read some history , tipu sultan grandfather was punjabi and it's known fact
sipra is big punjabi clan
tanveer sipra urdu poet
saleena sipra actress
This maybe a bit too late, but there is such a things as the scientific method.
It has two rules. First: There are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Cosmos as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be. The obvious is sometimes false; the unexpected is sometimes true.
Humans everywhere share the same goals when the context is large enough. And the study of the Cosmos provides the largest possible context.
Here is a person you should be reading about, rather than the text you are reading (Carl Sagan).
1. Wherever possible,
there must be independent confirmation of the "facts."
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — "authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among "multiple working hypotheses," has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. It's only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will.
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course, there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding
them is more challenging.
7. If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
8. Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us, when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data
equally well, to choose the simpler.
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable and unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
