Reply to the Astrology debate
This is a longish reply to frog's comments here...hence added it as a new post.
frog said :
Also tell me one pure mathematics discovery made by any of these DAE institutes that has helped the man in the street.
As I see it, mathematics is very fundamental to scientific human thought and the better we understand it (at various levels of abstractness), the better we can understand nature. The debate on role of Maths in physical sciences is still alive and this is a good place to start. It is a Current Science special on this issue. This debate exists because of the fantastic success that math-model building has achieved. The success is very *real*...and yes it helps the man-on-street. Ex. Cell phones use Electronics which can be understood only thro QM, which in turn uses a lot of sophisticated Math. -- stuff that was "pure math" before it was used. I just picked one such example. We can sure have a debate on whether science has helped us(I say 'yes'.. a hell lot!) but with Astrology there is no debate...it has achieved nothing.
And in hindsight, I think 'non-truths' should replace 'fantasies' in my earlier post . That would be a better representation of what I was trying to express.
As far as Humanities are concerned, what it seeks to do is to understand the dynamics of social relations and their analysis is often through scientifically collected statistical information. If 9/11 happened, it happened for everybody. All of us 'saw' it. Imagine a social scientist continuing to insist that 9/11 did not happen!..she/he will be driving people nuts. This is precisely what astrologers do!
And as reg Art, I think we humans have long been enthralled by beautiful things(paintings, music, theater etc. etc.) and it is only fair that we give space to people who make these possible. ( no intention to make it sound secondary) And more importantly these don't seek to be "predictive" in any sense.
The important thing is that Astrology seeks to operate in domains in which our knowledge, though far from complete, is enough to show that it is WRONG. (Please , I repeat....Astrologers STICK to atrociously old data. We know more for sure). And This has NOTHING to do with science sounding haughty.
15 Comments:
Sorry to keep this going ( feel free to say "STOP" ).
First, your statements on understanding nature better through mathematics etc., are highly subjective. Do you think mathematicians understand nature the best?
As you said, we *can* have a debate on whether science helped us. That is reason enough why those parts of it that aren't directly applied should be funded only by those who think it helps - not by the government with taxpayers' money.
Only select areas from yesteryears' mathematics ever helped research. And for that matter, one could as well define random constructs and keep proving properties about them than going into the wilderness of abstractions, trying to prove P=NP with algebraic geometry or applying the latest result from Annals of Mathematics into some dreary gloom of string theory. By the way, do you think cell phones wouldn't have been invented without all that QM and pure math?
Humanities : it "seeks to understand" all those things but does it? They deal with highly vague and subjective arguments, and are usually populated by a bunch of leftists who use government funds to further their own ideology. As for arts, the beauty of such things is highly subjective again, and mostly appreciated by a miniscule minority. For that matter a department of pornography would be appreciated more than one of english literature. The point is that if these departments survive with funds from enthusiasts and their gambles in commercial arenas, well and fine. Otherwise those so called artforms deserves to die ( hell, there are more departments of english literature than carnatic music ). And yes, just like literature there are guys who find pleasure working out crazy combinations and calculations in astrology.
And historically, it is not true that astrology hasn't helped - it motivated quite a bit of Indian mathematics and astronomy. If I understand it right, it was the astronomer Brahmagupta who invented negative numbers and their addition etc.
I forgot to say explicitly - this last statement ( about historically astrology being helpful ) - is only in a lighter vein.
Best regards,
froginthewell
No way of saying "Stop"!
