Refutation Of A Gambian Sophist And Fraudster Part I

samBy Gambian Outsider

Samsudeen Sarr took issue because I address him as Mr. Missionary. I asked, if his job title, bestowed to him by the Despot does not include “mission” to the United Nation? Mr. Missionary, I am not calling you a name that is not part of your title. If you are angry that sometimes I made reference to the fact that you are a liar and a fraud, you should not be angry with me. It was the Despot who you called you a liar. If you are not a liar, then you should have defended your integrity when he called you so. From your writing and not from looking at your picture, you lack depth. You are sophist, and a fraud. It is true that all sophists lack depth. You are a sophist. Therefore, you lack depth. I do not have to make an argument about you being a fraud. You defrauded readers when you presented your book as true when it in fact it was full of lies. And you never refunded those you bought your book.


In the next few days, I will be writing a few articles in response to what Mr. Missionary said regarding some of the counterarguments I made against him about “certainty.” I will only focus on the ones he has issues with. It is safe to infer that the ones he did not mention, he could not refute or does not know how to refute them. In the beginning of each argument, I will put forth certain authorities on each topic then I will state what Mr. Missionary said and why he is wrong as always. By the time I am done writing these series of articles, I believe certain truths will emerge. The first thing I will address is that Mr. Missionary believes that I am someone when I am not. If Mr. Missionary were a careful reader, he would have noticed a while back that I am not the person he thinks I am. Here are my predictions, before I am through with Mr. Missionary, he will as usual retort to calling me names, which is not new, and as he reads my articles, his body will begin to sweat, most likely feet first then it will rise to his entire body. When this happens, you will know that I am not who you thought I was. Mr. Missionary may be a good writer but he is as shallow as they come. I am blown away by his inability to analyze the most elementary of things.


The four points below I quoted from Mr. Missionary’s article published on “Gambia Inquirer.” I am not going to request to have my writings posted at the “Gambia Inquirer” because, of the three articles I wrote, they only posted one of them almost a month ago. I do not have any issue with the editorial decisions of the “Gambia Inquirer.” Even though that paper is trying to serve the public, it is nevertheless private proper and therefore they can have whatever policies they deemed fit. Here are the issues I will be addressing:


  • “Lamin the Hibernator or better called Amadou the Chameleon who loves to snipe at me and now calls me The Missionary… “The Chameleon in permanent hiding will never show his ugly face although I can by now figure out who he is.” “I will engage him in a debate to the end the day he has the balls to show up.” But he could not when he was in England, I don’t think he ever will after quietly sneaking into The Gambia with hopes of gaining political recognition in the 2016 general elections. He doesn’t know that he is on my radar.”


  • “Mankind lived for thousands of years believing in the wrong theory that the world was flat.” [emphasis mine.]


  • … “so obsessively naïve in trying to prove me wrong that he came with 2+2= as an example of an absolute “certainty” without respecting the reality that the decimal base applied is Mathematically changeable for instance binary base numbers where 2+2= 100. Yet the base of a numerical system which varies from language to language or civilization to civilization determines the values of its digital sequence, characters, and values.”


  • “He also added another example of God as a “certainty” forgetting that there are agnostics who don’t even agree to his existence.”


Issue 1: Whether I am Lamin the Hibernator or Amadou the Chameleon. I am neither Mr. Missionary. I have visited England a few times but I have never lived there. I have lived in the [United] States more than half of my life. In other words, I have lived in the States longer than I have lived in The Gambia.  To be more exact, I have lived in the States for twenty-five years. So as you can see from the four points above, because I am not who you think I am, it is a moot point to address some of the other things that follow from your assumption. You can still call me the Hibernator or the Chameleon. It would not make an iota of difference to me. As for having balls, may be it is a coincidence because I just had a check up with my doctor and he confirmed to me that I am as healthy as a horse and, of course, my balls are as healthy as ever! You think that for one to demonstrate that he has balls, he has to be out there to call attention to himself or herself. I chose not to be out there for reasons that are none of your business. I do not seek attention because I do not want to be known. I know this is a truth, which you cannot wrap your mind around. Your focus should be on what I try, and not who I am. I could be a dishwasher or a janitor or a burger slipper who has never set foot in a classroom or I could be someone who has reached the highest level of his field(s) of studies, or someone who is well-educated, or just a plain dumb ass. Part of why I choose to remain anonymous is because I want readers to focus not on my person but on what I write. I called myself “Gambian Outsider” because I am not part of any faction or political party. I have a great life, and it would be easier for me to not write or say anything and I won’t loose any sleep over it. But I choose to write because of sophist like you. I do not personally gain anything by writing to refute persons like you, but if people who can write do not write and expose fraudster like you, the uninitiated will be deceived. So it becomes a duty to those who can and are willing to expose people like you.


