On the death penalty

Troy Davis executed
Broadly people who get convicted fall into
a. The innocent , convicted by an incompetent, sometimes evil powers that be.
b. The guilty , unintenionally
c. The guilty, but who regret their actions and feel genuine remorse and wouldn't do so again
d. The guilty but mentally sick
e. The guilty who would do it again.
It seems that whether you support the death penalty or not depends on how important you think a v/s e is. There are of course people driven by revenge or emotions who support the death penalty - but the only rational reason I can think of is that you weigh the costs of keeping psychopaths alive against the inherent barbarism of taking another humans life.
To me the existence of humans who could be innocent is enough to abolish the death penalty. We generally do not think governmental agencies are competent enough to handle mundane tasks - why do we think that we would always get important legal decisions correct?

One more busybee homage.
A few random thoughts on a wednesday
Bombay has rickshaws (Yay!)
Bombay has rickshaws (Groan!)
Bombay food(Yay!)
Bombay food(Groan!)

On Ideas

Years ago I had wanted to build something similar to www.yummly.com - when everything was going to be XML.

But I didnt get 1.8M and I didnt even try. We search for the killer idea that will make us a lot of money , but I'm coming to think that its not the lack of ideas that stops us. Its that we don't actually go and do something about it. Seeing the idea through.

Brilliant!

Source The Golden Rule

Irony meter goes SPROING

Ive always believed that one common characteristic of religious fundamentalists is that they dont have a sense of humor.
They probably cant recognize irony either.

http://biologos.org/blog/doing-battle-with-jerry-coynes-army-of-straw-men/

a. Cherry picking: the act of choosing examples, as if they were typical, ignoring equally valid examples that contradict your position.

Now if you have ever spoken to any religious (even moderate) people , you should know that Cherry Pickers are more likely to be religious. You can give example after example. When a non believer points out bad stuff , its rarely to say that your religion is uniformly bad , but to prove that your religion can't really be a source of morality. To prove that your religion can't be a book of peace. To prove that your God can't really be a loving one. You'll note that some bad stuff found in a religious book is enough to disprove any of the above and no amount of equally valid quotes disproves that position.

False analogy: making an error in the substance of an argument—the content of your analogy—even though its structure seems acceptable.

Apply it your article!

Hasty generalization: when you use a few inadequate examples and then generalize about the whole.

Irony meter close to SPROING

Because Coyne’s arguments are so universal I want to address some of them in my next blog series

If we want to engage the conversation, then we need to put some effort into understanding the issues. And the New Atheists rarely do that. Dawkins is the most famous offender

This series of blogs will address the army of straw men with which Jerry Coyne and the other New Atheist generals wage their war on religion.

A few inadequate examples like Coyne and Dawkins are enough to generalize all New Atheists!

Spotlight fallacy: This is a specific form of hasty generalization that occurs when we assume that all the examples are like the most famous ones getting media attention.

See above.

SPROING!!!

Believe nothing

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your reason and your own common sense." - Buddha
How many religions can claim to preach/practice this?

Late Adopters

There was a time when I was an early adopter when it came to technology. Or atleast an early adopter wannabe when I could not afford it. Use email! Use the latest and greatest technology! Use webcams! Use chat! And look at the older generation with sympathy when they couldnt use Outlook Express or a Mouse. Or even worse when they could not understand why a computer + the internet was so great.
Till it came to ebooks. Can't stand them. Only use them for technical books where the value of copy and paste overrules the distaste for ebooks. But fiction? No way. Kindle? Thats to be burnt. And now IPad and Digital Comics. So far there had never seemed to be a viable device for reading comics (and Im glad to see that some people still think that the IPad isn't it for comics yet) but the game seems to have changed with the new tablets. Print comics will die or atleast be ridiculously expensive. I just hope it will be after my time. I can't see the value of possessing a file - my comic has always been my copy and thus has value- Though this has taken aim at my philosophy of I'm a reader first, collector second and shot gaping holes through it. Lending a book still had value than copying a file. I suppose because while lent, you can't read the book. So valiantly I spend 70 bucks per weeks hoping that these contributions will keep the print industry in business just a little while longer, while knowing that the early adopters look at me with maybe a little sympathy, maybe a little frustration.

