What does the moderate in "moderate Islam" refer to.
According to Merrriam-Webster, the different meanings of moderate, used as an adjective, are:
1 a : avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits b : calm, temperate
2 a : tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension b : having average or less than average quality : mediocre
3 : professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme
4 : limited in scope or effect
5 : not expensive : reasonable or low in price
6 of a color : of medium lightness and medium chroma
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderate
I think the reference is to meanings labeled 1a and 3 respectively. The view assumes that Western civilization is the standard civilization, the status quo, and Islam must conform to it. Despite being a Westerner in thought, I find this assumption disgusting. In sheer number of adherents, Islam may have more adherents than Western civilization, which I have used to refer to a secular, techno-scientific society. Many Americans won't be adherents of the above-mentioned "Western civilization", especially the Evangelist creationists. Use of technology, without accepting science, cannot be a differentiating factor for "moderate Islam" as most "radical Islamicists" are avid users of technology.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Anarcho-capitalism: Succint Description of my Opposition
1- Anarcho-capitalism (AC) says that abortion is fine as the mother is fully within her rights to expel a predator.
Does one have the right to expel a guest for no reason. No, one doesn't. And the child is a guest whom the mother willingly invited. And the fetus has to be assumed to be conscious from the date of inception otherwise those who oppose the statement have to show how the fetus became conscious.
2- AC says that only rights are property rights
I murder a child in an area which no one claims to be his/her property. If the child is not his/her parents property then no property right is infringed (assuming child is not working). So murdering a child is ok.
3- AC claims that parents rights over their children are limited
I capture an animal. Don't I have the right to kill it, torture it, or recapture it if it runs away. When I can have such rights over a creature which can exist independently of me, why can't parents have such rights over their children who, unlike most things available in market, are created from their bodies and only their bodies.
Does one have the right to expel a guest for no reason. No, one doesn't. And the child is a guest whom the mother willingly invited. And the fetus has to be assumed to be conscious from the date of inception otherwise those who oppose the statement have to show how the fetus became conscious.
2- AC says that only rights are property rights
I murder a child in an area which no one claims to be his/her property. If the child is not his/her parents property then no property right is infringed (assuming child is not working). So murdering a child is ok.
3- AC claims that parents rights over their children are limited
I capture an animal. Don't I have the right to kill it, torture it, or recapture it if it runs away. When I can have such rights over a creature which can exist independently of me, why can't parents have such rights over their children who, unlike most things available in market, are created from their bodies and only their bodies.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Book Review: Ethics of Liberty -selected portions
"Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain."
The author states that the consent is not a contract. If the consent is a contract than the argument is invalid.
"there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity.And thirdly as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. "
Who is the author to decide whether the ovum is a "voluntarily and consciously contracting entity"?. Are all ovum his slave? If I make a contract to build a table for a person in 3 months than how is that not a voluntary slave contract but the contract to bear a child is? Both involve the body. Does the author mean to say all contracts are void? It can be said that there is no proof that the child wants to live. But I use the assumption that every child wants to live unless he/she states otherwise. If this assumption is not valid than a person can murder another provided he/she is ready to pay the liabilities due from that person. The author says that a promise is a contract only if some property rights are violated by the non-performance of contract. Who is he to define a contract and what is property? Right to life exists and if that breach is caused, it is the breaking of contract.
"But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children."
What is bizarre or grotesque in this? Parents create the child without external help and hence have complete rights over it. The child is not even created outside the body. Thus as the child is created in the body and by using only the body. I don't think it is any more bizarre or grotesque than subjecting animals to human control or torturing them. Similarly, if people can capture runaway animals, why the same right is not permitted with regard to children? People don't create animals but they create babies.In the words of the author, whose property rights are violated if the parents kill the child.
"We must therefore state that, even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. "
My car does not exist inside me. Does it mean my right over it is limited? It is off course a separate entity? And who is an adult?
Hence, in my view, this chapter only shows the internal contradictions in anarcho-capitalism. It shows that most so-called anarcho-capitalists talk about freedom but in reality they support tyranny of the worst sort.
The author states that the consent is not a contract. If the consent is a contract than the argument is invalid.
