hi

read the scientific method blogs, bottom up.

from part 1, 2 .... , final.

thanks for reading

Scientific Method - Final Part

SHANKARA WROTE:

Hi Kislay,

You have mentioned about the "process of drawing a map" and have equated it to the mathematical method of representing it in terms of symbols and formulae.i believe your analogy is incorrect.

The natural phenomenon is the territory. The process of enquiry is the conceps of drawing a map. Sceintific model of enquiry is just one of the ways of drawing a map. The problem with your argument is that you are equating one of the instances of the class with the class itself. This
probably comes from the belief that it is the only instance possible. It is precisely this dogma that I am uncomfortable with. Just as scientific enquiry, we can possibly have some other kinds of enquiry, which though may not be as popular as scientifc one, yet may have the potential to explain natural phenomena.

The reason for such a belief stems from the fact that scientific inquiry has advanced quite a lot and is now capable of explaining many concepts. But this alone does not give us the justification to claim that it IS THE ONLY MODE OF ENQUIRY POSSIBLE. I think, what we require is a multi disciplanary approach. We need to draw lessons from metaphysics, easterm mysticism and others schools of thought. Or in fact, a systematic study of Vedas should also help us understand many natural phenomena. Its not without reason that Dayanand Saraswati asked us to go back to the vedas.

Scientific Method- Part 6

KISLAY WROTE:

Hi,
ALL RIGHT, it took me one night to see why your second arguments about the map And the map maker sounds so plausible even though I know it is crap. But I think I finally got it. So here goes.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.You believe maps are not independent of territory. Perfectly agree, 100%. But you also seem to suugest that territory is not independent of maps. It is this backward mapping from concepts to reality that I object to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You misunderstood me about the two way mapping. What I meant was that if I Understood a map, I could picture the territory by using it. Also if I was actually Standing in that territory, I would be able to visualize what part of THAT PARTICULAR MAP it is. The territory is definitely completely independent of the map. It Would exist independent of the existence of any map.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. you believe maps are true representation of territory. I contest this. Maps are just a perspective of the map-maker about the territory. If map maker changes, so does the map.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now this is what was bugging me. What you are saying is true. But here you are being inconsistent with your own initial problem statement, viz, the ability of science to help explain phenomena.If the map maker changes, so does the map. Correct. But it still remains a map. Situation being analogous to multiple scientific theories to explain a single phenomenon, One or more of which may be fully or partioally correct.

What you ORIGINALLY said that is there a way of doing this without maps at all. You wanted something which would put you yourself IN the territory, instead of you having to infer the territory from the map.
Change the map maker as many times as you will, you still need a map.

Maps are representations their makers perspective on the teriitory??? As both you and I agree, The territory is a fact. It does not brook any perspective on it. All you can do is choose HOW to represent this fact. The map maker has to present his Key to the map in advance. He may be Somewhat incorrect. Some road may be longer or shorter than what it appears to be in the map.Then the maker has to make the effort of corrcting his map as soon as such a flaw is found.
What I mean to say is:
You may find faults with a map or a map maker, but you can not fault the CONCEPT OF DRAWING MAPS To represet territory. The only way for you to actually BE IN THE TERRITORY to use your mind to Understand a map.

What you are saying about locality maps is bullshit. I don't need a map of my locality Because I already have it in my head. And the map in my head has much more detail than Would be found in a usual map, but it's a map a map nonetheless. Everytime I take a left from the paan waala to reach the playground I am referring that map subconsciously.

But I will need that locality map if you want to know what is the cumulative length of all the roads in my colony. It is requied for quantitative measure.

Similarly, what suport tools do you want to do away with? Since you are very comfortable with English can you do away with the grammar or punctuation??? If you are very worried about Delta T Then allow me to remind you that as far as understanding the territory of natural phenomena goes You don't need that abstraction. It comes into the map only when you try to obtain a quantitative measure of phenomena. It is like scale of the map, not required if you want only a general layout Of the territory but required if you want to measure it.

I hope THAT has killed your little unscientific rebellion.

