tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post116896067968399472..comments2024-03-27T13:58:06.458+05:30Comments on Suvro Chatterjee bemused: How my world has changedSuvro Chatterjeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01027202980259279420noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-30269385089326151242011-08-30T12:49:54.746+05:302011-08-30T12:49:54.746+05:30I don't know how exactly to react to this arti...I don't know how exactly to react to this article, Joydeep, but I should like to make a few points:<br /><br />1) Lincoln and Washington were great Presidents, indeed, but neither was known for any great fascination with science,<br />2)Just because the people in question are sceptical about evolution and climate change theories, wouldn't it be a little unfair to brand them anti-science wholesale? If you research the subjects thoroughly, there is indeed a lot of murky and bad science involved in those fields... mere percentages of scientists claiming something does not necessarily make it true. Remember, Galileo in his time was almost alone in claiming what he claimed!<br />3) As I have discussed in some detail in this blogpost itself, there are many reasons why science has become unpopular and deserving of suspicion in recent decades, and <i>regrettable as the development is,</i> they cannot just be wished away (see also the recent post title 'Science contemporary style' which is still on my home page).<br />4) The writer talks mockingly of the 'moral courage' of some politicians, but scientists have never had a monopoly of that virtue, as both of us know. Indeed, scientists compromising with morals to serve petty selfish ends are legion, as the records show: that is just one reason why in some circles science has lost some of its aura!Suvro Chatterjeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01027202980259279420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-46911376589848463752011-08-30T00:00:34.746+05:302011-08-30T00:00:34.746+05:30Dear Sir,
Please read this article: http://www.ny...Dear Sir,<br /><br />Please read this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html?_r=1&emc=eta1<br /><br />Irrespective of who wins the US Presidential election (I have a strong feeling that the Republicans will next year), this is ominous news not only for the US of A, but for the whole world in general. It frightens me to think that people like these would rule the world in a few years time, a far cry indeed from the likes of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />JoydeepJoydeephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03002902225511574873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-65047747066807644642010-03-30T22:15:49.503+05:302010-03-30T22:15:49.503+05:30Here's an article for the open minded seeker:
...Here's an article for the open minded seeker:<br />http://www.slate.com/id/2149598/<br /><br />I'd also like all to try the book <i>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</i> by Kuhn and Tucker. It was written a long time ago, but it is still highly relevant in 2010, especially for those who think that physics has made huge leaps in the last thirty years.<br /><br />But, to remind everybody once again, this post was <b>definitely not merely about science</b> but the world that we live in - and I'd like comments from those who understand that very big and important difference.Suvro Chatterjeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01027202980259279420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-47938377926900543062008-05-01T20:17:00.000+05:302008-05-01T20:17:00.000+05:30I regret to say that of late I am being irritated ...I regret to say that of late I am being irritated with comments on this post by some people who have neither really read the post through with meticulous care (it is NOT just about science but about the <I>world</I> and how it has changed before my eyes), nor, when they are commenting, pause to reflect that perhaps a little knowledge of just <I>one</I> subject is really not enough to comment on a post like this. Now I would rather not have comments at all than comments which are silly, prejudiced or simply irrelevant, just because the writers are in a great haste to dash off their comments without doing the homework I expect of them. Someone who has virtually <I>no</I> knowledge of economics, political science, history, sociology and theology, for instance, should either not comment at all, or comment with a humble and open mind, with questions, not dogmatic assertions.<BR/><BR/>I cannot refrain from quoting two relevant jokes here:<BR/>1) When you start thinking you know it all, they give you a BSc. When you start suspecting that perhaps there are a lot of things you do not know after all, they give you an MSc. When you realise that you know hardly anything at all, but neither does anyone else, they give you a PhD and ask you to teach.<BR/><BR/>2) A very senior doctor was telling me yesterday that an MBBS knows everything, an MD much less so, and a DM with twenty years' practice leaves it mostly to God.<BR/><BR/>And finally, Socrates said that the only thing he knew with certainty was that he knew very little. That should teach some people to be humble.Suvro Chatterjeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01027202980259279420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-35698422983384298132008-04-29T21:44:00.000+05:302008-04-29T21:44:00.000+05:30First, Sabyasachi, a big thank you for writing in....First, Sabyasachi, a big thank you for writing in. Without agreeing with a lot of things you have said, I congratulate you on being able to express yourself so cogently and elegantly in correct English: very few people these days can do that much, alas!