It might be true that the time scales after which something in pure mathematics gets applied in real-time physical situations is large. But that is not reason for dumping it. What I meant by "Mathemetics being fundamental" is something more deep. It is to do with the very process of thinking. Ex, use of the co-ordinate free statements in Diff Geom is a very powerful expression of our notions. But Riemann didn't develop the basics with Gen Rel in mind. To him it was 'pure math', I guess. So such pursuits are crucial. Though Gen Rel/QFT/String theory may not be of great significance to a man on the street, that they describe (or seek to describe in case of strings) the world around to enormous detail is something fantastic. Who knows...if people find revolutionary propulsion techniques, a few centuries down the line.. u may see relativistic corrections in daily transport! It is probably unfortunate that these things take such a long time(compared to human life-times) to reach down to such levels, but the crucial difference is that they are *true*. Strings or anything for that matter could always be proven wrong.. one experimental refutation is all that u need. And the string theorists will be the first to admit that. But it is just that it such an unique attempt.. it is probably worth it. (No non-dimensional nos plugged into the theory..isn't that a wonderful thing to have?). Let me not pretend to know strings..I just have a broad idea. Again, look at Sunil Mukhi article in that Curr Sci issue..it is a real good one.
Astrology on the other hand keeps refuting experimental data.
And as reg Humanities, we know that we can't solve a bunch equations for predicting all actions of humans. So it certainly isn't a precise science. It is an argumentative field and often..many views might exist. When a newspaper carries views from various observers on the indo-nuke deal.. it does help..though none of them might be precisely predicting the future course of action. I repeat "Astrology claims to operate in domains where we know enough to debunk it" . This is not the case with Social Sciences.
And I am not ready to separate literature and analyse its uses separately. Spoken/Written forms of languages are crucial to us being able to express ourselves. If you didn't have these, none of the Phy/Math might have ever been formulated. So joy from literary pursuits which seek a greater expression of human thought is hugely different from beauty/fun derived from Astrology...which we know does not get anything right.
I did not say that everything in pure mathematics is useless. There are areas to be weeded out, areas that owe their existence purely due to "publish and perish". There are very natural and important considerations that motivated theory of relativity that justify its existence. Moreover, it is not true that physics wouldn't have developed without all the pure mathematics that it uses. It has often so happened that physicists treat many things ( I think Dirac delta function is an example ) purely from a practical view point and mathematicians came and formalized it much later. Even today, most students of physics first understand manifolds vaguely "from a physics point of view" before ( and this happens rarely ) learning it in a pure mathematical form.
On the other hand, these publications from mathematics that have found any use worth mention is only a small amount of mathematics.
Moreover, all these areas that have been claimed to be applied were major "landmark" areas in mathematics. Most of the publications, including what people call "good mathematics research", involves stuff which pretty obviously is not going to be landmark.
All this reminds me of a funny discussion I once overheard. Professor N was telling professor V - "There was a bar, it was night and there was some light outside. A drunkard came out of it and started searching for something. Upon enquiry he said that he had lost his key and was searching for it in a place that had light". And Professor N told Professor V "this answers your question". On overhearing this, I asked Professor N what the question was. It was "Why are physicists interested in Calabi-Yau varieties"?
By the way according to you, unlike humanities astrology claims to operate in domains that have been debunked. People have done similar "debunking" of homeopathy. Homeopathy says that "like cures the like". By the very contradictory views it is clear that Humanities can't state anything decisively. Newspaper articles are different - they help because they alert the public to various issues that need focus. And just as it doesn't make sense to fund newspapers it also doesn't make sense to fund humanities.
In fact I would say that humanities departments have done more harm than good - they portray Greek civilization as predominantly scientific and literary, Indian as predominantly casteist and backward and almost ignore civilizations like ethiopia. And as long as humanities are government-funded the same leftists will accept only fellow-leftists into their departments and feed students with their biased leftist views. It is just intellectual tyranny without accountability.
Beauty, fun etc. are anyway highly subjective. You might feel that literature has some intrinsic sublime beauty, that it throws some insight into human nature etc. but that is yet only at the level of the personal fantasies of a selected "elitist" group and tax-payer's money is not meant for fantasies.
Languages are important but how much does modern english literature contribute to our capabilities of expression? In addition these people who write books can and should support themselves by other activities - articles in newspapers, political activism and the like. That is what Salman Rushdie and Arundhati Roy do ( howmuchever I don't like these two ).
