Re: Answers to Purpose of HAIR, nails do not compare! + Fund rasing ideas!!!
Posted by Jass Singh
Re: Answers to Purpose of HAIR, nails do not compare! + Fund rasing ideas!!!
Posted by Jass Singh on Tuesday, 9/15/1998 7:58 PM MDT
| Dear sister Karen Long Sat Sri Akal. In case you were not aware, brother Yuktanand Singh ji, previously referenced the web page of an abbreviated version of this article. The original article appeared in Abstracts of Sikh Studies, January-March 1997 issue. I had analyzed Dr. Birendra Kaur's article from a logical point of view but did not post my findings. Since you posted the article in its entirety I felt that a response might be appreciated by some. Regards Jass Singh **************************************** CRITIQUE OF "HUMAN HAIR -A BIOLOGICAL NECESSITY" Birendra Kaur has done an excellent job in analyzing hair from a biological point of view. The following statements summarize her arguments: 1. Hair has certain functions. Long unshorn hair due to its greater surface area performs some as yet unknown function which cut hair cannot perform or does not perform as well. 2. Hair might be without sensation but is alive & connected to the brain in some way. Because it is alive, it should not be cut. 3. Hair should not be cut as it puts a greater strain on the body, whereas maintaining uncut hair does not. 4. Nails are structurally different from hair and are not alive in the same sense as hair, and therefore can be cut whereas hair should not be cut. 5. The natural state is good. Uncut hair is the natural state. Therefore hair should not be cut. Statement #1: This argument is logically flawed as she is arguing in a circle by assuming that long unshorn hair has some unknown function which cut hair cannot perform etc. Secondly, this sort of reasoning is not scientific. The purpose of science is to gather data, make a hypothesis, verify it and then form a conclusion. Since the data does not exist and cannot therefore be verified, her conclusion is unjustified and all she is left with is her hypothesis, which really boils down to a mere opinion and not an argument for her case. Statement #2: She needs to define precisely what is meant by "alive". Secondly it is also logically flawed, just because hair might be alive it does not follow that it should not be cut. Is it "morally" wrong to cut it because it is alive? If so why? Statement #3: She is basically saying that the resources required for the body's maintenance should be minimized. Continually cutting hair does not minimize the resources of the body. Therefore it should not be cut. Once again, this is a fallacious argument. Firstly it has no scientific experimentation to back it and is therefore pseudo-science. Secondly, the body discards even long uncut hair naturally and also during the combing process and some of it is re-grown by the body. Hair whether long or short has to be constantly fed nutrients and when hair gets to a certain critical length its maintenance is a greater strain on the body than the maintenance of shorter hair. The chemical structure and maintenance of the hair varies according to diet and therefore 'greater strain' is meaningless if a good diet is followed. The only thing it might strain is the food budget. Exercise is a greater strain on the body than passivity. Does that mean you should not exercise? Manual labor is a greater strain on the body th an docility. Does that mean you should not work? Lastly, taken to its logical conclusion, this line of reasoning would imply that since living itself is a greater strain on the body than death, we should all choose to die. Statement #4: The fact that it is OK to cut nails does not necessarily mean it is OK to cut hair, but neither does it imply that we should not cut hair. These are two independent issues and have to be looked at separately. The one thing that they do have in common is the fact that they both have to be maintained since they both grow. The key word is "maintenance". Does it matter whether hair is maintained long or short? Statement #5: She is saying that the natural order is good and should be maintained. This is a pre-supposition. Maybe the natural order is abnormal and not in the original state in which God created it. Secondly, if one example can be given to the contrary then the argument falls. For example, the natural state of mammals is nakedness, does that mean we humans should go around naked? CONCLUSION: Birendra Kaur has used bad reasoning and pseudo-science to present biological reasons for the justification of the maintenance of long uncut hair. For a Sikh it is essentially not a question of biological necessity superiority or economy, but of conforming to and obeying the consensus of opinion of what constitutes a Sikh according to the Sikh community's interpretation of Sikh dharma. Biological reasons are unjustified and unnecessary. |