<BR/><BR/>Do I know you? I shall be glad to have your email i.d., so we can maybe talk this thing over a little more, in greater privacy.<BR/><BR/>A few points for now: I don't 'hate' Dawkins, I merely hold him in contempt. If you read closely his notes in the appendix to <I>The Selfish Gene</I>, I am sure you will know why. As for people like Weinberg, I have pointed out what enormous disservice they have done to the cause of science in my essay. It is largely the doing of such people that these days the young in the west are turning away from science in such large numbers that alarmed governments are trying to lure them back with brainless slogans like 'science is sexy', 'science is cool'!<BR/><BR/>One more thing. I am sure that when you make comments on scientific ideas, you are well-read enough. Can you claim the same when it comes to religious issues? When you write a sentence like "I would have liked to write about my belief that human beings do not need metaphysics to derive ethical principles from...", are you saying such a thing after having made a deep and thorough study of the various theologies of the world - the Talmud, for instance, or the Summa Theologica by Aquinas, or the Tripitaka of the Buddhists, or Adi Sankara's commentary on the <I>Gita</I>? If you haven't, and you make an effort to acquaint yourself with these titanic works, you might be disabused of the notion that intelligent men started being born only since the end of the 19th century!Suvro Chatterjeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01027202980259279420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-7858156526226860992008-04-29T19:36:00.000+05:302008-04-29T19:36:00.000+05:30While agreeing with you on many points, I feel the...While agreeing with you on many points, I feel the urge to make a few comments.<BR/><BR/>The fact that scientific principles tend to become more "complicated" for lay people to understand is not necessarily in contradiction to what science was born for. There are two different aspects to this. One, modern science has become more NON INTUITIVE. As physicists have probed natural phenomena in regimes outside the scope of ordinary human experience, things have turned out to be non intuitive. That quantum mechanics has turned out weird is due to the fact that at subatomic levels things DO behave strangely. It was necessary that to explain certain experimental facts, the whole classical notion of things and their workings had to be thrown out. Classical general relativity is , as Penrose states, the most accurately verified complete theory at present, with the accuracy of verification being about one part in 10 to the 14 for some recent experiments. If concepts have to be changed so drastically to explain phenomena around us, then it is certainly not fair to look complainingly at scientists for that; just marvel at mother nature for the way she is! I think there are very few consciousness raisers like science, in that it shows us how little we understand about everything going on in this vast universe and to value whatever little we do. It cultivates a sense of wonder in us which is one of our greatest possessions driving us forward in the path of progress.The bewildering theories that have sprung up of late reflect the fact that theory has gone so far ahead of our experimental capabilities, that all these bewildering ideas have, at present, little chance of being verified directly or indirectly (or if there is, it is prohibitively costly).There is certainly some propaganda on the part of scientists who want to spread their respective theories of such speculative nature. However, I will hesitate from calling these ideas useless, as many of them have some level of reasonability. I have to admit, though, that many such theories have taken up far too much time in trying to predict something that might prove their credibility experimentally. The lack of experimentally verifiable hypotheses in present theories is something that is quite different to the weirdness of quantum mechanics or relativity. These are weird as they do not agree with our intuitive notions and will continue to be weird to us even after the most fantastically accurate experimental verifications. Present day speculative theories are in a mess because they cannot prove any of their hypotheses (which differ from existing verified theories) experimentally (because present day technology is far behind, but honestly, even indirect testing of some of these may lie very very far ahead in the future).However, these are not totally unreasonable in the sense that many of them have grown up from present well established theories. Comparing even present unproved theories with church mumbo jumbo is unfair, let alone comparison with well established theories.<BR/><BR/>There are people who say that religious contemplation and scientific research are two different ways of looking at the same truth. Firstly, I would like to state that some proponents of such a view (like Dyson) are established scientists with exceptional contribution to science. (Capra and Paul Davies I'm less sure of; at least their contributions pale significantly in comparison to Dyson's). Roger Penrose says that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain consciousness and human thought is not algorithmic. However, his hypothesis that consciousness is somehow a quantum gravity phenomenon is at least as radical a hypothesis as that all particles come from vibrations of strings (and at least as criticized as string theory etc.).There are also people who oppose ideas of the likes of Dyson etc. like Steven Weinberg or Stephen Hawking (I know from your classes that you positively HATE Dawkins) who have also made exceptional contributions to science. So,without disrespect to any of the persons concerned I would like to state that I very certainly