Scientists and Philosophers - what's the fighting all about?

My last blog entry here dealt with philosophers and their "science envy". A few weeks later, I posted an article by Lawrence Krauss - "A universe without purpose" - on my facebook page, commenting on my discomfort with Krauss's casual treatment of "nothingness", and also about how his title and opening line promise far more than what the content offers (which is very little, by way of clarity).

Today, I came across a more systematic critique of Lawrence Krauss and his views, by a more learned gentleman and a certified philosopher to boot (he's a professor at CUNY). His en passant swipe at Richard Dawkins is particularly amusing, and confirms what I'd suspected back then, when I posted Krauss's article on facebook - Krauss and Dawkins are mutual shills. Hawking is not spared either. If philosophers suffer from penis envy, there's another Freudian metaphor for what scientists suffer from, according to the author:

Okay, others can play the same game too, so I’m going to put forth the hypothesis that the reason physicists such as Weinberg, Hawking and Krauss keep bashing philosophy is because they suffer from an intellectual version of the Oedipus Complex (you know, philosophy was the mother of science and all that... you can work out the details of the inherent sexual frustrations from there) 

Interesting side story: my last blog entry post referred to a popular saying about ducks, and a comment by a reader here says: 

Accept that the philosophy of science is as much use to a scientist as ornithology is to a duck. Ornithologists do know a lot about ducks, but ducks know nothing at all about ornithologists

Indeed. 

Reinforces a view I've often voiced - that scientists would do well to either completely stay away from philosophy, or embrace it without prejudice and understand it fully. Unfortunately, may of them wander into philosophy's wide open pastures, and, encouraged by their success as scientists, display their ignorance with hubris. Which is all very well, as long as they don't make gross errors in methodology. For example, concluding that all swans are white simply because the global scientific community has heaps and heaps of evidence to that effect and none to the contrary. And therefore elevating the status of that hypothesis to a "fact". 

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Science, Philosophy and Taxonomy

Is philosophy a scientific discipline? Or is science a school of philosophy? 

Here's a view, along the lines of "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..."  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/philosophy-by-another-name/ 

Here's another, along the lines of "Lipstick on a pig ..." http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2012/03/05/dear-philosophers-please-get-over-your-science-envy-now/

Why would philosophers want to make Philosophy sexy and easy to sell as a hot subject? The next thing you know they'll be making sitcoms featuring philosophers, along the lines of 'Big Bang Theory'. Tchah! I'd say Philosophy is better off being vague, amorphous, protean in its scope (as perceived by those who don't get it) - an esoteric indulgence of "intellectuals" (in quotes, as those who don't get it would rather put it) with nothing better to do, and, in the final analysis, of no great significance in that it creates no "real" wealth. (Or does it?)

Parting thought: Philosophers suffering from penis envy of Science should note that Technology dangles a bigger dongle. (Unless you're a physicist who's made a career as a hedge fund manager. In which case, you rule, dude!)

[Modified version of my facebook posting earlier this week.]

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Dilbertian Wisdom Losing Its Bite

I used to be a big fan of Scott Adams' blog, and even now go there once in a while. But these days it is when I really have nothing better to do, as opposed to going there routinely and expecting to find something really witty, wise and hilarious.

Scott Adams, IMO, is running out of steam. He's at a stage when he should either do humor or wisdom, because his unique style of blending both, which made him famous, is getting seriously unfunny. Some time back he posted something about fairness being a mythical concept. Wanted to ask him if he would continue to think that if I bopped him on the head and took away all his money. I think it was in the context of the Occupy protest, if memory serves, when it was fashionable to be a liberal who takes a contrarian view. Anyway.

Now he goes and asks whether economics is a real thing. Seriously? I'm no economist and, frankly, I enjoy almost all digs at economists that I come across. But hey, when ridiculing something, try and pick the right things about it to ridicule, will you? Otherwise all you're doing is exposing your own shallowness and ignorance. (Do check out comments by "B+")

No, Scott. Fairness is a not a myth. Economics is not unreal. And if predictions are what you want, go consult an astrologer.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

FDI in Retail vs. Reduce Reuse Recycle

Everybody and their aunt is now an expert on the Venn diagram of economics, foreign direct investment in India, and the Indian retail industry. In the wake of the recent controversy regarding the Government's proposed policy changes that will open up the retail sector in India to more foreign investment, there's been a bunch of op-eds and blog posts by self-styled pundits on why India "needs" FDI in retail. 

Yes, opening up of markets is always a good thing. Yes, a more efficient supply chain for consumer goods in India would be a good thing. And yes, professionalism in managing the workforce engaged in logistics and distribution, which remains an unorganized sector even today, would be a good thing. Surely, FDI in retail will positively impact the Indian scenario in all those areas. But does this mean we should blindly push our already fairly strong consumerist culture (and our typical middle-class hunger for more "things", arising from many years of scarcity) into overdrive? 