"there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity.And thirdly as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. "
Who is the author to decide whether the ovum is a "voluntarily and consciously contracting entity"?. Are all ovum his slave? If I make a contract to build a table for a person in 3 months than how is that not a voluntary slave contract but the contract to bear a child is? Both involve the body. Does the author mean to say all contracts are void? It can be said that there is no proof that the child wants to live. But I use the assumption that every child wants to live unless he/she states otherwise. If this assumption is not valid than a person can murder another provided he/she is ready to pay the liabilities due from that person. The author says that a promise is a contract only if some property rights are violated by the non-performance of contract. Who is he to define a contract and what is property? Right to life exists and if that breach is caused, it is the breaking of contract.
"But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children."
What is bizarre or grotesque in this? Parents create the child without external help and hence have complete rights over it. The child is not even created outside the body. Thus as the child is created in the body and by using only the body. I don't think it is any more bizarre or grotesque than subjecting animals to human control or torturing them. Similarly, if people can capture runaway animals, why the same right is not permitted with regard to children? People don't create animals but they create babies.In the words of the author, whose property rights are violated if the parents kill the child.
"We must therefore state that, even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. "
My car does not exist inside me. Does it mean my right over it is limited? It is off course a separate entity? And who is an adult?
Hence, in my view, this chapter only shows the internal contradictions in anarcho-capitalism. It shows that most so-called anarcho-capitalists talk about freedom but in reality they support tyranny of the worst sort.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The language community of mathematics
Conscious users
Mathematics is used by mathematicians , who form a global community. It is also used by students of mathematics. As mathematics is a part of primary education in almost all countries, almost all educated people have some exposure to pure mathematics. It is interesting to note that there are very few cultural dependencies or barriers in modern mathematics.
Unconscious or subconscious users
Almost every person has used mathematics for practical purposes like calculating his produce or his wage. Non-rigorous use of mathematics is used in estimating how much to eat, whether to cross a road or not etc and such activity is done not only by humans but also by other animals. The whole universe is governed by mathematical rules.
Mathematics is used by mathematicians , who form a global community. It is also used by students of mathematics. As mathematics is a part of primary education in almost all countries, almost all educated people have some exposure to pure mathematics. It is interesting to note that there are very few cultural dependencies or barriers in modern mathematics.
Unconscious or subconscious users
Almost every person has used mathematics for practical purposes like calculating his produce or his wage. Non-rigorous use of mathematics is used in estimating how much to eat, whether to cross a road or not etc and such activity is done not only by humans but also by other animals. The whole universe is governed by mathematical rules.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Is God a Concept?
A concept has two properties- it is universal i.e. it covers all elements in a set and it is abstract i.e. it obscures all differences between the different elements of a set. God is not a concept because the “set” of God has no quantifiable element and the difference between God is not obscured, every facet of God is different from others and yet it is facet of the same God.
Belief, Knowledge, and Language
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines belief as the psychological condition in which a person holds a proposition to be true. Now, propositions of this sort can be divided into 3 categories: Necessary propositions such as 2+2=4 or all husbands are married; contingent propositions such as The moon is nearer to the earth than the sun or Madrid is the capital of Spain; or subjective such as Torture is bad or Speaking truth is good.
The definition of belief includes all three cases. If I believe Madrid is the capital of Spain, I also “believe” that the population of Madrid is less than Spain, the area of Madrid is less than that of Spain, or Madrid is a part of Spain. But we do not consider these as distinct beliefs, we consider these as logical consequences. Similarly, 2 + 2=4 0r 3 + 6= 9 is derivable from Peano’s postulates and hence they are not beliefs. If someone says that he believes 998 * 796= 7756838, this statement can be taken as a belief as due to the limited computing power of the brain such statements are not instantly derivable from Peano’s postulates. However, when we admit that they are beliefs, we consider them as falsifiable. Secondly, when we say that we say that X is my belief I admit that in other circumstances, I could have considered not X as my belief i.e. I chose what I believe. So, belief is optional- I can have belief X or belief Y or no belief about an entity A. Thirdly, a belief about something needs some awareness about that thing. A belief cannot exist in a vacuum, it needs some prior awareness. Fourthly and most trivially, belief is known i.e. I know my beliefs and X cannot be my belief if I do not know it.
