Everyone offended by this statement is a fool

To the best of my knowledge, there exists absolutely no scientific evidence today in favor of any statistically significant genetic difference in mental abilities across races. Yet, I do not think we understand genetics well enough to absolutely rule out such a possibility. So I do not rule out the possibility that African Americans, are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. In fact, I do not rule out this possibility for any race — Whites, South Asians, Mongoloids, Eskimos.

My position on the matter is identical to Eugene Volokh’s. “Whether there are genetic differences among racial and ethnic groups in intelligence is a question of scientific fact. Either there are, or there aren’t (or, more precisely, either there are such differences under some plausible definitions of the relevant groups and of intelligence, or there aren’t). The question is not the moral question about what we should do about those differences, if they exist. It’s not a question about what we would like the facts to be. The facts are what they are, whether we like them or not.”

The same is true for other group classifications, such as gender. In fact, according to noted Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker and many other experts, there is fairly good evidence of differences in mental abilities between males and females. For certain mental tasks it appears that males, on average, are genetically better equipped; for certain others, females are.

What is important is this: Even if some differences in mental ability exists across groups, given the extremely large variation between individuals in any group, these differences are irrelevant from a  moral or legal standpoint. It is not racist or sexist to suggest or believe that differences exist on average; it is racist and sexist to suggest we should treat people differently purely because they belong to a certain group.

What is even more important is this: The culture of pervasive political correctness today that makes is impossible to ask such questions without facing a huge backlash and social ostracization is stifling to intellectual curiousity, degrading to our intelligence and speaks only ill of our open-mindedness; in short like everything else associated with political correctness it is evil.

Read Full Post »

Yeah, right

Apparently there is something called World Homoeopathy day.

A function was held in [Kanpur] to observe the World Homeopathy Day. Speaking on the occasion, Dr Anil Katiyar, a noted homeopath said, “The good aspect is that homeopathy is capable of curing a person completely and there are no side-effects from this mode of treatment.”

I posted on homoeopathy previously here.

But the most brilliant demolition of irrationality ever is the poem below. Enjoy:

Read Full Post »

Libertarianism and climate science denial

Ryan Avent on the incompatibility of climate science and some libertarians:

That is to say, confronted by a problem demanding solutions inimical to libertarian beliefs, libertarians were faced with the choice of reneging on their beliefs or turning their back on science. Tellingly, they chose the latter. One might think that’s a rather drastic decision, given the role scientific endeavors have played in delivering the material prosperity so dear to the hearts of the libertarian world, and one would be right.

A belief system that cannot grapple with the fundamental reality of a situation is, quite simply, not a belief system worth having. 

I agree completely with Avent’s last sentence. I am also a libertarian. So what goes?

First off, Avent is wrong in his basic claim. There are very many libertarians who approach scientific questions scientifically. And most of them conclude that human induced climate change is real. Sure, some libertarians do turn their backs to science, but it is wrong to use that as an excuse to tar the whole movement.

Secondly, what Avent and others of his ilk forget is the question of how to deal with the problem of climate change is not merely a scientific one. It is perfectly consistent and reasonable to accept that AGW is happening and still reject most of the solutions being proferred. The question of what to do about any problem (or indeed, whether to do anything at all) depends not merely on an analysis of the problem (this is the scientific part) but also of how much value, that is costs and benefits you attach to each aspect of the problem and the possible solutions (and their consequences). This is where analysis and ideology interact in a complex manner.

I had a conversation with a friend a week ago. He asked me the following question: what would I do if I had to choose between truth and libertarianism? I answered that such a choice would never be necessary. Sure, the pursuits of truth and happiness do conflict, and so do freedom and happiness. But I cannot conceive of truth and freedom ever conflicting. I believe my moral axioms are good enough to ensure that.

Read Full Post »

Rights and responsibilites with respect to your children

As I wrote in the comments following this post, I believe parents — being responsible for the birth and day to day care of their children — should also have considerable freedom in how they choose to raise them. Short of physical abuse or gross neglect, they have an absolute right to bring their children up in the way they think is best and teach the kids their religious and moral beliefs or whatever else they feel strongly about. Nothing will convince me that the state has any business interfering in those matters or that telling your kids about heaven or hell (or the superiority of socialism) amounts to “child abuse”.