Take the issue of infrastructure, which some of our distinguished pundits just about recognize as a concern. The opening up of the automobile industry has given us a wide variety of cars to choose from (which is great) but did we spare a thought for road space or quality of roads or parking space or any other infrastructural prerequisites before we opened it out? Nope, we just plunged into it, probably thinking that growth in traffic would bring pressure on the concerned authorities to improve infrastructure. Clearly, that logic has not worked, and we don't seem to have learned this very important lesson.

We continue to struggle with strong urbanization trends, but we are clueless about how to handle the problems that come with them. Meanwhile, given the poverty in rural India, large scale migration to metros and larger cities continues to grow, resulting in more squatters and pavement dwellers, more shanty-towns and slums. Our cities and towns continue to be plagued by poor waste management and sanitation, not to mention pilferage and contamination. We are yet to integrate good practices of waste management into a culture which has gradually replaced civic sense with instant gratification and narrow self-interest. How are we going to cope with a dramatic increase in consumption levels, which FDI in retail is sure to bring about? I shudder to think how high a mountain that small but stubborn pile of garbage heaped outside my housing complex will grow into, after the "Big Boxes" of global retail arrive.

None of our erudite pundits makes even a passing mention of concerns related to sustainable development and responsible consumption. Which, according to me, should be our most important concerns. Not whether the local bania's business is threatened (which it may well be) or whether transnational giants will siphon profits out of India (which they certainly will). These are the same old arguments, tired and worn-out from repetition in the post-cold war socialism-versus-free-market debates. Many of our pundits, however, are still fighting those cliched battles of the old world.

The polemics of the new world are not going to be about leftism and rightism; they will be about how to deal with ecological imbalance and social disharmony, about how to plan for sustainable growth. In the mad frenzy for downloading -- to borrow Niall Ferguson's metaphor -- the 6 "killer apps" of the West (of which, incidentally, the culture of consumerism is killer app #5), we are rushing headlong towards irresponsible consumerism that has raised alarm bells in the West. India is lucky to be presented with an opportunity to circumvent the pitfalls of hyper-consumption, and lead other developing economies on the path to sustainability. But will India seize the moment? Or is this too much to ask for by way of a vision for India? Perhaps it is, I find myself compelled to say in spite of my generally optimistic disposition. 

Is it also too much to ask of Indian intelligentsia that the debate on FDI in retail be informed by sustainability considerations? Certainly not! 

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Reform and Rectitude

There's usually a cloud of confusion hanging over any criticism of wrongdoing, as are witnessing in the commentary on the many recent public protests in India, the US and elsewhere. Some of this confusion arises out of lack of clarity in what is being said, but even when that clarity is found, there are questions on who has the moral right to say it. Accusations of sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy are flung around indiscriminately, and everyone starts finding fault with everyone else. It is easy to see that a lot of this is politically motivated - the work of those with vested interests in the status-quo, for whom this confusion essentially forms the smokescreen of expedience. But what about the others, who get swept away by this political rhetoric of obfuscation? Why should they let themselves be distracted by such machinations?

Brainstorming events, such as the recent Goa Think Festival represent the few opportunities we get to promote healthy public discourse (a vital foundation for a vibrant democracy) on key issues impacting our present condition. But even those have come under criticism for "sleeping with the enemy" or being otherwise impure, just as leaders of India's fight against corruption have been pilloried for alleged misdemeanours in their past lives. We tend to take this business of "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" a bit too seriously. We forget that none of us is without sin. We forget that it's not about casting stones. We forget that it is about systemic failures, and that any citizen has a right to demand reform to correct them. The point is, if we can't get everyone to the table, we can't have dialogue. And if we can't have dialogue, issues will remain deadlocked, and the status will remain quo, and history will repeat itself.

We need to remember a few simple and straightforward points, if we are to get this right and make some headway: 

(1) You don't have to be a saint to criticize wrongdoing - the first step to reform is to recognize what's going wrong and confront it, without being confrontational.

(2) The scope of wrongdoing may extends beyond mere legalities and may even charge that the justice system is rigged - it is easy to confuse the illegal with the illegitimate.

(2) Protests are visceral reactions of a mass of people to unresolved issues, not necessarily about specific people or corporations (who in some sense are considered "people" in some parts of the world) though they may manifest that way.

(3) Even when they are about people (or corporations) the focus should be on what they DID and not who they ARE - we must punish bad behaviour, not persons, and we must punish it not so much for the sake of retribution as much for the sake of restoration and prevention.

(4) In those exceptional cases where people (or corporations) appear intrinsically "evil" (assuming there is such a thing), we need to figure out a way to correct them - everyone has a right to another chance; a right to redeem themselves.

There's an old saying that goes - every saint has a past and every sinner a future. Let's remember that each of us has elements of both. It's "normal". It's what makes us human. Reform should be about fixing what's broken and straightening out what's crooked. Not a competition to qualify for entry through the Pearly Gates.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts