dorkinchief

Bill D sees the light?

2005-08-28T11:57:00.000-05:00

You can read Bill D whining here on PT. Looks like the Iowa State folks have decided enough is enough and are now asking Gonzalez to get off the talking circuit and provide some theory for his assertions in Privileged Planet. And GG doesn't like it and Bill D is even more upset r(ant)(w)hines, "First, if you criticize Darwinism or defend ID, it doesn’t matter how many credentials you have, or in what fields — you are by definition ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked (witness RS and GG)." Bill seems to get the idea but is going overboard. Stupid people can't get a PhD. Insane and wicked? That's for the law and physicians to decide. And while scientists - particularly biologists have been called names, IDCists are as a rule treated courteously. But when a PhD gets into the snake oil business of ID (books, videos etc.) the person must be ignorant - in the sense of being neglectful or on purpose refusing to read the evidence.

Lenny's reply is unbeatable

Bill D: Do you have an anti-ID text generator?

Nope.

Lenny: Do you have a scientific theory of ID?

Nope.

Game over.

Mish(ra) Mash

2005-08-27T13:09:00.000-05:00

A terrible article by Pankaj Mishra "How India Reconciles Hindu Values and Biotech" NYT August 21, 2005. Comments have already started pouring in. Pankaj Mishra is one of those Indian writers whose work leaves me feeling thankful that there is so much else to read. Pankaj gets it wrong from the title - may not be his though - anyway he wrote the article right? The last time any "reconciling" happened between Hindu values and public policy was the fight over the revised Hindu Code Bill in the early days of the Republic. Dr Rajendra Prasad representing the interests of the "conservative Hindu interests" is said to have opposed the bill and ranged against him it is said were Nehru and Ambedkar. Several other pieces of legislation have challenged "Hindu Values" in the area of civil law and fundamental rights. And these have passed with little opposition from those who may be thought to represent Hindu interests. Among these are laws against untouchability, and the prevention of female foeticide. In case of the latter it is not entirely a Hindu problem as much to my surprise it happens among Sikhs and Christians too.

You could argue that Hindus/Indians have not come to terms with the law and continue to bribe their way around it. And yes female foeticide is a dark and dirty practice - all the more appalling as it is not a secret.

But what about being scientific? Yes, superstition rules but does that affect the progress of science and technology? Do you hear of scientists agonising over whether they shd pursue a certain line of research? Do you hear of politicians taking sides over whether to fund a particular scientific program or not? A team from Sriharikota visited Tirupati to pray for a succeful launch of the latest PSLV but is that all they did? Did they examine the rocket's horoscope to choose a time for the launch? The consensus in India is very much in favour of science. While it is beyond doubt that India's socialist rate of growth was based on some communist myths and leftist superstition, the progress of science and technology in India has not been slowed down or blocked by concerns over Hindu values. I know one Jain family where the children were not vaccinated only to have one of them struck by polio. There continue to be reports of resistance to polio vaccination among many Muslim families in Western UP on entirely doubtful grounds. If anything the Hindu attitude to science and technology is worldly and materialistic. If there is a way to make things more comfortable by manipulating nature it will be tried out. What we see around is material and there is nothing deeper to it. What is spiritual is inside oneself and should be nurtured but not at the cost of material comforts. Has Pankaj never heard of the four purusharthas? Artha, Kama, Dharma and Moksha?

Pankaj exhibits his ignorance of the Mahbharata and Hindu lore in general when he writes, "But the religions and traditions we know as Hinduism are less monolithic and more diverse than Islam and Christianity; they can yield contradictory arguments. Early in "The Mahabharata," there is a story about how the hundred Kaurava brothers came into being. Their mother had produced a mass of flesh after two years of pregnancy. But then a sage divided the flesh into 100 parts, which were treated with herbs and ghee, and kept in pots for two years - from which the Kaurava brothers emerged. Indian proponents of stem-cell research often offer this story as an early instance of human cloning through stem cells extracted from human embryos. They do not mention that "The Mahabharata" presents the birth of the hundred Kaurava brothers as an ominous event."

First of all Hinduism does not contain religions as in the sense of the Semitic faiths. Isn't a diverse set of traditions bound to contain contradictions? The story of Gandhari's 101 children is a little different. After Duryodhana when Gandhari learnt that Kunti had already given birth to Yudhishtra and was carrying a second child she is in a fit of envy aborted herself. The foetus that she delivered was divided into 100 parts and "germinated" to produce 99 sons and a daughter. The Mahabharata does not present it as an ominous event - to say so is to miss the rich themes of that great epic. As it moves from stage to stage there are several choices that people face that gives us a glimpse into the values they upheld. The break with custom and tradition produces some of the finest moments in the epic. The same Duryodhana who is much reviled for his greed and cunning by his wholehearted acceptance of Karna wins his eternal gratiutude. The epic doesn't present "cloning" as an ominous event does it?

Now what is wrong with scientism? Haven't all our attempts to change society through moral and political means been a failure? Charan Singh it is said washed himself after unveiling the late Jagjivan Naraain's statue, whereas the much ridiculed Babu Rajendra Prasad after his retirement spent his last days at the Congress party offices in Patna with little more than khatiya, lota and kambal, using a common bathroom, and sharing his meals with the cooks and other domestics who ran the place. Where the environment is concerned leaders of our 'underclass" led movements have all been careless and even destructive. The "Dravidian" movements are responsible for the despoilation of historic sites and the forests and coasts of Tamizh Naadu since their ascent to power. The Pattali MakkaL Katchi (now a member of the UPA) is best known for cutting down 100s of old trees on the GST road thru South Arcot when they held the State in anarchy in the mid-80s (when they used to be known as the Vanniar Sangham). Maneka Gandhi has written well about Laloo Prasad Yadav's matka initiative on the Indian Railways. So then what is wring with creating a scientific temper and making a case among the youth to preserve and renew our enviroment?

And Pankaj, cloning cheetahs and tigers is quite a long way off. Is he so ignorant of the current state of the art to imagine that we are going to see herds of cloned big cats in our forests? Dilemmas stand in front of us all the time. In India with so many having to suffer for basic necessities for no fault of their own but the government's any innovation that relieves discomfort and makes life a little easier will be welcomed.

And then what would Gandhi do? Here too Pankaj lays an egg. Take for instance the time when Gandhi had to euthanise his goat . Arun Gupta discusses Gandhi's correspondence and other writings here titled, "An Ethical Dilemma". Gandhi concluded that it would be in the animal's interests to pass away peacefully and was not averse to being euthanised himself if need be. But this was no casual response, it took Gandhi several weeks to make up his mind. Surely we must ask these questions not only now but always. But to imagine as Pankaj does that Indian scientists have, swinging between epic values and modernism, decided that anything goes is incorrect. Unless of course Pankaj has already made up his mind that this is what he wants to write about, nuances bhaad mein jaay.

Can you get it wrong twice in the same day?

2005-08-23T21:37:00.000-05:00

Yes you can if you are ID The Future one of those eye candy pages devoted to the quackery of Neo-Creo aka Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo aka Intelligent Design. Creation Science took about 28 years to be refuted for good starting from 1960. ID/C has within the last decade already run out of steam. Its leading practitioners have all but stopped publishing and have little more than a loyal bunch of factotums to show for their efforts.

The first post talks about Conelia Dean's blooper. One of the IDCists asks, how one shd handle 'scientific evidence' that contradicts the materialistic definition of science and goes on to act smart and understated about Dean's article in the NYT which minces no words about what IDC actually is - a revival of the glorious days of caloric, vitalism, the 5th element etc. That IDCist simply put down fingers to keyboard without reading their post before tapping Enter is so, so obvious. Now what is 'scientific evidence'? Is there something called 'unscientific evidence'? Is there materialistic evidence and intelligent evidence? Evidence can be called names according to who uses them. So the same piece of evidence can be scientific if a scientist uses it and historic if an archaeologist uses it. That the former may decide that a certain piece of evidence isn't very useful for the project she is working on compared to the latter's finding a use for it has nothing to do with the evidence itself. It becomes unscientific if you draw unwarranted conclusions as ID/Cists are so apt to do. And disregarded evidence like what James Adovasio has worked on at Medowcroft, PA, becomes very interesting if you are working on the history of the ancient Americas.

There are two replies to the ID Future question. Firstly what would you do if there is 'scientific evidence' against 'materialistic science'? OK produce the evidence and we will see about it. Where's it? The second reply is a question - what is "non-materialistic science"? There isn't any such thing just as there is no 'materialistic science'. It's just science and you people just don't get it.

As for Newton's notes and intelligent causation; then the term intelligence was used even more vaguely than it is now. Isn't it funny that scientists do not talk seriously about inelligence unless it is in a very sharply defined context with origination by known entities. Talking about the intelligence of un unknown entity with an "anything goes" attitude is simply not science.

The second funny thing to come out of the ID/C camp today is the "Letter to Science". Listen friends if you guys have a problem with evolutionary biology let's see your theory and as Leshner says some experimental evidence as well. And to get there you will need to do some real science in the lab which is very hard work. And how about Behe's "puff of smoke" explanation? I'd love to see it in "Science".

No Ball!