Issue 2: “Mankind lived for thousands of years believing in the wrong theory that the world was flat.” Before I get into the quotation, here is one definition of “certainty.”: A state of being free from doubt. Of course objective truth is the underlying idea. Do you know who first posited the theory that “the world was flat.”? It is reported that it was Lactancius, an African (AD 245-325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life. He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers, and his work was ignored until the Renaissance. So, the first known person to have posited the theory that the Earth was flat was ignored and considered a heretic. That same person was wrong in the get go for having rejected the shape of the earth. The shape of the Earth as round is a theory, which stands to this day. What do I mean? I mean that the earth being round, which is what spherical means has never been rejected in the history of mankind. If that is the case, then that is certainty. Lactancius’ theory of a flat earth was considered heresy, and was questioned in its inception and not widely accepted. If it was widely accepted then why did it tried to make a comeback in the Renaissance from the first time it was posited to the Renaissance? There is a wide gap between Lactancius time to the Renaissance. In other words, how can something that has been widely accepted need a comeback? What is widely accepted stays as is. It does not go away. So to make a comeback suggests that it was not widely accepted. Here is the logical construct: If a thing is widely accepted, then it does not need a comeback because it never left. Lactancius’ flat earth theory was not widely accepted. Therefore, Lactancius’s flat earth theory made a comeback in during the Renaissance.


A sixth century Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleuste, also claimed that the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens. His work was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view as typical of the Church Fathers. A US Library of Congress head, Daniel Boorstin said, “ like historians before him, [he] simply followed the pattern of others without checking the facts. In fact, most of the Church Fathers did not address the issue of the shape of the Earth, and those who did regarded it a “round” or “spherical.”


To sum up, whatever the theory or whoever posited that the earth was flat, it was a scientific theory. Now, some have argued that one of the requisites of science is that it must be falsifiable. Karl Propper, former teacher of George Soro wrote at length about falsifiability in his book “Conjectures and Refutations.” Kurt Godel wrote on the subject too. Propper, Godel and others were called the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle. To summarize Propper, for something to be called science, it must be falsifiable.  Now, If a scientific theory that was popular for a long time was later refuted, how does that negate “certainty”? Or, are you saying that because one popular theory, in this case, the flatness of the earth, was later refuted therefore “certainty” does not exist or nothing is certain. Voltaire, whom you quoted, denied certainty categorically and you certainly support Voltaire’s position hence you quoted him approvingly. To conclude that because one former popular scientific theory was later refuted therefore “certainty” does not existed is ridiculous. What logic is that? Here is how your argument sounds: The Earth was believed to be flat and people lived for thousands of years believing it to be so. It was later proven that the Earth was not flat. Therefore, nothing is certain. Do you see the absurdity of this argument? Are you serious Mr. Missionary. You lack depth Mr. Missionary.


Here is another theory of the Earth older than the “Flat Earth Theory,” The Earth being at the center of the Universe by Ptolemy, A.D c. 100- c. 178: At least this theory was not questioned in its inception until what is termed as the Copernican revolution occurred. I will get into that in a little bit. Ptolemy quoting Aristotle:

“ For indeed Aristotle quite properly divides also the theoretical into three immediate genera: the physical, the mathematical, and the theological. For given that all beings have their existence from matter and form and motion and that none of these can be seen, but only thought, in its subject separately from the others, if one should seek out in its simplicity the first cause of the first movement of the universe, he would find God invisible and unchanging…” Then somewhere else he had this to say: “ An especially were we led to cultivate that discipline developed in respect to divine and heavenly things as being the only one concerned with the study of things which are always what they are, and therefore able itself to be always what it is – which is indeed the proper mark of a science- because of its own clear and ordered understanding … For that special mathematical theory would most readily prepare the way to the theological, since it alone could take good aim at the unchangeable and separate act…”  I will later tie this up with the certainty of the existence of God in a subsequent article. Ptolemy’s theory that the Earth was at the center of the universe is older than the flat earth theory. Ptolemy’s theory was refuted by Nicolaus Copernicus, 1473-1543. Just take a look the gab in years between Ptolemy and Copernicus.


The preface of Copernicus’ book “Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres” is dedicated to Pope Paul II. Before getting into that, Copernicus agreed with all those before him about the shape of the earth. If you pay attention to the title of his book you will notice that there is this word “Sphere.” I would not want you to miss that. Copernicus made his discovery at least thirty-six year before he made it public. Here is some of what he said about Lactancius, you remember him don’t you?: “ For it is not unknown that Lactancius, otherwise a distinguished writer but hardly a mathematician, speaks in an utterly childish fashion concerning the shape of the Earth, when he laughs at those who affirmed that the Earth has the form of a globe. And so the studious need not be surprised if the people like that laugh at us. …” I need not say more, but I will add this. Copernicus’ argument that the Sun was at the center of the universe and not the Earth as Ptolemy thought is called “The Copernican Revolution,” a paradigm shift, in the philosophy of science world. Philosophy of science is a new term, about seventy or so years old. This branch of philosophy was called “The History of Science.” A great American, Thomas Kuhn, wrote about this stuff. One prominent Gambian writer, a few years ago, wrote about Kuhn’s “Structures of Scientific Revolution” and made certain errors in his analysis. I was tempted to write then and correct the errors he made, but I decided against it because I thought they were harmless. As you can see Mr. Missionary, you lack depth.