Scientific Method- Part 5

SHANKARA WROTE:
<<<<<<<
In what terms will I know it? In what terms will I describe it? Other than probably Saying "I'm moving damn fast!!!!!" which doesn't mean anything.That's what I mean when I say that understanding presupposes a mode of expression.
>>>>>>>>.

Well, nobody is doubting the fact that we need symbols to convey the ideas. The question that I am posing is, are these symbols adequate( or rather necessary) to describe the phenomenon. Just because of the fact that we make use of mathematical symbols does not mean that mathematical symbols alone can describe it. It just proves that we are used to mathematics so much that, we find it difficult to understand anything without symbols.

Also u need mathematical symbols only if u want to express your motion in terms of mathematical symbols. Say, you are running, can you not compare your running speed at different points in time? Can you not know when you are jogging and when sprinting? Do you need mathematical symbols to realize that there is some change in velocity? You may argue that, u may not be able to specify the speed at a particular point in time. But is not "speed at a particular instant" itself a construct of mathematics? Suppose man has not invented mathematics. U are not aware that there is something called speed, vector velocity etc. Can you not intuitively tell that a state of rest is different from a state of motion or for that matter, a state of higher velocity ( sprinting ) is different from a state of low velocity?

Just to prove my point, why does a deer run very fast when it sights a predator?. When it is sure that it is relatively safer, it slows down. You may argue that it does not need to communicate like humans do. We make this statement because it does not communicate like the way we do. Its quite possible that it is aware of its "speed" and uses a system of symbols and signs that is quite different from us and also tells this to its "friends".
So to experience motion or to understand motion, I believe, mathematical symbols are no neccessity. But if we want to describe motion so as to fit it into the mathematical framework that we have built up, I think we need mathematics.

Also your statement that I am moving damn fast makes a lot of sense if you can convince yourself that there are alternate ways of describing it other than X km/hr. I am moving damn fast says that

1. I am moving
2. I am sprinting, probably running at my maximum speed. ( I know my maximum speed intuitively but I don't know what is it in km/hr. depending upon your point of interest, you can consider it as half full or half empty).

Now talking of Capra's "map for territory"

I am perfectly with you on the fact that mathematical symbols are like the maps. It seems, u have not correctly understood my objection. My objection is not against symbols as representation of the phenomenon. My
objections are

1.You believe maps are not independent of territory. Perfectly agree, 100%.But you also seem to suugest that territory is not independent of maps. It is this backward mapping from concepts to reality that I object to.

2. you believe maps are true representation of territory. I contest this. Maps are just a perspective of the map-maker about the territory. If map maker changes, so does the map.

Now coming to the need for maps.

I believe maps are not essential. You can still understand without the maps. Just to prove my point, Do u need a map of your colony? Don't u feel u know more than what the map actually tells u? So should we not do a similar
thing in science as well. When we have understood certain phenomena, should we not
try to do away with the support tools just like we are doing away with the locality maps? This has been the crux of my argument so far. I believe if one can explain a phenomenon or for that matter, a concept when he can
define it without any jargon.

Scientific Method- Part 4

KISLAY WROTE:

Writing this after reading both your mails.

>>>>>>>>>>
Can you not describe your motion at every single instant of time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
In what terms will I know it? In what terms will I describe it? Other than probably Saying "I'm moving damn fast!!!!!" which doesn't mean anything.That's what I mean when I say that understanding presupposes a
mode of expression.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
what do I do if I want to know its motion both in space domain and time domain simultaneously?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Suppose you want to tell what an elephant looks like from front and behind.Can you say it using a single language construct? You will have to say it in 2 different statements.
Man you can know it but HOW WILL YOU SAY/EXPRESS IT? All external symbols and formulae are means to conveying that to-fro motion of the pendulum. You are falling into Capra's "map for territory".
Trap - thinking that symbols mean something independently of the phenomena they are attached to. They do not. They are a map using which you have to visualise the territory.