differ from the views of Dyson and all. Scientific theories are built up by gathering painstaking information about the phenomena concerned and explanation of all such diverse happenings on the basis of a consistent few rules. The parallels between things found by scientific inquiry and religious contemplation are at best based on very vague terminology and a rather prominent neglect of details. After the postulation and verification of special relativity, there was a flurry of activity on the part of some philosophers to show how the concept of relativity was quite general and in tune with their philosophical beliefs. However, it did not seem very obvious to them that , say, the speed of a light ray would be the same in all inertial frames. (Actually this is not a trifling detail, it is one of the 2 postulates of special relativity as put forward by Einstein). That people who oppose such ways of thinking are in "defiant denial" is a somewhat biased and harsh way of putting things. I will rather incline to agree with Lederman's comment : such an approach lacks " the understanding of how carefully experiment and theory are woven together and how much blood, sweat, and tears go into each painful advance." This also probably applies to the comments about the absence of so many things predicted in science fiction books in the present world.<BR/><BR/>I would have liked to write about my belief that human beings do not need metaphysics to derive ethical principles from; however as I have made related comments in a different post, I will not make them again.Sabyasachi Tarathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119145608455616670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-60360103408778984222007-09-28T00:01:00.000+05:302007-09-28T00:01:00.000+05:30I know that mathematical progress cannot be quanti...I know that mathematical progress cannot be quantified in material terms,(like an android, making a hotel in space, self regnerative houses), but the last 2 decades have resulted in some of the biggest results in the domain of pure Maths. e.g Fermat's Last Theorem, Poincare's Conjecture, Primes is in P, etc etc. They have certainly resulted in a huge knowledge gradient in Mathematics in the past few years. I certainly believe that, Mathematicians have had a Quantum leap of understanding in the Past few decades, and they understand more fundametal things then what Mathematicians understood 30 years ago. Many more fundamental Mathematical facts are known, than they were known 30 years ago. <BR/> However, as many visionaries of science have often proclaimed , that the only usefull science is that which benefits the common man, and as Suvro Sir has aptly pointed out, nothing much has taken place in the last 30 years which was so pathbreaking that it changed out lives in fundamental ways(May be Internet was one such change). So science had indeed failed to do what it had set out to do. However it is also instructive to know what has indeed changed in the area of Artifical Intelligence(Much emphasis on that was given in Suvro Sir's Article.)Here is a link http://www.rr.cs.cmu.edu/aaai.pdf , which was written by Turing Award winner Raj Reddy, on what Artificial Intelligence has achieved in the last 25 years. All in all I want to give some hope to people reading this blog, that unlike the 30 or so years past us, we might see some very fundamental changes which will take place in the current century, and Raj reddy's article shows that there are been considerable progress, even though no fundamental one.Navinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10481886024371608320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-23820399625525936152007-09-21T22:36:00.000+05:302007-09-21T22:36:00.000+05:30Sir,I would be grateful if you read my comments an...Sir,<BR/>I would be grateful if you read my comments and then post a reply as to whether my reflections are correct.<BR/>I had hitherto neglected the essay on account of the title.But only after I had read a few lines did I begin to think - Hey! This is going to be interesting.<BR/>I apologise beforehand for criticising much greater men than me.<BR/>Sir,your observations that science has gotten into a rut - I can't disagree.But there are reasons for this.Firstly,this over emphasis on specialized knowledge.Scientists have become so much specialized that they have forgotten to think out of the box.Science is surely a method more than anything else.But this does not mean that there is no place for instinct in science.Feynman makes a similar point in the book 'Surely you are joking Mr.Feynman'.He says that often in science,it is those who know less and not those who more, who are more likely to solve a certain problem.This is because the former category do not know enough to decide that this or that problem cannot be solved.<BR/>Also, another aspect of science that is more akin to organised religion is not questioning existing theories enough.Peculiarly those who make pathbreaking discoveries,are at first ridiculed and mocked at,but then when the dust has settled down,they are worshipped as if they were infallible.Science has it's own unique way of developing 'Scientific superstitions.'