Similarly, mathematicians can and should support themselves by teaching calculus to engineers or by some "side work" such as some applied mathematics research involving a consultancy project. Because with a high probability what they do are not going to be applied anywhere. I did not want to make a personal comment but I can't help it - I am a graduate student in mathematics, and I understand that I am not going to do any work that is going to have any application. Such results can come from only a few geniuses who would do their work without depending on the works of the insignificant guys, i.e., most of the researchers.
grad student in maths??.. :-)
First point, Astrology and the part of pure maths that is yet to find any application are not on the same footing.
I am not sure if anybody can pick subjects in pure maths and assign them the property that they will never be used in the physical sciences...u never know. I once read Arnold comment "Do something beautiful and it will always find a use". U might say he is being 'haughty',but he is very much an 'applied' mathematician (not that he didn't do 'pure' stuff)... I have read some of his articles openly critisising the likes of Hardy for the pureness that they advocate. I am not taking sides here.. primarily because I am commenting without knowing the intricate details. From what I see.. Mathematical advances are fundamental to physical sciences and my vote is 'yes' for pure maths research.
As reg Homeopathy.. I know very little of modern medical science. So it isn't fair for me comment on this. But if homeopathy is shown to be ineffective (give me scientifically collected statistics) and violates well understood chemistry/biology.. it SHOULD NOT be taught. But as I said.. I have no idea as where Homeo stands on these counts.My view on debunking Astrology remains.
And on Lit, again ..who decides as to what is useful?...If a book promotes discussion amongst a select few who inturn are in better touch with the society..it is good enough... there is a definite link with the society.
For sure I did not put unapplied mathematics on the same footing as astrology. Pure mathematics can be taught as science, astrology cannot. But both are equally undeserving when it comes to government funding.
And as long as universities raise funds themselves, I don't find anything wrong in their teaching astrology as a non-science. In fact some sanskrit departments already do that since jyOtiSha comes as a part of some vEdAngas or so.
There are other channels for all kinds of mathematicians to flourish - as I said, teaching calculus etc. So I would say that it would be better if those good mathematicians at the DAE institutes teach mathematics at the IITs and do research in their spare time. They become much, much more helpful that way, and would be earning money for the productive work that they do.
Also consider the resulting tricke-down-effect that raises the general mathematical awareness due to greater outreach.
Similarly, discussions - there are public fora like newspapers, web, publishing companies and the like. It is not meant to be the monopoly of a few people who form a close-knit lobby and carry on their ideology. And indeed, the media and the web have much more influence on people than any literature department, and sustain themselves in a "genuine" way.
So make some things a bit "free". If astrology deserves to die down, it will. Otherwise let it be.
I do think the handling of humanities and history in particular has something to do with, let us say, Greek mythology getting more space than Hindu mythology in your "saarang" and other quizzes.
Hi Aswin and froginthewell
A very interesting debate here.
I will say that, unlike Astrology which is of no value, the Dept. of Mathematics is integral to all the hard science departments and to economics as well.
The average man in the street might benefit much more than you think by what goes on in the universities. Ideas like free market capitalism are derived in part from academic theory which is influenced by mathematical models. In fact, it is the complexity of the problem of trying to allocate goods to the people in socialism that convinced many economists in the old Soviet Union that the country had to move more towards a market economy.
michael,
Though I know that there is a lot of math that goes into eco.. i have never had the time to get into those stuff. (seeing Prof Nash in 'A Beautiful Mind' is the nearest that I got!)
and frog,
My understanding is that U don't have a problem in calling Astrology
"non-scientific" and u agree that Astrology does not have a single verifiable success to its credit.. But ur problem is whether public spending in some of the other disciplines is justified.