2005-08-21T00:22:00.000-05:00

Scientific Fundamentalists — The Real Problem In This Debate

So goes the title of one of the posts on Bill D's blog. Bill D as always gets it wrong. The problem in this debate is Scientific Fundamentals something Bill and his admirers somehow never manage to bring to the table. The scientific innards of Bill's "theory" are even more elusive than the identity of the Designer. Interesting to see that Neo Creationism is being discussed in OzLand. After a few years of using footoball, baseball and basketball metaphors it might be the turn of cricket and footy. I can think of several. But for now let's enjoy seeing the batting feast on Bill's pathetic legbreaks. It looks like he's getting hit around for 4s and 6s. Watch out Bill, it's OK to get hit but don't bowl a wide or get no balled.

What kind of doctors are these?

2005-08-18T20:23:00.000-05:00

The Indian Express has an absolutely gruesome story about doctors who arrange for female foeticide in Belgaum, Karnataka. Read about it here. http://tinyurl.com/9fswm (Takes you to The New Indian Express).

Female infanticide and foeticide is not new in India. Bharatiraaja's Karuttamma is over 13 years old. What was common in Salem and Dharmapuri and parts of UP has now come to light in many parts of India. Even then to read about doctors arranging for a scan and surgery without qualms or conscience stuns, disgusts and enrages.

In the late '80s when we lived in Bangalore and my wife was expecting our first child we had an accident riding my scooter (near MICO). Thanks to my helmet I got away with a very mild concussion (and a 10 minute blackout). My wife jumped off the scooter as it crashed down and twisted her elbow - but nothing serious. Our doctor recommended my wife undergo an ultrasound scan. At Medinova diagnostics we had to sign a declaration that we would not make any demands to know the gender of the child. Our doctor too did not disclose the child's gender. My daughter is doing very well today.

I was shocked to read about female foeticide in Haryana and Punjab and at firswt thought that this was a Hindu problem. But much to my surprise I find that the practice exists among Sikhs too. Read it here Women in Sikhism... And finally this comes from the National Catholic Reporter among Christians too. I have no idea whether the practice is current among Christians in Salem and Dharmapuri. But I am certain that Muslims in India do not condone female foeticide.

There is a law against female foeticide as the NewIndPress states

"Under the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostics Techniques Act, doctors practising sex determination are to be fined Rs 10,000, their machines sealed and are liable for imprisonment upto three years."

Let's see a fine of Rs10,000 -that's easy when a test earns Rs1,500 and Rs6,000 for an abortion. It won't pinch the doctor the rate at whcih they must be making money. And to be sent to prison for three years there must first be a conviction.

Ramayana and its variations

2005-08-17T20:38:00.000-05:00

Interesting post by Amardeep. I notice that the references to Paula Richman and Madhu Kishwar are already in. But poverty of imagination. No one among us has any idea of the traditions of Indonesia. There are of course several versions of the epic there in the rest of "South East" Asia. Questioning the epic is of course a part of the Hindu experience. One poster has talked of "scheduled caste" versions of the epic upholding Ravana as the hero. The person who thinks so can be forgiven for his ignorance. Ravana is the second form that Jaya - one of Vishnu's dvArapAlakas or doorkeepers took on earth. He and his colleague Vijaya were cursed to desend to earth by one of those many angry Hrishis when they denied him an audience with Vishnu. After pleading with the Hrishi for a few yugas, they were asked to choose between 7 births on earth as good men or 3 as bad men. Wanting to be reunited with the Lord as soon as possible and enjoy the grace that comes from dying at the hands of Ishvara, Jaya and Vijaya chose to be born as bad men. In the 1st janmam they were born as Hiranyakasha and Hirayakashipu. In the 2nd birth they were born as Ravana and Kumbakarna and in the 3rd as Sisupala and (I forget). After which they returned to Vaikuntham. I am sure someone sub'bed when Jaya and Vijaya were away on earth and were "in transit" between births.
So Ravana as a "scheduled caste" icon doesn't make sense. Besides Rama was Kshatriya and Ravana a Brahmana - need one say who was higher on the ladder? Ravana was a Shiva bhakta a master of the 64 arts and a fine ruler of his people. Hanuman's impressions of a Lanka asleep paint the picture of a magnificent city. There is a tale of unknown origin which may be untrue. EV Ramaswamy Naicker is said to have wanted to change his name to Ravanaswamy not wanting to have anything to do with an "Aryan" invader of the North. Rajaji (his lifelong friend) is said to have reminded him of the origins of Ravana whereupon EVR hastily changed his mind! If at all one is looking for a "scheduled caste" icon in the Ramayana how about Rama's friend Guhan or Kaikeyi's handmaiden Goony - the pivot of the epic - the playmaker?
One thing that surprisingly Paula Richman hasn't written about is the revisionist plays of the big stage theatrist RS Manohar who made his name earlier as a screen villain. In a series of popular plays starting with Surapadman (who was vanquished by Skanda) in 1968 through Lankesvaran, Indrajit, Maaveeran Kamsan, ThErotti Magan, Duryodhanan, Sukracharyar Manohar mounted one lavish production after the other to packed houses all over Tamizh Naadu. In each play Manohar presented a radical point of view that elicited much sympathy for the otherwise usual villains. Every story was based on widely narrated variations. For instance in Lankeshvaran Sita is Ravana's daughter one of the many unconventional versions of the Ramayana. While Manohar's drama represents current revision traditional revisions are many. In the classic Terukoothu or street theatre a prolonged sawaal jawaab with the audience is used to question the epic and the characters. I will leave it to Amardeep to explore these technical issues for which he is best qualified.