<BR/>Sayan Datta.Sayan Dattahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01975519770920793055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-17165937909828098332007-09-08T18:06:00.000+05:302007-09-08T18:06:00.000+05:30The world around has indeed changed. It has change...The world around has indeed changed. It has changed to make us more and more lazy and less adventurous. With the so called facilities of internet banking. e ticket, e shopping people are more desperate to stick to their houses. The idea of home office has already developed. People can sit in their homes and order for FREE home delivered food. All this have been made possible because of the advancement in technologies. But what does it lead us to? Increase in the number of patients due to problems of obesity in the hospital. People have become narrow minded and selfish. All they are concerned is about their own nuclear families. Doesn't it sound amusing to think that people avoid social gatherings now a days thinking that they its a waste of time. They are incompetent to talk with a group of people and share their ideas. Dalai lama has rightly aid that people have gadgets to communicate their ideas but nothing to communicate. <BR/><BR/>In this regard let me tell you some striking feature of public gathering and how it has helped YOU to have a so called INDEPENDENT life. During the British rule the whole concept of baroari puja or public puja came about so that people could gather and talk to each other privately and in turn conspire against the British. It was mainly in these gathering that important plans to bring down the British government were carried out. <BR/><BR/>But where are proceeding to exactly?<BR/>Just as we are looking deeper and deeper into atomic structure and seeing smaller and smaller parts, our mind set is also changing to be smaller and smaller. Our dreams are turning out to be smaller and smaller. No doubt that our level of knowledge and urge to know more has come down. And now I fear with the advent of SMS text we are heading towards reducing the size of the OXFORD dictionary. <BR/><BR/>In non linear dynamics we say that Chaos is the rule and not the exception. Probably we should change it a bit and say - world is changing is the rule and heading towards a disaster is not an exception.<BR/><BR/>Probably I might have been a bit confused in my post a tried to relate various events.Arnab Karhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00374148475577446294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-28914660609109867482007-09-06T15:24:00.000+05:302007-09-06T15:24:00.000+05:30What a brilliant essay! A modern day elegiac prose...What a brilliant essay! A modern day elegiac prose written with the help of tremendous reading and assimilation. In fact this assimilation is what is so remarkable. I would request one and all to copy the post and read it at leisure. This is one of the most profitable reads that rubbishes the typical 'fifty years from hence we will go to Mars for our marriages..' for once and all.<BR/>Our country and others have indeed regressed over the years in being more mercenary and less innovative, more crowded and less brilliant, more dirty and less peaceful. Surely, we haven't progressed and we also haven't become happier. <BR/>I also would request people to read a book called 'Almost Everybody's guide to Science' by John Gribbins. I will leave a copy with Sir.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-62513661654152907022007-04-18T18:44:00.000+05:302007-04-18T18:44:00.000+05:30Thanks Suvro! Virtually meeting you after such a l...Thanks Suvro! Virtually meeting you after such a long time! Was overwhelmed to find that you found my piece to be a useful one!Continue the good work ! Incidentally, as you know, the fourth dimension of life has stopped ticking for quite some now! Can we have some words from you about him like you gave regarding Sudhirda's ? Again, sorry for this intrusion. Take care.Rupkatha Royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116391140030403143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-38334704960564537332007-04-03T12:26:00.000+05:302007-04-03T12:26:00.000+05:30Sir, I read this blog just now (but I am glad that...Sir, I read this blog just now (but I am glad that I did) and I am going ask as many of my friends as possible to read this (and the others) too.<BR/>I think the years that you have lived so far have helped you in observing and analysing the pattern; in deciding if we truly have made any progress at all. But of course there are few people out there who really observe things that are going on around and then reflect on and analyse them. <BR/>I am sure you know this already but (I feel) the fact is that in colleges and universities, the professors just lead us through narrow vestibules. Neither are they themselves concerned about anything apart from the 'work' that they are doing nor do they encourage creative thinking. Students help the cause of the professors by doing just what is asked of them and essentially wasting time. The professors here seem to be quite contented living their lives as they are - indulging in petty politics etc - and for the students, getting a secure job seems to be the be all and end all of all things. <BR/>Here I haven't met anybody who looks at things from a really broad perspective. And that's where this blog comes into the picture. I hope more people read it and reflect upon it.Nishanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04476670168055492486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-91909136860518926972007-03-09T22:47:00.000+05:302007-03-09T22:47:00.000+05:30Many thanks. You have been informative and reflect...Many thanks. You have been informative and reflective, certainly not 'garrulous': why should you be apologetic? If people don't have the time and attention-span to read long (but serious) essays/comments, that's their problem, not ours! - but I don't despair easily: I'll look forward to intelligent rejoinders. Keep in touch!Suvro Chatterjeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01027202980259279420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-64674638707452374692007-03-09T21:18:00.000+05:302007-03-09T21:18:00.000+05:30Without being alarmist, the observations of Suvro,...Without being alarmist, the observations of Suvro, so far as they relate to the environmental concerns of our