The encyclopedia said that if we accept that language is necessary for belief, we have to accept that 3-year old children, who do not have the capacity to distinguish between reality and appearance have no belief. Can so-called adults distinguish between reality and appearance? As long as we believe that there is a reality outside us, we can never be sure of the reality of that reality or our knowledge about that reality. And to believe is to believe that there is a reality outside us. I think the quality of being falsifiable is a necessary condition for belief and this condition is possible only if we have the concept of belief. Hence, language is necessary for belief.
The definition of belief includes all three cases. If I believe Madrid is the capital of Spain, I also “believe” that the population of Madrid is less than Spain, the area of Madrid is less than that of Spain, or Madrid is a part of Spain. But we do not consider these as distinct beliefs, we consider these as logical consequences. Similarly, 2 + 2=4 0r 3 + 6= 9 is derivable from Peano’s postulates and hence they are not beliefs. If someone says that he believes 998 * 796= 7756838, this statement can be taken as a belief as due to the limited computing power of the brain such statements are not instantly derivable from Peano’s postulates. However, when we admit that they are beliefs, we consider them as falsifiable. Secondly, when we say that we say that X is my belief I admit that in other circumstances, I could have considered not X as my belief i.e. I chose what I believe. So, belief is optional- I can have belief X or belief Y or no belief about an entity A. Thirdly, a belief about something needs some awareness about that thing. A belief cannot exist in a vacuum, it needs some prior awareness. Fourthly and most trivially, belief is known i.e. I know my beliefs and X cannot be my belief if I do not know it.
The encyclopedia said that if we accept that language is necessary for belief, we have to accept that 3-year old children, who do not have the capacity to distinguish between reality and appearance have no belief. Can so-called adults distinguish between reality and appearance? As long as we believe that there is a reality outside us, we can never be sure of the reality of that reality or our knowledge about that reality. And to believe is to believe that there is a reality outside us. I think the quality of being falsifiable is a necessary condition for belief and this condition is possible only if we have the concept of belief. Hence, language is necessary for belief.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Innate Knowledge
I was reading a blog which discussed the topic of innate knowledge. According to the blog, there are innate beliefs but no innate knowledge. The objection was that I know my beliefs was raised but the author did not discuss the issue satisfactorily. I believe in X if I am aware that not-X may be true and yet I believe that X and non not-X is correct. Belief implies knowledge of the belief.
It can be argued that I may have beliefs without my knowing so. Hence, I would not accept those beliefs as belief, I would accept them as knowledge. I may change my opinion on those pieces of knowledge on further inquiry but the same is possible for all scientific knowledge, individually as well as collectively.
It can be argued that I may have beliefs without my knowing so. Hence, I would not accept those beliefs as belief, I would accept them as knowledge. I may change my opinion on those pieces of knowledge on further inquiry but the same is possible for all scientific knowledge, individually as well as collectively.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Why India fell behind China
India became an independent country in 1947. The current Chinese government was set up in 1949.
1- During the time of independence, India's industrial base was superior to China.
Source- http://marxists.kgprog.com/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol17/no02/mehta.htm
2- India had produced the first and only non-white Nobel Laureate in Science and had around 3-4 physicists whose contribution were considered to be Nobel worthy. Indian universities and colleges like Presidency College were highly regarded. China had no such universities
3-India had to face tragedies of lesser magnitude.
Comparing from 1940.
World War 2 led to the led of around 90,000 Indians directly and about 1.5 million Indians in Great Bengal Famine. The number of Chinese killed due to the war is expected to be around 20 million.
Source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_country
3- Partition killed around 0.5 million-1 million Indians (+ Pakistanis). Chinese civil war between 1946 and 1949 killed about 1.2 million people.
Source- Respective articles from wikipedia which have references
4- India's 4 declared wars (3 with Pakistan and 1 with China) led to a total of less than 20,000 casualities. Chinese participation in Korean war only led to more than 1,00,000 casualities.
Source- Respective articles in Wikipedia
5- The Great Leap Forward led to the deaths of 30-40 million people in China. There was no tragedy of similar scale in independent India
6- India inherited a highly professional and meritocratic bureaucracy from British (the ICS exams were supposedly the toughest in the world) and Independent India gave them a lot of autonomy and security of tenure. China had no such established bureaucracy, they still lack the autonomy of their Indian counterparts.
7- India always had a freer economy than China except perhaps for a small time in 1985 as indicated by EFW (Economic Freedom of the World)
Source- http://www.fnfasia.org/publications2007-detail.php?know_id=111&page_title=Latest%20Publications&county_name=Regional%20&%20International&sub_name=14
8- Some people claim that an authoritarian government is more decisive than a democratic one. History tells the reverse. My views- http://thegreatwanderer.blogspot.com/
Please read the post 'Decisiveness and democracy'
Yet today, we see that China has a per capita GDP double that of India. Its growth rate is faster. Most importantly, China has 9 universities among top 150 universities while India has none. 3 of the Chinese universities are in top 50 (all from Hong Kong).; 6 other universities in mainland China are in betwen top 50-150. India's best position is 154 and India has only 2 univeristies in top 200.
Source- http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/worlds-best-colleges/2008/11/20/worlds-best-colleges-and-universities-top-200.html
China also has much higher spend on research (as % of GDP) and the dollar-efficiency of the research in getting patents.
Articles about R&D spend and efficiency of spend in China and India.
1- http://www.financialexpress.com/news/india-lags-china-in-r&d-spending-sibal/283583/
2- http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/news/pressreleases/konana_india_op-ed.asp
1- During the time of independence, India's industrial base was superior to China.
Source- http://marxists.kgprog.com/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol17/no02/mehta.htm
2- India had produced the first and only non-white Nobel Laureate in Science and had around 3-4 physicists whose contribution were considered to be Nobel worthy. Indian universities and colleges like Presidency College were highly regarded. China had no such universities
3-India had to face tragedies of lesser magnitude.
Comparing from 1940.
World War 2 led to the led of around 90,000 Indians directly and about 1.5 million Indians in Great Bengal Famine. The number of Chinese killed due to the war is expected to be around 20 million.
Source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_country
3- Partition killed around 0.5 million-1 million Indians (+ Pakistanis). Chinese civil war between 1946 and 1949 killed about 1.2 million people.
Source- Respective articles from wikipedia which have references
4- India's 4 declared wars (3 with Pakistan and 1 with China) led to a total of less than 20,000 casualities. Chinese participation in Korean war only led to more than 1,00,000 casualities.
Source- Respective articles in Wikipedia
5- The Great Leap Forward led to the deaths of 30-40 million people in China. There was no tragedy of similar scale in independent India
6- India inherited a highly professional and meritocratic bureaucracy from British (the ICS exams were supposedly the toughest in the world) and Independent India gave them a lot of autonomy and security of tenure. China had no such established bureaucracy, they still lack the autonomy of their Indian counterparts.
7- India always had a freer economy than China except perhaps for a small time in 1985 as indicated by EFW (Economic Freedom of the World)
Source- http://www.fnfasia.org/publications2007-detail.php?know_id=111&page_title=Latest%20Publications&county_name=Regional%20&%20International&sub_name=14
8- Some people claim that an authoritarian government is more decisive than a democratic one. History tells the reverse. My views- http://thegreatwanderer.blogspot.com/
Please read the post 'Decisiveness and democracy'
Yet today, we see that China has a per capita GDP double that of India. Its growth rate is faster. Most importantly, China has 9 universities among top 150 universities while India has none. 3 of the Chinese universities are in top 50 (all from Hong Kong).; 6 other universities in mainland China are in betwen top 50-150. India's best position is 154 and India has only 2 univeristies in top 200.
Source- http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/worlds-best-colleges/2008/11/20/worlds-best-colleges-and-universities-top-200.html
China also has much higher spend on research (as % of GDP) and the dollar-efficiency of the research in getting patents.
Articles about R&D spend and efficiency of spend in China and India.
1- http://www.financialexpress.com/news/india-lags-china-in-r&d-spending-sibal/283583/
2- http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/news/pressreleases/konana_india_op-ed.asp
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Decisiveness and democracy
In many articles, I found many writers comparing China's decisiveness with India's wavering stance and laying the blame on India's democracy. Democracy was, according to them, based on consensus and hence necessary dilly-dallying. However, history shows the reverse to be correct. A democratic leader knows the opinions of the people- he knows roughly how many people support a venture and how many oppose it. An authoritarian government does not know the opinion of the people. As no one dares to defy it openly, they do not know what the people actually think. So while a democratic leader can be decisive,an autocrat will dilly-dally.