The name Rama is very common. Let's see - Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Kanshi Ram, Ram Vilas Pawan, Ramaswamy Naicker. And Dilip D'Souza bears the name of an ancestor or Rama. And Amardeep will forgive me if I am wrong. Isn't Ram the most frequently utttered name in the Guru Granth Sahib?

Perakh shuts out ID/C again

2005-08-15T22:15:00.000-05:00

When IDcs complain that world of science ignores IDcists they are wrong for several reasons. Consider the time spent on debunking this pseudoscience by the likes of Perakh - not only a scientist but a Hebrew scholar too. Dembski in contrast is usualy free with his putdowns (which goes very well with his admirers but doesn't provoke even a glance any longer)

DesiPundit

2005-08-13T08:13:00.000-05:00

DesiPundit

A Pandit - not Pundit as in a puffed up and stuffy short a or Pandita - the female - is a person of great experience and learning and comes from the Sanskrit. In Tamizh such a person would be called Arignar - as Annadurai is known or Mutharignar and even more senior Arignar as Rajaji is referred to in TN. CAndrOr is a collective term for the wise. Now these are all Indic terms along with several other terms such as Granthi. All these refer to people of great learning who have dedicated themselves to a life of knowledge and are committed to search for what is there with the deepest honesty and sincerity.

Pundit in the US seems to refer to not to a learned person but one with pretensions to learning. And now we have a Desipundit. What sort of wannabe-ness is this? If you want to disseminate Indic blog thinking how about calling it Pandit'a or Arignar? Why go with the parody?

Beliefnet.com ID Quiz?

2005-08-06T07:07:00.000-05:00

Beliefnet.com

This must be the silliest thing to have come out of the ID/C guided "thinking". What does IQ have to do with ID? Nothing!

So you think you are a Darwinian?

2005-08-04T20:11:00.000-05:00

So you think you are a Darwinian?

A philosopher should read up on biology before making an ass of himself. One reading is not enough to clear the cobwebs. Immersion in the field - working with experts - yes your studies in philosophy make you an expert in your field not someone elses - would help greatly.

Beautiful people? It is not Hindi movies only

2005-08-03T21:46:00.000-05:00

Amardeep Singh writes about

Bollywood Delusions: Race vs. Language

I rarely watch any new Indian movie these days. IMO there are about 3-4 movies worth watching every now and then. Instead I watch old movies - liesurely classics, well explored themes, great performances. But that's not what I am talking about now.

I am horrified at the transformation of the actresses - straw blonde hair and bleached faces. The diference was stark when I watched A.Rai on 60 mins. The Ms.World Rai was a very different person - although Bombay;s finest surgeons I am reliably told played a role in changing the body, the hair was black (as she was born with). The Rai of today's got brown hair (as my daughter wants). I wonder how long it is before South Indian actresses acquire these trappings.

This fair vs. dark thing isn't a Northie thing. In Tamizh movies the fair ones (either naturals like MGR or the painted ones) have always been at the top. The "Dravidian" movement that is about 20 years younger than the Tamizh movie business has played a part in entrenching these prejudices. MGR used a patina containing gold dust to get those shining looks. Shivaji, Gemini, SS Rajendran - all of whom at one time or the other were close to the "Dravidian" movement come off with pale looks in the old B&W movies and in the later colored ones looked fair for many years. As for the actresses there are no unfair ones. Rajinikant's entry into movies courtesy that great but underappreciated director - K Balachander - is a break with the past for all of Indian film. The first real angry young man - no plum pudding looks, rough, dark - really dark looks. In Tamizh Nadu with all the talk of 'rationalism' and resisting Hindi/Aryan/Brahmin hegemony movies as rule have remained mired in the worst of the past. (more about that later). Especially where colour is concerned it is OK to make jokes about people's colour. In one telling scene from "Indian"/Hindustani (Shakar's Kamlahasan starrer) Goundamani pokes fun at Senthil's dark looks - and the funny thing about it is both of them are equally dark and owe their entry into movies to that other great trendsetter Bharatiraja who cast dark men and women in main roles.

After a long absence....

2005-06-25T20:11:00.000-05:00

Hi,

After the better part of a year I am back. For some reason I can't undelete my old blog - actually I have forgotten what I did with it.

There's going to be some interesting stuff. Watch out for more news.