>>>>>>>>>>>
Another point with the usage of mathematics for this approximation. Science in its attempt to make a discrete event as continuous as possible, introduces the concept of "dt" or 'delta t'. Science has not given a
scientific, mathematical definition of 'delta t'. The definition is of intuitive nature and to make it mathematical, have introduced the idea of limits. (tending to zero but not equal to zero. Is it not a proof enough of the inadequacy of science to explain phenomena?
>>>>>>>>>>>
"Delta t" is a way of saying that however small a change is, maths can track it. Observe that the Final deliverables of maths, i.e., equations, don't have deltas in them.
V = u + at ---------- 1
may be derived using delta but as an 'end-user', you are free to enter any random time instant/interval in this equation. Delta T is way of modelling an arbitrary precision time interval.

>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you not describe your motion at every single instant of time? When you are doing a scientific analysis, are you not taking snapshots at discrete intervals and then trying to construct a continuous picture out of it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes I am. And I can tell you that I am successful because now you can enter any value of t in Equation 1 and the answer would be correct. I would consider that damning evidence in favour of the scientific method!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>
We both know that y(t)= A sin(w*t) is different from y(t) = A'cos(w'*t). When I say understanding it,I mean I should be able to able to identify that there is some difference between these two, without constructing their
equations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Without showing me the equation, what will you say? How would you convey to me the difference between the two?

>>>>>>>>>>>
Can we define acceleration as something more than dv/dt?
>>>>>>>>>>>

Well we definitely can!!!! All bike/car enthusiasts define it as 0 to 100 kmph in x seconds. Even here you see that all these guys need this figure to express how fast a bike is, and looking at this figure( the analog for physics equations), a bike enthusiast will know how slow or fast a bike is.

Scientific Method- Part 3

SHANKARA WROTE:

<Doyou want to know its location 3 seconds from now?>>

Contrast this approach with the approach that I am talking about.Instead of analysing the motion of particle, u somehow transfer yourself into the particle. Its like u have got into the particle and moving along with
it.Would not your understanding of the motion of particle now would be better than what it was with the external analysis by scientific method? Can you not describe your motion at every single instant of time? When you are doing a scientific analysis, are you not taking snapshots at discrete intervals and then trying to construct a continuous picture out of it? At the first time, the difference is huge because the intervals are large. You refine the process by decreasing the inter-frame interval and come closer to a continuous motion at every attempt. However hard you may try u will never get a really continuous motion as you there is a fundamental conflict between the two objects (one is discrete and other continuous . To get a truly continuous frame, you need to have the inter-frame interval zero, which is not possible in scientific analysis.

Another point with the usage of mathematics for this approximation. Science in its attempt to make a discrete event as continuous as possible, introduces the concept of "dt" or 'delta t'. Science has not given a
scientific, mathematical definition of 'delta t'. The definition is of intuitive nature and to make it mathematical, have introduced the idea of limits. (tending to zero but not equal to zero.) Is it not a proof enough of the inadequacy of science to explain phenomena?

To give you a even better idea of what I am talking about, say Kislay is in motion. I capture all his movements for about one hour and apply scientific analysis on it. I have a wealth of information about Kislay's movement.
I know what was your velocity at a particular time period ( I still doubt, if science can provide me the information at a particular instant) and you will not be aware. Yet, I believe you can understand your motion in a much
better sense that I can I ever hope to do. You can, if you want, describe your motion at a particular instant of time while I cant.

Now coming to the SHM problem, what do I do if I want to know its motion both in space domain and time domain simultaneously? Can science answer it ? When I say I want to understand the phenomenon, I mean I should be able to visualize it without any need for external symbols or formulae. What I mean by understanding SHM, is I should be able to imagine myself as the pendulum and feel its to- fro motion as if I am the pendulum.

We both know that y(t)= A sin(w*t) is different from y(t) = A'cos(w'*t). When I say understanding it,I mean I should be able to able to identify that there is some difference between these two, without constructing their
equations.

Don't u think, we should have a website, that explains these physics concepts in an intuitive way. Can we define acceleration as something more than dv/dt?

Scientific Method - Part 2

KISLAY WROTE:

"The essence of the phenomenon" and "I mean can u feel its motion?" make your mail sound very Hegelian.
Hegel was a philosopher who said that it is futile to analyse. If you analyse the motion of billiards balls striking each other on the billiards table, then you are incorrect in doing so as you are only analysing your
own concepts (like force, momentum etc.) and not "the essence of the phenomenon", as you have put it. The Analysis doesn't help you know the events reality, to feel it.

