[silk] Building a better world

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

I wanted to fork the thread "War on Science" to deal with the more
interesting discussion to me - Why isn't fairness, honesty and all the
wholesome qualities of being human so often absent in politicians,
scientists, business leaders and other guardians of society?

Of course humans have always been a little rascally - the lesser
angels on our shoulder and so on. Still, I can't help concluding the
dodgy moral foundations of our present way of life are making it
worse, by making bad behaviour automatic.

Capitalism for example celebrates sin. The punitive tax on tobacco is
called a sin tax, however if one were to really tax sin, i.e. pride,
greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth then most items sold
would be eligible.

Most of life has become about indulgence - of every vice. We think it
is progress to indulge every whim and fancy that strikes us. There is
no progress in being human without a discipline and control on our
passions, and yet the role models to the world - the business barons,
the rock/movie/sports stars often get the greatest fame when seen
doing the opposite.

Rumi: 'Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today
I am wise, so I am changing myself.

The world is always going to be a mad house, but if we change
ourselves we can create a little bubble of sanity around us.

--

I would like to quote a little passage from Jiddu Krishnamurti who has
a sublime eloquence on these matters

--

If you have to understand the nature of pleasure, you will find that
violence and pleasure are intimately related. Because again, as one
observes oneself, one will see that our whole psychology is based on
pleasure — apart from what psychologists and analysts talk about, one
does not have to read a lot of books to see this — not only the
sensory pleasures, as sex, but also the pleasure of achievement, the
pleasure of success, of fulfilment, of achieving position, prestige,
and power.

Again, all this exists in the animal. In a farmyard, where there is
poultry, you see this same phenomenon. There is pleasure, in the sense
of taking delight, or of insulting. To achieve joy, to reach a
position and prestige, to be somebody famous, is a form of violence —
you have to be aggressive.

If one is not aggressive in this world, one is just downtrodden,
pushed aside; so that one may well ask the question, ‘Can I live
without aggression, and yet live in this society?' Probably not, why
should one live in society? (In the psychological structure of
society, I mean)

One has to live in the outward structure of society — having a job, a
few clothes, a house, and so on — but why should one live in its
psychological structure? Why should one accept the norm of society
which requires that one must become a successful writer, must be a
famous man, must have...oh, you know, all the rest of it? All that is
part of the pleasure principle which translates itself in violence.

In church you say, love your neighbour — and in business you cut his
throat; the norm of society has no meaning. The whole structure of the
army, any structure based on hierarchy and authority, is again
domination and pleasure, which is again part of violence.

To understand all this demands a great deal of observation — it is not
a matter of capacity — you begin to understand, the more you observe.
The very seeing is the acting.

Jiddu Krishnamurti

Re: [silk] War on Science?

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

On Feb 21, 2018 6:24 PM, "Biju Chacko"  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan  wrote:
> >
> > Paying respect to science is good form, but doesn't always mean it's an
> > indication of quality. Neither is questioning science inherently a bad
> > idea.
>
> Erm, there's a hell of a difference between questioning specific
> studies or hypotheses and dismissing established scientific consensus.


Science is largely determined by the people doing the science and
their human failings. There's no protection against human nature.

A good rabbit hole is the Google search term, "half of all science is
wrong", which is a paraphrase of the words of Richard Horton
(www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext),
editor of The Lancet, who admitted rather timidly or bravely
(debateable) in his editorial that “much of the scientific literature,
perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” Also in his words, “science has
taken a turn toward darkness.”

I thought he was being too polite and too late. He's in as prestigious
a scientific position as they come. It'd be like the Pope questioning
catholicism.

And he was largely only talking about the lack of reproducibility in
scientific results. If you hazard a guess about likely bad motives and
bias, then it becomes silly in scale ( One very brave 2005 study
briefly caused waves and then vanished,
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
).

There isn't more said about this because there's no easy solution to
the problem, and of course  no one wants to bite the hand that feeds -
academics have little job security if they fall out with their peers
or lose public trust.

Most are silent, and the few defenders seem to come out with silly
excuses that would make politicians blush.

Here's one -

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915-most-scientific-papers-are-probably-wrong/

<< But Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins
Medical School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists
understand the limitations of published research.
“When I read the literature, I’m not reading it to find proof like a
textbook. I’m reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with
the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that’s something
to think about,” he says.>>


Still there have been other brave souls, occasionally, even in senior
positions at world leading research institutions who have spoken out -
either encouraged by the example of Dr. Horton, or because it's not
just a pimple on the face of science, it's a giant tumor that's eating
most of the face.

The implications on public policy are obviously dire,
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/how-many-scientific-papers-just-arent-true/

<< "If half of the scientific literature “may simply be untrue,” then
half of the climate research cited by the IPCC may also be untrue.
This appalling unreliability extends to work on dietary cholesterol,
domestic violence, air pollution – in short, to all research currently
being generated by the academy.
The US National Science Foundation recently reminded us that a
scientific finding “cannot be regarded as an empirical fact” unless it
has been “independently verified.” Peer review does not perform that
function. Until governments begin authenticating research prior to
using it as the foundation for new laws and huge expenditures, don’t
fall for the claim that policy X is evidence-based." >>.

You failed to quote the next bit in my post about tribal identity. The
debate on the validity of science (as we practice it for some decades
now) should not automatically become a religious war.

I think for a lot of people who aren't religious about science -
science has been smelling like rotting fish for some time - but they
often express this doubt in less than eloquent ways. Mainly because
they don't know a lot about science, and were thus insulated from
acquiring a tribal identity, and having to defend science at every
turn.


> And in either case, any serious disputation demands support of
> objective evidence. Unless, of course, you're saying the scientific
> method itself is questionable -- in which case I'd humbly ask for your
> alternative way of understanding reality.


Heh, why do you go opening that can of worms? That wasn't something I
said, still if one goes there it soon begs a metaphysical question on
the nature of reality itself. I don't think Silk is a medium built for
that kind of debate. However there are some jumping off points for
those interested,

1. Quantum events are not deterministic, but probabilistic, which
requires reworking Francis Bacon's assumptions that experiments are
always repeatable. Such debates are currently only being held in
philosophy departments, and not in physics departments.

Yet makers of 

Re: [silk] War on Science?

[Biju Chacko]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan  wrote:
>
> Paying respect to science is good form, but doesn't always mean it's an
> indication of quality. Neither is questioning science inherently a bad
> idea.

Erm, there's a hell of a difference between questioning specific
studies or hypotheses and dismissing established scientific consensus.
And in either case, any serious disputation demands support of
objective evidence. Unless, of course, you're saying the scientific
method itself is questionable -- in which case I'd humbly ask for your
alternative way of understanding reality.

You also seem to be saying that we have no right to expect better from
politicians. I'd question that. In my opinion, science is as close as
we are getting to objective truth. Am I being idealistic If I expect
truth from our politicians.

Is it wrong to expect people to be honest about their views? Why can't
the BJP say that it wants to protect cows because it's religion asks
it to and that it thinks most Indians would agree. Don't invent
pseudoscientific drivel!


-- b

Re: [silk] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Thejaswi Udupa]

My column this week was triggered, so to say, by this thread.

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/upstart-rewarded-responsibility-international-technology/article22797716.ece

Re: [silk] War on Science?

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

On Feb 21, 2018 9:17 AM,  wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/lynn.wheeler/posts/10214578899241825

(which points to http://www.atimes.com/indias-war-science/)

Please join the discussion and add comments if you know more about this?



I don't use Facebook, I'm even hesitant to click on links that point to it,
so my comments here.

--

Left or Right wing politics, or any idea for that matter, can be sold
scientifically, if one so desires and possesses the necessary intelligence
and eloquence to selectively examine facts. For object lessons please watch
Yes minister.

If people want to feel good about their evening drink sooner or later there
will be two studies published everyday in leading journals arguing the
benefits of alcohol. Times of India never fails to tell me about both of
them.

Paying respect to science is good form, but doesn't always mean it's an
indication of quality. Neither is questioning science inherently a bad
idea. Unfortunately, most see it as some kind of tribal identity - the
world is more complex than a binary state.

Like tobacco, beef can be taxed heavily with a very "secular" argument for
it - Scandinavian countries are already proposing such a beef tax (links
below).

It's a pity that the Bjp's preference is for lynch mobs and mad rhetoric,
but again there's a lot of internal logic to it. Mob violence sends a
louder message in politics than a hundred press releases.

I see stupidity/intelligence and violence/calm as being equally present
across the entire political spectrum - in the long run.

It's clear the BJP, being relatively new to power, lacks savvy political
and PR advisors like the fictional Sir Humphrey Appleby who can teach them
to have their cake and eat it too. It's also true that they relish
authoritarian displays that boldly announce that a new sheriff is in town.

Congress is a party that has ruled India for decades, and in its last days
had developed a gentle, even lazy "benevolent dictator" quality about it.
The BJP, is not an old hand at power, and so it is eager to cement the
status quo and make its mark - hence the bloody politics. Lest we forget,
during the insecure days of Indira's India there was a lot of bloodshed and
nonsense too.

There's a Goldilocks period where the political leadership is neither
insecure nor complacent, neither too young, nor senile, but golden ages are
fated to be stuck in between the two extremes of being too hot and too
cold.

The article by Shashi Tharoor, as far as I can tell, is just a rhetorical
club he's chosen to beat his political opponent with. He's not impartially
examined all the facts available to him, instead, like a good debater, or
politician, he has sketched a convenient narrative.

The electric car policy, the phenomenal growth in renewable energy all
point to a real fear of global warming. It's hard to feel otherwise sitting
in smog cooked Delhi.

When the Mughals invaded India they were nothing more than savages on
horseback, unlettered and unrefined. A mere hundred years later they were
building the Taj Mahal during their Goldilocks period.

Insecurity and stupidity often look alike. It's a season of madness, but
that's just politics.

India and the world is only as mad or sane as it ever was.

---
Secular case for taxing or banning beef:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/eat-
less-meat-vegetarianism-dangerous-global-warming

"Adhering to health guidelines on meat consumption could cut global
food-related emissions by nearly a third by 2050, the study found, while
widespread adoption of a vegetarian diet would bring down emissions by 63%."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/meat-
tax-inevitable-to-beat-climate-and-health-crises-says-report

--