Moderation

In Living Color: I Can't Make You Believe Me if You Don't
If I ever needed examples of strawmen I'd look at Jean Kazez's post.
For e.g.

#1 Some think that by standing up for Chris Mooney on the issue of how he vetted Tom Johnson

See now there are multiple issues here.
a. Did Chris Mooney vet the identity?
b. Did Chris Mooney vet the incident?
Whatever has come out so far only points to a), and people have commented numerous times that even if Tom Johnson existed , the incident seemed fishy. There has been no information at all about whether the incident was true or not and what was done to check it out. Continuously harping that Chris Mooney did vet the identity of the person is missing the point. Mooney did use this incident as Exhibit A. and has not apologized for it, he has said sorry for being deceived , not the same thing.

#2 Some people think it's "ethically blinkered" to deal with the vetting issue, without concerning myself with other gripes people have about Chris.

Again its ethically blinkered , but its not to do with the other gripes(for e.g. banning Ophelia Benson). Its to do with this incident in entirety. Chris Mooney could have been deceived convincingly, yes it happens to all of us, but what has been the response after the deception was discovered?. It is being blinkered to just look at whether the vetting (See also #1) of the identity was thorough. It is also silly to expect that we should take a couple of people statements as face value. What next look at Dick Cheney to vet G W Bush's policies? (Trust me . the evidence for WMD's is sound!)

#3 Some have an irrational level of trust in "William

No we dont. We dont know when he lied and when he didnt, But we also cant take Chris's word at face value now, and there is no reason to take Jean's either. The whole way this has been handled is bad. The evidence could not be shared with identities protected? Really? It had to be shared with TB and I cant think of a single example where TB has had any disagreement with Mooney. It has to be shared with Jean who seems to have an uncanny talent of missing the point ?

and I can go on for almost all the points.

But the real irritant is this

"know to some degree have said such insulting things about me in the last 24 hours. In fact, I don't think it would be out of order for them to apologize. I'm certainly not giving anyone an opportunity to throw more inane insults at me, so comments are closed."

Jean Kazez has no problem calling people juvenile, insulting , gullible etc etc. But oh we cant criticise Jean. Whats more we should not respond where accusations are made. I wonder why people don't have the courage to have their views questioned?. If you wish to take a public stance on something, be prepared to answer questions about it. Im not sure why Jean Kazez expected that saying "Ok Ive looked at the evidence , it looks good" would have everyone fall in line and say "its ok with jean , so its ok by me!"

Not all the people who criticized Jean on Jean's blog were insulting (I can't see what I commented was insulting and even then one of my comments was deleted)
Its one thing to say I dont have enough time to respond to comments, its quite another to present a flawed version of attempts and not give people a chance to respond. Yes Jean's blog and Jean's rules, but I'm not saying she can't do what shes done, just that this violates common courtesy. And yet , in some time , we can expect Jean to post some more on how Jean has been persecuted, victimized, insulted etc etc etc.

Science, Religion, Morals, Curiosity etc.

I blame Sam Harris for kicking off a topic regarding science and morals. A generally observed viewpoint is that Science makes no comment about morals. It can tell you how to make a nuclear bomb but cant really tell you whether to use it or not. Science does not provide a framework to evaluate moral right or wrong. Sam Harris thinks otherwise, that there are some calls that science can make. And takes some non controversial and some controversial examples related to human wellbeing (which I suppose he equates to morally right). Other people like Sean Carroll weigh in , a debate ensues and some insults are flung , some apologies are made. I'm not sure what the answer to the question is , but one thing is certain, if Science can't make a call, ever, (as Carroll implies), then probably no one can. Religious people and scientific accomodationists love to step in here and say morals can be determined by religion, but history shows that religion can be trusted to almost always make the wrong call. In any case while religion may put forth a claim of what it deems moral, there is really no way to verify , nor can you really evaluate competing and contradictory claims made by different religions. If you could do this , then the principles you would use would have to be scientific and then you are back to where you started, science can evaluate morals. If science can't evaluate then we can only say we think, what we assume but we would never *know*. The only way forward would be consensus, and again we can see from history this doesn't really work. While a lot of people may believe that discriminating against gay people is morally wrong, the *consensus*, read majority, don't hold that view, just as erstwhile majorities didn't hold the view that slavery is wrong or imperialism is wrong.

Which leads us into one of the major difference between a religious person and a scientifically oriented person, the scientifically oriented person always wants to know. The religious person not so much. Take for e.g. The question "Does prayer work?". A scientific person would already have experiments in his head about how to verify. You would want double blind tests to eliminate placebos. You'd try out various types of prayer and by various people. The religious person on the other hand doesn't really want to know, he wants to have his beliefs reinforced. He'll either state that you cannot determine the answer to this question scientifically. Or in the rare cases that he does agree , he will wait till the results are in. If the tests show that prayer does work (perhaps in some limited circumstances) we'll be told I told you so. If it doesn't work , then we will have a list of excuses why the dragon in the garage cant be verified. Even worse , it is the scientific person who is accused of being close minded. Whereas clearly if the data did show that prayer works , repeatedly, using independent experiments, then the point would have to be conceded. On the other hand the religious person never accepts that prayer doesn't work. What's interesting that though people claim they believe in prayer , all their actions indicate that they don't really. You might pray that you get a job, but rarely does everyone think that if you pray there shouldn't be unemployment , the prayer will be answered. While people may pray for a particular sick person to be healed, they don't pray that there should be no sickness (or atleast they don't expect it to be answered). It looks like they believe God can only perform small miracles, not major ones. Cure a blind person, sure , just pray. Cure blindness for all? Uhh no that can't be done - God can't solve all our problems, or Humans are responsible for suffering or where there is happiness there must be sadness etc etc, but evidently all those excuses don't apply while you are dealing with a small miracle that might have happened anyway. It looks dishonest and I wonder if people who give explanations like the above , really , really believe what they say or is it just whats the harm attitude? (possibly quite a bit)

On Ambition

Ive once been told that I have no ambition (because I never did anything more than a BE and because I was, at that time , employed in the same company for > 6 years). I remember laughing at that time and saying that what does someone mean when they say they want to earn X amount of money or be the CEO of some company or start their own business , be their own boss, be famous , be the best in their field , because surely thats not their end goal?
What exactly are people looking for when they want money or power or fame or expertise? Simple answer really.
It reminds me of another time when I had visited a friends house whose uncle was down from America for a vacation, a big shot manager in a big company(GE I think). He told me (since I was introduced as the smart guy) that I should come and work in America. I wasn't I think experienced enough then to just smile and nod, and I said "Why?". The uncle look surprised. I don't think he expected that answer. After a brief pause he said "Because you can earn more money", to which, I asked "Why?" . After another pause he said "So that you can buy whatever you want". I said "I have whatever I need" He said "Then you don't want enough" , he didn't understand the nuance between needs and wants. Before I could point out the circular nature of his argument, my friend nudged me and shook his head, and I laughed and let it go.

At various points in my life , I have wanted to be a scientist , a detective , revealed to family as something beginning in 'D' (which they thought meant Doctor, surprising , considering my aversion to blood), a self sufficient Farmer, a Teacher, a Librarian or Book shop owner and have ended up as a Software Engineer. But not without fulfilling some of my previous ambitions. Well fulfilling is a strong word, things that could be interpreted as fulfilling my ambitions.

Science experiments mainly consisted of being able to burn paper boats in the afternoon when my grandmother was asleep, with or without candle wax. All in the pursuit of a boat that would burn but would remain intact. I'm not sure why I thought wax would achieve this. Also burning firecracker tiklis in the box. Some school experiments in physics and chemistry is all I have to show for the scientist's ambition. I guess my claim to fame is that I never got caught by parents.

I never manged to make Teacher either but I did teach my neighbour's kid some maths, he got full marks in the next exam, my crowning achievement. I taught two people for Drawing and BEE K.T.'s , they passed. I taught another person in engineering with some limited success. I have taken some courses in MBT. Not quite what I expected when I said I was going to be a Teacher, but atleast I can tick this.