planet, coming close on the heels of the forewarnings of the IPCC meet , does make one feel despondent! Despite such loud talks and reams of paper being churned out daily regarding the prerogatives of imposing environmental safeguards vis-a-vis the developmental imperatives, the divides are still sharp, stoutly defended against and seem almost non-negotiable! It is amazing to find the various layers of intellectual deception amongst individuals disconcerting over these issues! Otherwise, well-meaning individuals, quite perceptive and rational in their respective professional turfs, often fight pitched battles over assigning some form of environmental mandates to decide on the developmental issues of the society at large. <BR/><BR/>Can a workable consensus on observance of certain minimum common environmental safeguards, be ever reached among the various stakeholders (politicians, technocrats, social scientists, etal culled from diverse ends of social spectrum) which may serve as the pivotal platform for launching developmental projects in future? <BR/><BR/>It's just not some local environmental protection outfits, loosely functioning under certain Ministry or State Boards, or even supposedly environmental ‘watchdogs’ at the Ministerial level , perfunctorily doing (un-doing?) their work under the subterfuge of various legislations, often running at cross-purposes! For such a meaningful and actionable consensus to emerge, we perhaps need a churning of the society's best and fertile minds, having enlightened wisdom (which Suvro rues, has become such a scarce commodity these days) painstakingly and dispassionately examining the pros and cons of the dialectics involved, encouraging a no-holds-barred brainstorming of the issues and then perhaps zeroing on to certain affordable prescriptions, that may be treated as the bottom lines for initiating progress!<BR/><BR/>Without in any way being pre-judged in the context of the recent controversy raging over Singur, it is a fact that the car population in Indian cities is increasing even faster – much faster – than the human population. While desperately trying to make good the time, almost irretrievably lost, thanks to our endless ideological quibblings, we have made over much space to highways and flyovers, while our public transport had languished over the years and rapid transit systems, which could move more and more people in a clean and controlled way, remain much on the drawing board. You cannot perhaps fault the wit who , even at the cost of being dubbed ‘an anti-developmentalist’, observed: “The more flyovers you build, the more cars you will encourage to choke them. The more waste disposal facilities you create, the more waste will be generated to choke them too.”<BR/><BR/>We have exhausted, in a few generations, fossil fuels generated over several million years; 50% of mangroves have been removed, wetlands have shrunk by half; over 20% of recognized fisheries are already depleted; 50% of land surfaces have been transformed.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, the ghastly emitters of the classical Green House Gases have been the developed countries. It is learnt that with 4% of world population, USA contributes 25% of the entire global emission. Per capita emission of India is only 1/25th of USA and India’s insistence on per capita parity has not been music to the avowed policy prescriptions enunciated by the West. The iniquitous global energy consumption is brought to a sharper focus when we consider that USA insists on China, India and Brazil also to come under emission control strategy. Curiously, for the sake of sheer survival dynamics, we do not have much grounds for crying hoarse against such supercilious and hegemonistic sermons of the West for then, we would soon cross the concentration thresholds beyond which the threat becomes really serious and equally menacing for both the developed and developing nations (perhaps potentially more disastrous for the latter, in absence of adequate institutional security/emergency handling mechanisms).<BR/><BR/>We have also learnt that Europe and USA and, increasingly, Japan are concerned with invasion into their atmosphere of huge brown and yellow clouds (being essentially products of bio-mass burning formed through air pollutants – a so-called ‘developing country product’) through long distance transport and have orchestrated for far stringent regimes of law about environmental jurisdiction. <BR/> <BR/>It is perhaps here that an institution of the likes of a global Environmental Ombudsman, (not tied to the individual coat-pins of regional nation-states, diverse geo-strategic outfits, mega transnational corporates , functioning under a motley of regional equations and loyalties) should be given an over-arching authority with adequate moral, ethico-legal powers (immune from narrow executive and bureaucratic pettifoggery) to carry out its onerous mandate! What would be the role of us, the virtual commoners, in this drive?<BR/><BR/>Sorry for being garrulous ! Even a scatter brain like me has been excited and somewhat carried away by the writer’s extremely thoughtful and provocative piece!Rupkatha Royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116391140030403143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30819742.post-34029256590403038192007-03-08T14:22:00.000+05:302007-03-08T14:22:00.000+05:30So many friends and ex-students who have 'studied'...So many friends and ex-students who have 'studied' or are 'studying' science upto a fairly advanced level in some of the supposedly best institutes in this country, and no one can think of writing any intelligent/informative comments here?! - and if they don't want to, why not?Suvro Chatterjeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01027202980259279420noreply@blogger.com