrica,where a debate on the subject took place some time
> > ago.A
> > > broad range   of subjects are discussed on USAAfrica spanning various
> > > aspects of Africana existence.
>
> > > Thanks
> > > Toyin Adepoju
>
> > --
> > 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/USAAfricaDialogue
> >   For previous archives, visit
>
> ...
>
> read more >

--
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/USAAfricaDialogue
  For previous archives, visit  http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
  To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
  unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

--
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/USAAfricaDialogue
  For previous archives, visit  http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
  To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
  unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

--
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/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com