In all of the objections that you have raised, there might be parts of disciplines that remain /have remained out of the bounds of the common man's life for a long time. And u do agree that there are parts that have a connect with the society and feel that these need to emphasised. Agreed. Personally, if I end up doing what i want to do in physics, I know that finding a direct relevance to the society in my life-time is an unlikely event. So, I will surely make amends. As regards others, it is for them to decide. There are umpteen mathematicians in India who are directly involved with the society. Even many of the mathematicians in DAE institutes take active part in helping young students appreciate maths. they may not do it by teaching calculus in IITs.. but do it thro Maths Olympiads,talent tests, teaching sessions and other such activities. There is an Olympiad cell in IISc..funded by NBHM which is under DAE. I can't imagine anybody completely foregoing the resposibility of making some difference to the society. But I beleive that we can leave this decision to the individuals and not enforce it from above.
And as far as social scientists are concerned, I do not agree with your comments on leftists dominating and being of no direct relevance to the society. There have been enough political science professors/social scientists in the history who have led revolutions (very relevant socially). Amongst the few academics (in this field) whom I know, all of them spend a lot of time with NGOs and other ways of direclty being in touch with the society. Again, I don't see any sensible social scientist loosing touch with the society.. it belies their very existence. This is true for any other field too.
And there is surely a bias in what is given importance. I can't think of a time in the near future when Ghana' cultural heritage is analysed on equal footing with greece...inspite of he fact that we are analysing random samples of human civilizations. But these are historical prejudices and have nothing to do with the fundamentals of the social sciences. It is the fundamental nature that I am concerned about.
And none of these are even remotely analogous to funding Astrology..which I repeat. (at the risk of sounding like a broken record)..violates data in known domains of knowledge. (I have already replied to ur 'homeopathy' objection)
Your "reply" to the homeopathy assertion is that you don't know enough about it and that if it has been proved to be... Look at this to see how unscientific it is.
Now how much difference do olympaids or nurture programmes make to the society ( and mind you, there are several mathematicians who aren't involved in any such thing )? Other than, of course, that nurture programme takes people away from engineering and into some mostly useless area in pure math ( in that sense I am a "beneficiary" of nurture programme - yes, I myself have eaten up a lot of government funds )? Even IIT Kanpur organizes nurture programmes. And I know atleast one professor in IIT Delhi and one in NIT Trichy involved in olympiads. And come on, how can you leave a choice of whether to help that way or not to mathematicians? "As regards others it is for them to decide" - but I disagree with public spending based on personal opinions.
As for humanities - that sounds something like "proof by repeated assertion". You can't think of any sensible social scientist... - so what? There are a lot of people who privately do excellent research in various topics in humanities and can thereby financially sustain themselves. Unlike government funded universities which just propagate their own ideology.
The very fundamental nature of these subjects is that one cannot come to definite conclusions. People first come to conclusions and then reason them out ( including you and me ). And typically governments will be unfairly supporting one over the other; helping form lobbies.
I would also like to make a remark - all these people - scientists, historians etc. - are not descended from the moon. They are just like others, self-centred, self-aggrandizing and motivated primarily by gossip and attachment to fame than any love for their subject ( which is as incidental to it as "true romance" is to some of the basic instincts ).
Yes, there are areas in pure math and physics that might help but those - the stuff that really comes as a consequence of inspiration - will be active even if mathematicians teach their way into salaries and do research in spare time. After all, pure science has gone so much ahead of technology!
On more and more reflection, I seem to be coming closer to that telegraph editorial ( you know which one ).
So do you agree that universities may teach astrology as a non-science without using public funds?
I can't take a disputed wikipedia article for granted. But I am clear..if that article is right.. stop teaching Homeopathy using public funds.
I admit that govt influence (as a funding agency)in humanities is more worrisome than in, say, physical sciences. That does not mean that u stop govt funding for History. Our govts should learn to allow alternate opinions to arise and give equal space to them. U can't expect private companies to start funding History depts..so govt support is necessary. I don't agree with ur comments on History at Locana
U agree that it is near impossible to classify sections of any science to be eternally useless. So at the end of it all ...some wastage is unavoidable. It is a question of how much u can afford as a country.(US for sure can afford more wastage than India) As it is, I don't think the wastage is too much in India.
And in case of Astrology..even an outrageous estimate of its factual content can't be non-zero. As reg having one's own 'school of Astronomy", without any public funds.. sure! have one. I don't have a problem with that.