When I wanted to be a Detective, I imagined myself as an Alistair MacLean loner. However it looks like all my sleuthing skills have only been used to figure out bugs in code, quite successfully as well. Among all my colleagues, there have been better coders, designers, architects , managers than me, but so far in my own biased opinion, I am the best bug detective.

I briefly held the title of Librarian at St Peter's YSS. I had imagined myself as the male version of Meg Ryan in You've got mail, reality ofcourse was far different. All I did was make entries in Library cards. No pretty woman(girl at that time) ever asked me my opinion for which book she should read.

And now its almost time to fulfill the ambition to be a Farmer.

Movies

While watching 3 idiots , I realized something about movies, sometimes the most boringly predictable movies are the ones you really like. In the blue corner you might take movies like Sixth Sense, Memento or Seven. The movies that you must see at least twice. Because the first time, the twist catches you unawares and you have to go back and see the movie with that fresh bit of information. In the red corner you have movies like 3 idiots, Avatar, The Munna Bhai series, The Pixar series where a few minutes into the movie and you already know the major plot points and how its going to end. And you like the movies anyway. And you watch them again because you remember the good times. What then makes a movie a complete package? A good story? A good twist? Good actors? Humor? Action? A combination of the above? Anything , everything? I'm not including critics choices, because they seem to have tastes that are alien to the rest of us(dark depressing movies always seem to do well, as do any movies that deal with the holocaust) or they have expectations that, well, defy expectations. Do you go into a Transformers movie expecting excellent performances and believable plot lines? but evidently the critic does. Sometimes an incredibly complex sophisticated movie does well, and sometimes a popcorn dumbed down crowd pleaser. You might say the audience is fickle but then I'm only dealing with my tastes, I like both the crowd pleaser and the complex movie. The fast paced action flick as much as the slow burn art movie. I like a comedy as much as I like a human interest story. I like good acting as much as watching Captain Kirk ham it up.
Perhaps the journey is more important than the destination which is why the twist or lack of it doesn't make a difference.

Blasphemy

Some blasphemous quotes here
What is interesting to note in the 'blasphemous quotes' is the religious figures who have made blasphemous comments about other religions (including the leading lights of the two major religions).

On Movie Turning points and endings

So a few thoughts on movies and significant turning points and on ending strongly.

The song Tum Se Hi in Jab We Met. Till this song , the movie is a run of the mill Boy meets Girl and falls in love without realising it movie. However the song is what sets up the rest of the movie convincingly. When you see the song , you believe that Shahid Kapur's character does really love Kareena Kapoors character. The lyrics of the song fit perfectly with the picturisation. It also shows Shahid's character is willing to sacrifice his chance of happiness for Kareena's, without ever declaring his love. Beautifully sung, uplifting, great lyrics. This is what makes the movie.
You can see Kismat Konnection attempting the same thing , but not succeeding.

One of the things Hindi movies don't ever get right are endings. Perhaps storytellers and directors don't think the audience is mature enough, they feel that the audience must be spoon fed, not are they able to create open ended movies.

In Rocket Singh, towards the end the movie should end with Rocket Singh walking away from the antagonist. The antagonist has stated that he has lost the battle , but the war has begun and he will meet Rocket in the battle field. Rocket walking away with the paper in his hand would be the indication that he will meet him there. There really is no need to show the organisation formed along with the supporting characters.

In Hum Tum towards the end Saif Ali Khan states he believes life is long enough and he will meet Rani Mukherjee. That should be the end. There is no need to show her waiting for him

Rang De Basanti has a Khoon Chala song where the various protagonists life changes - the movie could end there. The people whose life had no purpose get a purpose. The communal character sees the problem in supporting communal policies and goes to aid his foe. The movie could end there instead of the filmi ending.

None of the proposed endings are satisfying to people who like to see a definite conclusion. But here's the thing - the endings would make you think about the characters, about what next. And that should be one of the goals of entertainment.

A humanist creed

Happiness is the only good.
The time to be happy is now.
The place to be happy is here.
The way to be happy is to make others so.
This creed is somewhat short , but it is long enough for this life, strong enough for this world.
If there is another world, when we get there we can make another creed

R.G. Ingersoll

Compare with any other creed.

On Gay Marriage

If the only thing I knew on this topic was that most (if not all) people opposed to gay marriage were religious, it would be sufficient for me to support gay marriage, but that's an ad hominem reason. So here goes.
Being allowed to marry obviously matters to gay people, not only for emotional reasons, but also for the rights that marriage automatically confers. Depriving the right to them, then does hurt gay people, whereas granting them the right hurts no one ( well except for those religious nuts who fell aggrieved when they are referred to as Party A and Party B instead of husband and wife). If we assume that in our lives we try to minimise hurt, then its clear we must support gay marriage.
Now that should convince most reasonable people, but religious nuts aren't exactly reasonable, and much energy and effort must be spent debating and refuting stupid stuff like(some strawmen , but hard to distinguish from real arguments , thanks to Poe's law)

• The traditional definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Now first this is a lie. Most cultures defined marriage as between one man and many women (and generally underage women). Women were traditionally treated as property and were sold. And if you go back far enough , you probably had no such thing as marriage. But even if it were true, that something is traditional doesn't make it right (slavery was traditional, sati was traditional, racism was traditional...)

• Gay people are recruiters!

Coming from religious people , this is a laugh. No baby is ever born religious or knows or cares about religion.

• The human race would end.

Uhh no.

• Being gay is a sin.

Only if you obsess about sex and sexual positions.

• My religion says this is a sin, I'm religious and so I must oppose gay marriage.

Well your religion also tells you to donate a good percentage of your money to charity, be a really nice person, don't judge anyone , love everyone, why don't you practise those first?

• God will punish us if we permit gay marriage. The world will end! Do you not know what happens in Sodom and Gomorrah???

Considering the number of truly evil people who exist in this world (a good percentage of them religious) about whom God has done absolutely nothing, this isn't really convincing. Also see above

• Our children will become gay.

Its quite possible, that even if you banned gay marriage, your children still might be gay. What are you going to do then? Are you going to abandon them? call them sinners? tell them how they are to burn in hell? or will you wish them happiness?

• I find it offensive to see gay people demonstrate their affection publicly

Close your eyes.

• People persecute us for our views on marriage

Uhh , straight people can get married any time, gay people can't. who is persecuting whom?

• Im religious , and I should be allowed to be a bigot.

Go see a psychiatrist

• Being gay is a choice

When did you choose to be straight? were you gay up till that time? And who cares whether its a genetic determination or whether its a choice?

Sachin Tendulkar

Sachin Tendulkar hit his 43rd century in a dead match against Sri Lanka and in the BBC message boards someone mentioned that Sachin Tendulkar is The Greatest Batsman and there was the usual debate no Lara is better , he hit more double hundreds against Australia, no Bradman is the greatest...
To compare Bradman to Tendulkar is silly. They played in different era's faced different opposition and it was a different game then. Who you call the greatest depends on what criteria you choose to define greatness. You can make it purely subjective ofcourse, but thats a wasted argument. You might say that the average is the most important factor in determining the greatest batsman in which case its Bradman, you might just as easily say its the number of hundreds. And that is what most people tend to do, choose the criterion that allows them to arrive at the conclusion they want. Dont like Tendulkar, say how many matches has he won for India singlehandedly (I can name four , all against Australia)? This is by far the most irritating question. Recently when India had to chase what was it 340 and Tendulkar made 150+ runs and we still lost, numerous people commented he couldn't finish the job, it's just like Chennai, he doesn't win matches for India. I'm not sure why people expect Tendulkar to overcome bad bowling and mediocre batting by the rest of the team? It is as good as saying that Bradman was crap in the bodyline series because England won the ashes. Besides you cannot determine how much of a contribution a batsman makes. Is 50 runs a match winning performance? What is statistically true is if Tendulkar plays well , more often than not, India wins.
The first memory of Tendulkar playing a match is when I was still at St Stanislaus. India were playing their old foe Pakistan, in Pakistan and the only two batsmen who were making runs were Sanjay Manjrekar and a 16 year old prodigy named Tendulkar. We weren't familiar enough to call him Sachin then. I dont remember whether it was that series or some other but Tendulkar was 80 not out, the Indian media was going ga ga over the youngest to be centurion, and the next day Tendulkar hit 2 fours and promptly got out.
We knew he was good then. The next time I got an inkling of how good was when in some one day series I think it was against New Zealand or in New Zealand he was sent to open to exploit the field restrictions , copying Mark Greatbatch , and our very own Krishnamachari Srikkanth. And he hammered the bowling. This was like watching Kapil Dev or Viv Richards. And then expectations were set. If Tendulkar didn't make a run a ball he was out of form. He kept making quick fire 40-60's and one day after he reached 80 he braked and just took singles till he reached his century. And it was I think Ravi Shastri who prophetically pronounced that now that he knows he can do it, there will be many more to come.
And they did.
It was somewhere along here that the Indians could conclude, here is the greatest batsman from India, atleast in his generation. Here was someone who could make it to the great West Indian team on merit (soon to be replaced by the not so great Australian team). Here was someone who was world class, and in a nation of 1 billion under achievers there are a precious few we can call world class in sports (Anand, Paes/Bhupathi and a couple other Olympic medalists).
Its perhaps this that makes us say Sachin Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of his time , yes there was Lara, some say Ponting, but no matter what , the amount of joy Tendulkar has given us, only made more so by the disappointments we have faced when he gets out when we need him , when he doesn't give the team the start it requires in a crunch match, in unmatched. When India is chasing 300+ there is noone who doesn't hope that Tendulkar gets off to a good start (no matter how many times they may lament he has failed), and whether or not he is the greatest, our greatest expectations have always been from him.