Scientific theories as Modern Scientists will tell you must be falsifiable in order to be considered science. What is not falsifiable is not considered science. Now there are many things that are not within the domain of science. So, Mr. Missionary, to take a once popular scientific theory that has been refuted as evidence that “certainty is absurd” or does not exist is foolish. You clearly do not have a clue about the theory of the Earth being flat. Were you familiar with the history of science, you would not have used such an example as evidence that “certainty is absurd.” What keep showing up in your writings is that you keep quoting and making reference to authors as if you have read and understood what they wrote. I can infer from your writings that you have never read the writings of those authors or if you have, you misunderstood what they wrote. Why? Because sometimes you take a position that is contrary to what those authors wrote even though you quote them to bolster your fallacious arguments. For example, you made reference to Rene Descartes who believed that a certain method of investigation was certain and others were not. In his book “For the Direction of the Mind” he laid down twenty-one rules. I will stick to rules one and two. He had this to say: Rule 1: The end of study should be to direct the mind towards the enunciation of sound and correct judgments on all matters that come before it.” Rule II” Only those objects should engage our attention to the sure and indubitable knowledge of which our mental powers seem to be adequate. What he said under Rule II concerns us, hence I quote him: “ Science in its entirety is true and evidence cognition. He is no more learned who has doubts on many matters than the man who has ever thought of them; nay he appears to be less learned if he has formed wrong opinions on any particulars. Hence it were better not to study at all than to occupy one’s self with objects of such difficulty, that, owing to our inability to distinguish true from false, we are forced to regard the doubtful as certain; for in those matters any hope of augmenting our knowledge is exceeded by the risk of diminishing it. Thus in accordance with the above maxim we reject all such merely probable knowledge and make it a rule to trust only what is completely known and incapable of being doubted.”


Mr. Missionary, take all that you said about this topic and your quote of Voltaire and see how it stacked up to Descartes. Like Descartes, Voltaire was educated under the Catholic Church, and both were Frenchmen. I think you are beginning to notice that you are no longer arguing with me but with philosophers whose positions are contrary to yours on this topic. Where I said above that I would present authorities, it is philosophers I had in mind. There is more to come. I leave it to the readers to judge. Next article will focus on decimal base numbers and binary base numbers.




  1. Luntango Suun Gann Gi

    Mr. Gambian Outsider,

    My 11 yr old Fula Princess from the Mandinari Bushlands is also bamboozling my mind, like you, with Dead Western Sophists & Philosophers. She has just finished READING and Listening to the 34 Audio Chapters of SOPHIE’S WORLD.

    Fanon talks of a returning African Cambridge graduate simillary bamboozling his father who was busy with the hoe in his village garden. After listening to his son for what seemed an eternity, the father gently dropped the hoe on his son’s foot. The son “ouched” backed to REALITY. I have told my Princess to beware when she visits old grandmother in the tomato garden in which she used to help her. I have told her to take a bag of rice and oil – and talk no philosopy and certainly NOT to indulge in her Critical Thinking that gives me a headache.

    You say: “The Missionary believes I am someone when I am not”. I am afraid on that one the Missionary is right. Our Banjul Village is a small place and even I, a Luntango, can tell who loves “Dead Western Sophists & Philosophers”!

  2. Samba Mendy.

    Sir. May be you need to read what Mr. Missionary said first. I am responding to what he said. Please check the meanings of both philosopher and sophist. I never claimed to be a philosopher or whatever. I was merely demonstrating to him that his position contradicts some of the philosophers he quoted to support his position. May be a clear distinction between philosophy and sophistry will help. If truth did not exist then there will not be falsehood. If philosophers do not exist then sophists would not. You see, falsehood needs the existence of truth so that it can pretend to be it when it is not. Sophists needs philosophers so that they can act like them but they are not. Mr. Missionary said, i was some Gambian in the UK and he knew who i was and the like. This is what i refuted among other things. I am not a philosopher and i did not claim to be one. If i made an argument against something you said and i used Descartes to support my position, but Descartes’ real position is contrary to mine, then if you can, it is fair for you to state what Descartes said to show that my position is contrary to him. You could then charge me with sophistry because i am trying to pull the cover over your head. I also cited not only the names of the writers but from which of their books to find the things i quoted. Why did i do that? So that anyone who is interested and have the time can find for himself or herself. There is nothing to hide here Sir. So, i am a little confused about the point you are trying to me. Without making an analogy, please just state clearly what you have in mind. I will not be offended at all. Have a great day.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *