Minor Observation #9

Most people in privileged positions are not inclined to be in favor of what is commonly referred to as a "level playing field". (Yeah, I know, sounds clichéd, but my other option is to indulge in some form of sesquipedalianism.)

This could be because of:

1. Ignorance (not knowing exactly how uneven the playing field is)

2. Apathy (not caring how uneven the playing field is)

3. Deliberation (specifically wanting to keep it uneven)

Of these, the third is the most pernicious. It arises from the insecurity that such people have -- that they may not actually deserve the position of privilege they currently enjoy. If they were secure in the knowledge that they did, then they should be confident enough to face the competition brought on by a level playing field. In fact they ought to welcome it.

A level playing field is important not because it is the morally correct thing to have (which it may well be), but because it is the only true path to progress. 

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

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