Whence evil

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/an-old-debate.html

Sigh.
Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus

Andrew can talk as much as he wishes about paradoxes, suffering being a part of fallen creation, or of recognizing one's mortality, but I doubt he has an answer to Epicurus.

Argumentum Ad Populum

As someone who has been asked on multiple occasions whether I think I'm smarter than all the religious folks out there, this is hilarious
(From Jesus And Mo)

Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too.

An interesting question

came across an interesting post along with comments
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/i_get_email_40.php#comments
Note that while most religious people say they want to have a discussion what they mean is Let me try to convince you , but there's nothing you can say that will make me change my mind.
But before I attempt to answer the question , lets draw some boundaries. Does God exist is a different question than Does the God of my religion exist. The former is a difficult question to answer. To paraphrase Carl Sagan , it all depends on what you mean by God, if for e.g. God is love then of course God exists. The latter God of religion is an easier question to answer because we do have a definition of the God and some of his or her properties. The God of religion also makes some in theory testable assertions. The God of religion also makes some demands of us , so it is easier to examine them. Of course some religions make this harder than others. Its easier to analyze Judaism, Christianity or Islam because there are fixed doctrines. Its more difficult to analyze Hindusim or Buddhism because the doctrines aren't that fixed. Don't believe in Vishnu? Thats ok, you can still call yourself a Hindu. Don't like Shiva? Worship Kali and your fine.
Back to Nikki's question and comments. various posters in the comments have all pointed out the contradictions, the inaccuracies , the errors and the problems in religion. So I wont reiterate those here, Ill just look at the things that don't seem to be covered

She makes a common request , Why should I not believe? - Thats the wrong question (People don't need a reason to not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Bertrand Russel's Flying teapot analogy proving that the onus is on the believer. The question is why should you believe? What benefits do you get.?
Lets take a look at the common answers to the what benefits does religion provide? (And Ill look at only the positive reasons , not the You'll go to hell if you don't follow my religions instructions, which are really so pathetic that I can only shake my head)
a. It either provides a set of rules or a set of guidelines that help me determine what's right and whats wrong.
b. It makes me a better person
c. It's a social tool that people use to meet


a. Religion provides us a set of guidelines and rules to determine right from wrong
Suppose Religion has a guideline that after consideration you find feels wrong. What should you do? Its clear that most of us would follow what our brain decides is the right thing. In which case how is religion any different from Aesop's fables
b. It makes me a better person
If the religion is conclusively proven false(somehow) then do you lose the betterness?
c. It's a social tool that people use to meet
Well other social tools exist, the social bit that religion promotes is normally divisive. Meet people like you, be with people like you, marry people like you, let your children play with children whose parents are like you. I'm not sure how this is a positive.