History proves this conjecture. Stalin had ample proof that Hitler was massing troops for an assault but he took no action as he was not sure of the loyalty of his soldiers and people. While US and UK started preparations for total war in 1942, Nazi Germany did not adopt the stance as Hitler was unsure of the support of German citizens.Only when defeat was staring at Germany in 1944, did Hitler call for "total war". Germany did manage to double its aircraft and tank production in 1944 but by then it was too late. Nearer to our time, are the governments of US and Israel not decisive? Are they not democratic? The dilly-dallying of Indian Government is not due to democracy but due to the absence of a national culture and national objectives.
History proves this conjecture. Stalin had ample proof that Hitler was massing troops for an assault but he took no action as he was not sure of the loyalty of his soldiers and people. While US and UK started preparations for total war in 1942, Nazi Germany did not adopt the stance as Hitler was unsure of the support of German citizens.Only when defeat was staring at Germany in 1944, did Hitler call for "total war". Germany did manage to double its aircraft and tank production in 1944 but by then it was too late. Nearer to our time, are the governments of US and Israel not decisive? Are they not democratic? The dilly-dallying of Indian Government is not due to democracy but due to the absence of a national culture and national objectives.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Abortion
I think abortion is the same as murder. I believe the mother has the right to murder her child as she is the creator of the child. Pro-abortion right people (who curiously do not support the right of mothers to murder their children)give two objections:
1- The mother has full rights over her body
2- The child is a trespasser
The mother has full rights over her body and her creations not only when they are in the process of creation but even after they are created. Hence, she has full rights over the child.
The foetus develops when an woman's egg is impregnated by a man's sperm. So, unless the woman was raped, she is responsible for the foetus developing inside her. Every person is responsible for his/her actions until and unless:
1- The consequences of the actions could not be foretold by a reasonable person. If a person cannot foretell that sex may lead to childbirth, I believe he/she needs to be in an asylum
2- The probability of the consequence is so small that an ordinary person would ignore it. I don't think this argument is valid even if contraceptives are used, as there is a 3% probability that the contraceptive will fail even when properly used and 3% is too big a probability to ignore.
One can say that a fetus is non-living.In that case, double-murder charges against killers of pregnant woman are wrong. But, I have never seen pro-abortionists oppose the charge of double-murder on the killers. And these pro-abortion people, most of whom claim to be feminists, have no right to oppose "sex-selective abortion of fetuses" as only living beings have gender and fetuses by their definition are non-living. And lastly, who defines the time when an entity becomes living.
1- The mother has full rights over her body
2- The child is a trespasser
The mother has full rights over her body and her creations not only when they are in the process of creation but even after they are created. Hence, she has full rights over the child.
The foetus develops when an woman's egg is impregnated by a man's sperm. So, unless the woman was raped, she is responsible for the foetus developing inside her. Every person is responsible for his/her actions until and unless:
1- The consequences of the actions could not be foretold by a reasonable person. If a person cannot foretell that sex may lead to childbirth, I believe he/she needs to be in an asylum
2- The probability of the consequence is so small that an ordinary person would ignore it. I don't think this argument is valid even if contraceptives are used, as there is a 3% probability that the contraceptive will fail even when properly used and 3% is too big a probability to ignore.
One can say that a fetus is non-living.In that case, double-murder charges against killers of pregnant woman are wrong. But, I have never seen pro-abortionists oppose the charge of double-murder on the killers. And these pro-abortion people, most of whom claim to be feminists, have no right to oppose "sex-selective abortion of fetuses" as only living beings have gender and fetuses by their definition are non-living. And lastly, who defines the time when an entity becomes living.
Logic and belief
In a previous post, I had mentioned why I believe that belief is optional. If I believe about X, than I agree that every one need not believe in X and not X has a non-zero probability of being true. If I insist on X being true and expect everyone to affirm X's correctness than I expect X to be a self-evident truth. Insisting that X is necessarily correct will make X a correct statement (for me) and not a belief.
This brings me back to logic. The axioms of logic are self-evident, so they are not beliefs. And either axioms of logic do not constitute knowledge or the definition of knowledge as justified belief is wrong. Axioms of logic are neither justified nor belief.
This brings me back to logic. The axioms of logic are self-evident, so they are not beliefs. And either axioms of logic do not constitute knowledge or the definition of knowledge as justified belief is wrong. Axioms of logic are neither justified nor belief.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)