Sujay Rao Mandavilli (Sujay)

Followers

125

Following

Public Views

Sujay Rao Mandavilli was born in India on the 18th of November, 1969, and is the son of an IIT (Indian Institute of Technology) Professor. He is the great great grand son of Hindu philosopher and reformer late Diwan Bahadur J. Venkatanarayana Naidu. (Refer Wikipedia) Sujay has been fascinated with science from an early age and built his first telescope at the age of eleven. He has been interested in the Aryan problem since the 1990’s. He is committed to the healthy growth of science in India and elsewhere. He has worked in different technology firms for twenty years including as a Senior Consultant for IBM for Six years and has executed assignments for different clients across the world in the field of Governance, Risk, Compliance, Process Improvement and Information Security, and in this connection, has travelled to or worked in fourteen different countries. Along with his IT practice, he focusses on fighting dogmas, religious fascism, obscurantism and ideological constructs of all kinds and bring about a scientific and an intellectual awakening in developing counties like India using his own unique methods and approaches, with the hope that this will be a role model for other developing countries as well. He is interested in the ‘Globalization of Science’ i.e. how intellectual multi-polarity can be beneficial to science itself. He is also interested in the ‘Sociology of Science’ i.e. how a proper teaching of science can lead to Social and Intellectual revolutions in regions where such revolutions are long overdue and greatly increase scientific output. He strongly believes that Scientific and Intellectual revolutions are long overdue in developing countries several decades after the end of colonialism and is trying to lay the foundations for such revolutions in his own unique way.He is the Founder-Director of the Institute for the Study of the Globalisation of Science (Registered as the Globalisation of Science Trust) which is has already started empanelling a group of researchers and scientists to plan its next course of action.Also visit www.isgosglobal.com Present Qualification:MA (Anthropology), M.Com, CA Inter, PGDBA, ISO 27001 LA, Six Sigma MBB, ITIL, CCNAHe is also a member of the following institutions:Lifetime Member, Indian Science Congress Association (L28080)Lifetime Member, Linguistic Association of India (LM-027/2015)Affiliate, ARC Centre of Excellence on the Dynamics of Language, Australian Research CouncilLifetime Member, Dravidian Linguistic Association (1211/2015)Member, Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA)Member, Social Science History Association (1969SUJ)Lifetime Member, India Innovators AssociationMember, TRIZ Innovation IndiaHonorary Member, Quarterly Franklin Membership (Membership Id
Phone: Sujay Rao Mandavilli
Address: Sujay Rao Mandavilli

less

Dominik Wujastyk

University of Alberta

Dorian Q Fuller

University College London

Richard P Martin

Stanford University

James Mallinson

University of Oxford

Armando Marques-Guedes

UNL - New University of Lisbon

Julian Thomas

The University of Manchester

Maria Nilsson

Lund University

Eugen Ciurtin

Institute for the History of Religions

Michal Biran

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Julien Zurbach

École Normale Supérieure

InterestsView All (30)

Uploads

Papers by Sujay Rao Mandavilli (Sujay)

Weighing in on the God debate: Why we need transdisciplinary, dialectical and multicultural perspectives

Social Science Research Network, 2024

Among the earliest usage of the word God comes from the sixth century Christian manuscript “Codex... more Among the earliest usage of the word God comes from the sixth century Christian manuscript “Codex Argenteus”. The English word itself is thought to have been derived from the Proto-Germanic word “Guđan”. The English word God along with its counterparts in other languages is used for virtually all conceptions and the term remains an English translation common to all conceptions of religion. This is in spite of the fact that there are many significant differences across religions. It is sometimes used to describe a formless irreligious God associated with nature. This usage is relatively more recent however, and is said to have originated from the ideas of Baruch Spinoza, who was a pantheist. Among the Jews, the word Yahweh was used to mean God, while Muslims and Hindus use the term Allah and Brahman respectively. Other religions use different names; for example, in the Chinese religion, Shangdi is referred to as the creator of the universe, while in Zoroastrianism, the term Ahura Mazda is used. The term Waheguru is used by the Sikhs to refer to a great teacher, while the Baha’i use the term Baha.

Orchestrating “Irreducible simplicity” in science and science communication: Positioning “irreducible simplicity” as a vital guiding principle for effective and bona fide science

Social Science Research Network, 2024

This paper, which is perhaps our umpteenth and umptieth on scientific method and scientific metho... more This paper, which is perhaps our umpteenth and umptieth on scientific method and scientific methodology, proposes, discusses and lays bare the canon of what we propose to call &quot;irreducible simplicity&quot;. We believe and hypothesize that this approach would encompass, and play a natural, pivotal and a vital role in all aspects and facets of scientific activity from the cradle to the grave such as grounds-up hypothesis conceptualization, hypothesis building, detailed hypothesis specification, hypothesis testing and refinement, and structured and effective science communication to the masses, including people from different cultures and different parts of the world. We also review the various and varied steps in common scientific method and methodology, and also review various canons such as the canon of simplicity, the canon of economy, the canon of parsimony, the canon of efficiency, and the canon of efficacy. We also compare and contrast this concept with the concept of &quot;irreducible complexity&quot;; the latter is widely held to be a pseudo-scientific concept, and does not fall within the parameter and radar of bona fide, beneficial and healthy science. We also explain and discuss why this approach would invariably and inevitably catapult and propel science to a higher trajectory, amplify and magnify science communication to the masses, with ample just rewards for the common man, and for science and scientific activity in general.

Advancing the Use of 'Continuous Zero-based Reassessment of Assumptions, Hypotheses and Methods': a Vital Tool and Technique in the Interests of Better Science

Social Science Research Network, 2024

The approach conceptualized, described and advocated in this paper may appear to be highly conven... more The approach conceptualized, described and advocated in this paper may appear to be highly conventional and non-radical at the outset and at a preliminary or a cursory glance, but it has plenty of substance to offer to the healthy pursuit of rigour, dispassionate objectivity, and wholesome and balanced scientific activity. We do not aim or propose to set the cat among the pigeons or create an unwarranted flutter that could potentially rattle and alienate scholars, but instead create in the medium and the long-term, a healthy, an infallible and a dedicated enterprise devoted to the constant grounds-up assessment and reassessment of assumptions both explicit and implicit, methods, methodologies, tools, techniques, hypotheses, processes, procedures, frameworks and paradigms, including all legacy and archaic methods, methodologies, tools, techniques, hypotheses, processes, procedures, frameworks and paradigms such that an intrinsic self-correcting mechanism can be forged and materialized to channelize science and scientific activity in a meaningful and a productive longterm direction, and in the healthy interests of science and society as a whole. Needless to say, we expect this to lead to faster scientific progress as well, and what we have always called &quot;scientific progress at the speed of light&quot;.

Forging “Methodological Inductivism” in the Interests of Better Science: Encouraging Methodological Inductivism as a Harbinger of Meaningful Change in Different Kinds of Scientific Endeavour

Social Science Research Network, 2024

We begin this paper by defining various pertinent and relevant terms such as the term inductivism... more We begin this paper by defining various pertinent and relevant terms such as the term inductivism in science, hypothetico-deductivism, and subsequently also provide the definitions of various other terms such as a methodology which naturally also include and encompass terms such as research and scientific methodology, scientific methods, scientific techniques, scientific processes and scientific procedures; we then proceed to lay down the bare essentials of what we would like to call &quot;Methodological inductivism&quot;, and also provide a justification and a raison d&#39;etre for the same. We also discuss other allied, related and contingent approaches in the market such as method triangulation, methodological holism, methodological individualism, methodological pluralism, etc in a fair level of detail. We also present, list and lay down bare and in great detail, the various steps involved in the aforesaid technique of &quot;Methodological inductivism&quot;, and also analyse and discuss the various advantages of the this approach. We also discuss why this could be a defining characteristic of contemporary science, and could help distinguish modern science from we would like to call legacy science, and discuss how this could propel science to an altogether new trajectory and take it to new heights besides forging a healthier collaboration among scientists and researchers across disciplines and geographies. It could also reduce gaps in a multi-speed civilization and lead to scientific progress at the speed of light.

Baking innovative and creative thinking techniques into scientific method: Towards innovative and creative techniques as an intrinsic part of scientific method for higher scientific and research output

Social Science Research Network, 2024

The core objective of this paper is to investigate and propose methods and means through which va... more The core objective of this paper is to investigate and propose methods and means through which various classes of innovative and creative thinking techniques which include both existing techniques in popular current usage, and those yet to be conceptualized and theorized can be baked into scientific method both integrally and intrinsically, and in a natural and a harmonious fashion. This we believe can lead to faster and more comprehensive scientific progress across disciplines and geographies and usher in a new era of scientific research by increasing the rate of scientific output. We begin this paper by carrying out a brief overview of the key concepts of scientific method, its characteristics and its history, and also refer to our previous observations and discussions on scientific method by referencing our previously published works over the years. We also define and propose categories of individuals by whom we believe this approach can be meaningfully adopted and implemented, and also lay bare the purported objectives of this approach. Last but not the least, we review existing approaches to innovative and creative techniques, and drive home a very crucial and a critical point: the entire field of creative and innovative techniques is apparently in its infancy yet, and more innovative and creative techniques need to be conceptualized and gestated in the years and decades to come including those specific to scientific theorization.

Instituting ‘Institutional Coherentism’ as a Prerequisite for High-Quality Science: Another Crucial Step for Winning the Battle for Consistent High-Quality Science

Social Science Research Network, 2024

This paper is proposed because even though coherentism and internal and external validity are oft... more This paper is proposed because even though coherentism and internal and external validity are often rigorously pursued in the real-world by researchers and many eminent scientists of repute, the idea of &quot;institutional coherentism&quot; the way we define and understand it in this paper, rarely is. The approach described in this paper probably does not exist in toto or unqualifiedly elsewhere , hence the justification and the basis for this paper. We also provide examples to show why this approach is somewhat different from all other existing theories and approaches in the market, and will naturally, inevitably, and invariably lead us to much better and higher-quality science, and science with a greater degree of consistency as well. We begin this paper by defining what an institution is with respect to science, and provide real-world examples of such institutions. We also revisit various aspects of epistemology like coherentism, holism, internal and external validity, confirmation holism, and methodological holism. Needless to say, this paper constitutes a proper justification of the concept of &quot;Institutional coherentism&quot; as espoused and propounded in this paper, and we hope this will propel science to an altogether higher trajectory, reduce gaps in a multispeed civilization, and lead to scientific progress at the speed of light. This will also we believe, lead to immense cascading benefits for society as a whole.

Promoting Science Activism for the Twenty-first Century and Beyond: Positioning Science Activism to Promote Course Corrections in Science and to Lead to Higher Scientific Output Across Societies and Scientific Disciplines

Social Science Research Network, 2024

We begin this paper by providing a brief definition of activism, carrying out a brief overview of... more We begin this paper by providing a brief definition of activism, carrying out a brief overview of activism through the ages, and also present a review of the different types of activism as carried out in different geographies and segments of society. We also state why activism is still sorely lacking in various fields in the sciences to promote the cause of the sciences, and explain why we need to step up the ante, and promote science activism which can also be known as scientific activism, in various subfields of science, and in science in general. Even though some forms of activism manifested themselves in various fields of the sciences, the idea is still nascent, and in some circles, still a taboo. We also explain and debate the various areas of scientific and scholarly activity where this technique can be put to productive and fruitful use, in the interests of rapid scientific progress. We also discuss the various mechanisms through which this can be made to happen and brought to fruition and its logical conclusion, and discuss the different types of possible change agents as well. We also explain how and why this can lead to a much faster and a higher rate of scientific progress, and lead to what we have all along called &quot;scientific progress at the speed of light&quot;, and reduce the gaps in a &quot;multi-speed civilization&quot;. Needless to say, this could in turn induce a ripple effect, and promote faster societal and cultural change as well in all walks of life.

Reducing the ‘Latency Period’ for the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas: Positioning the ‘latency Period’ for the Acceptance of Scientific Ideas as an Indicator of Scientific Maturity

Social Science Research Network, 2024

There is often an inordinate time span from the time a new idea is gestated till it is widely acc... more There is often an inordinate time span from the time a new idea is gestated till it is widely accepted in scientific and in popular circles, with wide variations commonly observed across geographies and disciplines. This elapsed time may be referred to as the &#39;latency period&#39; for the acceptance, or even a structured and a justified rejection, as the case may be, of new or novel ideas. This can be observed in most societies around the world, unfortunately even in more advanced ones. There is also a variation across geographies to the detriment of developing countries, and across disciplines to the detriment of various fields in the social sciences. Indeed, we have analyzed the possible root causes of all these in our paper, and all these must be systematically addressed, and new or other root causes identified. This would form a part of what some experts consider a &quot;time crashing&quot; technique. Reducing this latency period will lead to scientific progress at a much higher rate, or &quot;Scientific progress at the speed of light&quot; as we would like to call it. There are many ways to do this. The first would be to improve the education system on the principles we had laid out in our published paper on &quot;Anthropological Pedagogy&quot; and the &quot;Sociology of science&quot;. The second would be to build a robust twenty-first century intellectualism involving the negation of all ideologies which should greatly serve to set the house in order; we have deliberated, and written at length about all these in earlier times. This latency period we believe can be greatly brought down if science becomes a much more global activity, and the ideas and ideals of the &quot;Globalization of science&quot; movement that we have been championing all along are accomplished. Thus, we would effectively be killing two birds with one stone.

Paradox identification and paradox resolution in scientific endeavour: Reconciliation of contradictory rulesets in the interests of better theorization and hypothesis-building

Social Science Research Network, 2024

This paper seeks to meaningfully complement many of our earlier and previously published papers o... more This paper seeks to meaningfully complement many of our earlier and previously published papers on scientific method and the philosophy of science among which were our papers on the social responsibility of researchers, science activism, the sociological ninety ten rule, the certainty uncertainty principle, cross-cultural research design, output criteria driven scientific hypothesis formulation, horizontal collaboration etc., and is intended to help produce better scientific theories and hypotheses in general and led to scientific endeavour that is of a fundamentally higher order as well. It will, we expect and anticipate, catapult scientific activity to an altogether higher domain and sphere given that a proactive quest for paradoxes is at the heart of our approach, and is also resultantly expected to be an intrinsic part of formal, structured and pre-defined scientific method in future. It therefore forms an essential and an integral part of our globalization of science movement as well, given the fact that multicultural and inter-disciplinary approaches to science are likely to throw up more paradoxes as well, and literally up the ante too by leading to scientific activity that is of a fundamentally higher order. We begin this paper by getting down to brass stacks and attempting a basic definition of the widely used term &quot;paradox&quot; and reviewing older literature in this regard in different contexts. We also lay bare the essentials of our approach, and enunciate the postulates and canons that form a part of our paper, so that the entire philosophy driving this paper, i.e., its philosophical foundation, in clearly grasped and understood by those to whom it is intended.

Weighing in on the God debate: Why we need transdisciplinary, dialectical and multicultural perspectives

Google books, 2024

Among the earliest usage of the word God comes from the sixth century Christian manuscript “Codex... more Among the earliest usage of the word God comes from the sixth century Christian manuscript “Codex Argenteus”. The English word itself is thought to have been derived from the Proto-Germanic word
“Guđan”. The English word God along with its counterparts in other languages is used for virtually all conceptions and the term remains an English translation common to all conceptions of religion. This is in
spite of the fact that there are many significant differences across religions. It is sometimes used to
describe a formless irreligious God associated with nature. This usage is relatively more recent however, and is said to have originated from the ideas of Baruch Spinoza, who was a pantheist. Among the Jews,
the word Yahweh was used to mean God, while Muslims and Hindus use the term Allah and Brahman respectively. Other religions use different names; for example, in the Chinese religion, Shangdi is referred to as the creator of the universe, while in Zoroastrianism, the term Ahura Mazda is used. The term Waheguru is used by the Sikhs to refer to a great teacher, while the Baha’i use the term Baha.

Sujay Rao Mandavilli (Sujay)

Uploads

Papers by Sujay Rao Mandavilli (Sujay)

Log In