There does not need to be private companies to set up funds for private history departments. There are private people conducting research and very well earning money to survive. There are television channels, media, freelance writing etc. - a lot of avenues for historians to earn money. Even if that means lesser funds for history, that means people aren't that much interested in history. Why impose yourself on them?
When the utility of history is controversial, and not all people would agree with the departments, how would their using taxpayers' money be legitimate at all?
In practice how can one expect professors with specific opinions to act any impartially? And these professors select their successors too.
My statement in Locana was that for certain disciplines the utility could be controversial - but I am firm on the existence of areas which are obviously useless and need to be weeded out. And it is my conviction that even areas that are useful will be able to sustain by researchers involving in teaching, getting corporate funds etc. Your conviction may be different but the government has no right to impose one particular conviction on tax payers.
People can always contribute to independent bodies to promote science. If they don't, it means they don't want that science. And don't impose yourself on them.
hey friends
i have been following closely the discussion on the astrology debate and i must compliment it is rather lively.
i find that there has been much talk of astrology not being scientific, not accepting changes, or accepting its failures.
though the observations of aswin seem to be right on a lower plane i believe this very problem is because astrology is not being studied as a discipline allowing the people who profess this to make unreasonable predictions etc.
though astrology cannot be either a science or a subject matter of humanities, there is more to it than meets the eye.Mere unscientificness of a feild of study cant be a reason for not studing it. the mysterious egyptian numerology, astrology which for a long time was tied to astronomy ( until the west took over the human scientific development), palmistry etc maynot be scientific as the word suggests nevertheless they hold meaning as we have not fully unraveled the mysterious of the early civilizations.
it is hard to believe that the two founding principles of uniformity of nature and the cause effect relationship can completly explain the world around us and beyond. i am sure the mordern science for all its other benifits and achievements cannot provide a meaning to existance, and in the search for the underlying meaning for the very existance of you and me i believe such puesdo sciences will be useful
a university study of these disciplines will allow more reational and impartial study and also make available to researchers funds that are so very important in this era.
thus i would prefer to see such feilds of study in universities (ofcourse not for the same reasons MM Joshi wanted them).
bye
T.Venkat
See.. if people want to use the astrology texts as ways of looking at the way societies evolved..what they feared at what times etc..fine ..no problems. That, to me is part of history/philosophy/sociology/literature.
The problem is when they start making predictions and PRETEND that they are going to work. They DON'T and we have known that over the centuries. This is my problem. I am always referred to 'basics' of these astrology texts and told that they are different from what the newspaper-astrologer tells us. But I have not been told what these 'basics' are.
And, personal involvement is something different from public spending. It is the latter that I object to.
hi aswin,
a university chairfor astrology will not be ofr mere prediction making but for deevloping a greater insight into what exactly constitued astrology how it evolved and why.
iam sure it will delve deep into the mystreious of egypt and indus valley etc.
remember the predictions of the mordern money minded might not have worked but thereis strong evidence to show that the egyptians and the like had great sense of astronomy and other sciences and in no way foolhardy to be carried away tricks.
it is hard to believe that the created the enggeering marvels out of mere superstition. it too somple an answer.
its therefore important too have a course. of te nature of it and can it be fitted into any other resembling discipiline is another question.
this way i am sure it is not a waste of public money.
not as much is wasted it the seti programme.
Debunking Astrology does not mean calling ancestors foolhardy. They had some observational data..they made interpretations from that. This continued and there seems to have emerged two groups - one which followed the new discoveries and pledged to understand nature as we see it (the ones who evolved into today's astronomers, physicists) and the other which STUCK to the old notions and insisted on producing nonsense.(for more see here.)
And after removing the Predictions part, all that is left of Astrology is only of historical interest. So if some history prof wants to dig into all that with the motive of understanding early civilizations....great! let her/him do that. There is absolutely NO case for a 'chair in Astrology' - not even in the wildest of my dreams.
Post a Comment
<< Home