However I draw the line when the parents’ beliefs actually lead them to deny their children vital medication or other fundamental assistance the lack of which may lead to death. Thus, I agree with every word Andrew Sullivan writes here:

We rightly understand sexual abuse to be horrifying and a legitimate reason to intervene. But withholding vital medication from a child out of religious or ideological reasons strikes me as no less abuse. I’m reminded of this acutely by the case of Christine Maggiore, a woman I met and interacted with as another person with HIV. Christine adamantly denied that HIV was related to AIDS and refused anti-HIV medication on those grounds. She died last week. Of AIDS. That was her choice, it seems to me, however tragic it is.

What was also her choice, however, was to refuse anti-HIV meds when pregnant and then to refuse HIV meds for her daughter when she was born. Eliza Jane lived three years before succumbing to HIV-related pneumonia. Magiore was never prosecuted for negligence, since she had taken Eliza Jane to doctors. One of those doctors suffered mild professional consequences.

What rights did Eliza Jane have to protect her very life from her own mother? What rights did Jett Travolta have under the control of Scientologist parents? I find it hard to believe they had none; and I find the sympathy for parents under those circumstances to be misplaced.

Read Full Post »

Bjorn Lomborg on global warming

Set aside 30 minutes today to watch this wonderful presentation by Bjorn Lomborg on global warming.

Lomborg is no libertarian — he is a liberal who favours a welfare state and strong redistribution through taxation — and  indeed, there is no mention of any intrinsic value of freedom and property rights in his presentation. His arguments are basically value-neutral and only rely on maximising efficiency. However, including an assignment of intrinsic value to liberty into our analysis (one corollary of that is, if the outcomes of two actions are similar, we should favor the less-coercive one) only strengthens Lomborg’s conclusions about a sane, scientific and non-reactionary approach to the problem of global warming.

It’s a great video and I am not saying that just because I agree with almost everything he says. And thanks Reason, for hosting this event and producing this video. I am glad I donate to you folks.

[Edit: Looking around the web, I find some who accuse Lomborg of cherry-picking, or at least under-stating facts to suit his views. I am a mathematician, not an expert on global warming, but I did go through those objections in detail and followed through to many of the cited papers. My opinion stated above about the essential correctness of Lomborg’s position is unchanged.]

Read Full Post »

The power of the truth

“That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”

— P.C. Hodgell

Read Full Post »

The war against AIDS (we have almost won it)

There is still no cure for AIDS, but science has come a long way towards controlling it. Antiretroviral therapy has progressed so much in the last two decades that, according to current reports, a person who started taking the drugs at age 20 will on average live another 43 years.

And we can expect the science to keep getting better. Thus, a man in his 20’s who gets infected with HIV today can probably expect to live — by a conservative estimate — to his 70’s. That’s a remarkable state of affairs for a disease that only a decade ago was equated with a death sentence.

Of course, I still recommend that you use condoms when there is no intent to procreate!

Read Full Post »

Atheism doesn’t necessarily imply common sense

Via a post by Althouse, I was alerted to this recent Richard Dawkins quote about children reading Harry Potter and other fantasy fiction:

I think it is is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don’t know…

I think looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious [e]ffect on rationality, I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s something for research.

In fact, Dawkins goes further than simply advocating that children should not read Harry Potter. He thinks identifying children by their religion or even teaching them your religious views, is child abuse:

Do not ever call a child a Muslim child or a Christian child – that is a form of child abuse because a young child is too young to know what its views are about the cosmos or morality […]

It’s a form of child abuse, even worse than physical child abuse. I wouldn’t want to teach a young child, a terrifyingly young child, about hell when he dies, as it’s as bad as many forms of physical abuse.

It is worth noting that Dawkins also once advocated that legal action be taken against astrologers under trade laws.

Now, I am an atheist. However, on the Harry Potter issue, I am more inclined to agree with the Althouse commenter who writes:

Does he have kids? Does he remember being a kid? Does he approve of the way our culture infantilizes children through and beyond the age of 18?

To which I could add some more — does he understand freedom? Imagination? The simple fact that indulgence in fantasy is a necessary component of growing up?

Also, I am disturbed by his tendency to impose rationalism via coercion. For a very personal take on coercion vs science, read this old entry of mine.

Read Full Post »

Scott Aaronson on the singularity

The singularity is far, says Scott.

In this post, I wish to propose for the reader’s favorable consideration a doctrine that will strike many in the nerd community as strange, bizarre, and paradoxical, but that I hope will at least be given a hearing.  The doctrine in question is this: while it is possible that, a century hence, humans will have built molecular nanobots and superintelligent AIs, uploaded their brains to computers, and achieved eternal life, these possibilities are not quite so likely as commonly supposed, nor do they obviate the need to address mundane matters such as war, poverty, disease, climate change, and helping Democrats win elections.

Read the whole thing.

(Hat Tip: Sudeep Kamath)

Read Full Post »

The fear of knowledge

In inquisition-era Europe, you could be imprisoned, tortured or worse, burned to death for scientific enquiry.

These days, you merely receive death threats.

Read Full Post »

Ban all stem cell research?

From the still-under-construction Republican platform for this election:

On stem-cell research — The 2008 Republican Platform calls for a ban on all embryonic stem-cell research, public or private.

On gambling — Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support legislation prohibiting gambling over the Internet or in student athletics by student athletes who are participating in competitive sports.

And it goes on…

Obama’s politics are not exactly pro-freedom either (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) but news like the above reminds me that on November 4 voters will have to make a choice — and from the libertarian perspective, McCain is the worse choice.

Read Full Post »

The great idea

“Once upon a time, there was a man who was convinced that he possessed a Great Idea.  Indeed, as the man thought upon the Great Idea more and more, he realized that it was not just a great idea, but the most wonderful idea ever. The Great Idea would unravel the mysteries of the universe, supersede the authority of the corrupt and error-ridden Establishment, confer nigh-magical powers upon its wielders, feed the hungry, heal the sick, make the whole world a better place, etc. etc. etc.

The man was Francis Bacon, his Great Idea was the scientific method, and he was the only crackpot in all history to claim that level of benefit to humanity and turn out to be completely right.”

— Eliezer Yudkowsky

(Hat Tip: Sudeep Kamath)

Read Full Post »

The pursuit of science and an old email

I stumbled upon an old email today. It was written by me in December 2001. That’s very long ago, isn’t it?

***

Suppose you ask me today … (no, this is not part of the email)

So, what’s worth pursuing?

Well, scientific knowledge is worth pursuing.

What about happiness, money, comfort, security?

Sure, all those too.

But what’s most worth pursuing?

Dude, it’s a matter of choice. Ever heard of freedom?

***

Well, on the other hand you could ask me…

In what way is your worldview substantially different from the person you were seven years ago?

Hmm, that’s hard.  How about greater relativism in my assignment of worth to other people’s goals?

But that’s coming back to choice again.

That’s right.

***

But I am getting ahead of myself.

There’s an institution in India called the Indian Institute of Technology. It’s usually shortened to IIT. When I was in school, it was commonly regarded as something of a holy grail by my peers. As the entrance exam for this place is absurdly competitive, only the best students have a decent chance of getting through. And most of them indeed make this exam their sole focus during their last two years of high school. This whole IIT thing bugged me to no end. To me, the only reasonable target for someone gifted was the pursuit of knowledge. In other words, research.

Now, these smart kids who were single-mindedly preparing for the IIT entrance test had no great love for engineering. Most of them were pursuing the IIT dream either because their parents forced them to or because they believed (correctly) that it would assure them a plush job. An IIT degree was proof to the employer that you were highly intelligent and hard-working — ergo, suitable for any job. It is not uncommon for an IIT graduate in chemical engineering to be wooed by the advertising industry, or a mechanical engineer to take up a job in the financial sector. IIT was your passport to a good life. And in my eyes, it was an abomination.

You see, I was a research fanatic. I simply could not fathom why a gifted young mathematician or someone deeply interested in the physical sciences would choose to go to this place. Everytime I visioned a smart person taking up a managerial position in some firm, something died in me. To me, it was the equivalent of selling your soul.

(True, a minority of students go to IIT and still pursue a research career. This is especially true in fields like CS. However, as far as I was concerned then, it didn’t happen at all.)

***

So, when I discovered that a very good friend — who was also very talented in mathematics — was preparing for the IIT entrance examination, I wrote her a long email attempting to dissuade her. The magic of technology meant that a copy was preserved and I stumbled upon it earlier today. It is an interesting document, not because it has any new ideas or is particularly well-written but because it showcases the passion and reverence I had for the idea that everyone with enough talent should do scientific research.

With age I have mellowed. Some of the prejudices that the email displays have little in common with the person I am today. Yet in some ways, that email is also very me, and it mildly saddens me that I would never write such a thing today.

For the purpose of anonymity, let’s call my friend M. It’s the first letter of the name (not her real one) I used to call her by. I also loved her, but that is a different story.

***

Dec 27, 2001

Well, about IIT, its a very good engineering institute. An excellent place for meeting intelligent people and studying really hard and learning methods to solve horrendous differential equations. And after you pass out, unless you are very unlucky you will get a much-coveted white-collar job in a slick office where you will spend ten hrs a day signing documents and contracts and tenders, attending meetings and handling lots of business files. And at the end of each month, you will get a nice fat paycheck…

M, I am advising you to study maths not because IIT is bad. But because you are good.

I believe that if a person is really good at a particular subject and has a deep interest in it, then he or she should pursue higher studies in that subject.The best should do research. Engineering (or perhaps, in view of the kind of job people actually do after passing out of an engineering institute, I should say ‘pseudo engineering’) can be left for the others.

After all if a student loves a particular subject and has a real talent in it, it is only logical that he should aim to contribute to it!

Of course I am all too aware that the vast majority of talented students join IIT. For two years thousands of bright students prepare crazily for the IIT-Jee, join coaching classes to get into coaching classes which coach them for the iit-jee, the holy-grail of all examinations. IIT for them is the ultimate destination. Indeed this unbelievable IIT-madness is an amazing sociological phenomenon-probably unprecedented in the history of any country.

Its also a vicious circle of the most heinous kind. Somehow, everyone seems to think that you have to aim for IIT– to even think of anything else is either a joke or an outrage. Its like the rats of Hamlin, all of them swarming into the ocean at the tune of the piper without knowing why.

Brain-drain is a term commonly used to refer to the migration of the best Indian brains to foreign countries. But here we witness the drain of virtually all the best brains of the country from mathematics,  physics (and other subjects) to air-conditioned offices where they do semi-clerical work. Like the rats of Hamlin, it is a phenomenon so absurd as to be almost laughable. Except that its not possible to laugh at something so serious.

And that’s a shame. Of all the shames plaguing the Indian education system, it is the worst.

M, I know that you love maths. And I know that you are good in it. Would you really like the kind of job that you will be probably be doing after passing out from IIT?

Of course an IIT-pass out is paid more than a mathematician. But trust me, as a mathematician you will be paid enough to lead a comfortable life. And above all, you will be doing something you love. You will be doing mathematics — making contributions of your own to the subject and teaching the subject to others. You will get plenty of leisure time. And if you make a truly significant contribution to mathematics, the kind of recognition you will get will be beyond anything you can expect to get from doing the kind of work an IIT pass-out does.

Immortality may be a silly idea, but a mathematician has the best chance of achieving it.

***

M ended up going to MIT for her undergrad. She is currently a pursuing a PhD in theoretical computer science.

Read Full Post »

Trying Oil CEO’s for crimes against humanity?

Inflammatory rhetoric from doomsday-sayers isn’t anything new; nevertheless this statement by climatologist James Hansen strikes me as extreme.

Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including disguised funding to shape school textbook discussions.

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. If their campaigns continue and “succeed” in confusing the public, I anticipate testifying against relevant CEOs in future public trials. 

Global warming is real; the science proves it. However, equating the actions of Oil company CEO’s (or tobacco CEO’s for that matter) with actual crimes against humanity displays an astonishing lack of understanding of the words involved and a terrible disregard for the freedoms we hold dear.

(Link via The Volokh Conspiracy)

Read Full Post »

God is relative

An excerpt from the 1954 Albert Einstein letter that was recently sold at auction for £170,000.

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Read Full Post »