So much for Hegel. You might like to read him.

I feel that you are not asking your questions properly. What, precisely
do
you mean when you say "understand" the motion of a particle in space? Do
you
want to know with what it will move in the next split second? Do you
want to
know its location 3 seconds from now? There is no pooint saying I want
to
understand the particle. It has nothing to understand. Scientific
enquiry
will answer the questions you pose to it. Different questions asked of
the
same phenomenon will yield different answers, but that is not because
the
phnomenon has changed or science is wrong, but only because a different
question.

BTW you might want to ask yourself-what it is that you mean by the
essence
of the phenomenon?

Consider a wave on a string. What is the nature of this phenomenon? If
you
observe the wave in time domain, it appears as a disturbance flowing
from
one point in space to another. If you observe it in space domain (i.e.
observe any point on the string), it appears as plain SHM. So this is
not a
fallacy of science. You ask different questions, you get different
asnwers.

It must be said here that the concept of understanding presupposes a
mode of
expressing that understanding. All the equations and formulae are that
mode
in science. The real problem, when you ask questions like this "essesnce
of
phenomenon", is that you haven't grasped the mapping from equation to
phenomenon. Think of this like ED- "a cube is lying on ite edge with one
of
the face at 45 degrees to VP....". To solve this we need to visualize
this.
THAT is the essence of the phenomenon that is this cube. Analogy can be
exztended to physics. You can be said to understand only when you know
the
mapping both ways and go from one expressions to the other easily.

This, incidentally, is the great problem of how to teach Physics in a
better
way in our schools and coolleges. So many people I have met know all the
equations for light cones but can not map it to an intuitive concept.

Hope this doesn't sound gibberish.

Scientifc Method - Part 1.

This series of blogs is the outcome of discussions that i had with my friend Kislay Verma. It isin the form of emails exchanged thru and forth.

First mail is mine. Then we reply alternately.

Shankara wrote:

Let me pose this question to the objectivist.
Do u think, scientific analysis can help us understand an object?
Or you believe, scientific analysis is far from perfect?

KISLAY WROTE:

In my opinion, both your statements are correct.

Vis-s-vis the second statement, I would like emphasise that I don't mean
that the process of scientific enquiry is wrong.
By the process I mean the hypothesise-test-conclude-rehypothesise(if
wrong) process. What I mean is that we may not at all times know what
questions to ask and how to ask them. This might introduce problems in
the scientific process.

Am I clear or do I need to write one of my trademark massive mails?

SHANKARA WROTE:

I do not mind your trademark massive mails.

But do you think, certain formulae and certain equations can capture the
essence of the phenomenon?

Say for example, u want to understand the motion of a particle in space?
What do u think will be the best way to "understand it". By
understanding
it, I mean can u feel its motion?

Aggressive Cricket

The off-field antics of both India and Australia is more entertaining than their on-field performances. Both the teams are trying to play an “aggressive brand of cricket”. Lets try answering some questions.

What is aggression? What is aggressive cricket? Is India actually playing aggressive cricket? Lets take each question one by one.

Dictionary defines aggression as behavior that is intended to cause harm or pain OR having or showing determination and energetic pursuit of your ends. I believe the second definition is more relevant to the context of the article.

Aggression as a strategy in sports in quite common and is there since time immemorial. It is prevalent, though in different extent, in all major sports or games. Even a game like chess which doesn’t call for much physical exertion has aggressive players ( ok we call them attacking players but they are very similar). Some like to attack right from the word go, while some prefer setting up a game, fortifying the defenses and then going for the onslaught. In football, we have different playing styles ranging from the defensive English or Italians to the free flowing, attacking football of Brazil.

Now coming to the important question of what is aggressive cricket, I feel your game is either attacking or defensive on the basis of your response to setbacks. When a team is already going hammer and tongs and you continue doing so is no aggression for me. When your chips are down (when u are 30/4), how you respond to the situation shows ur true aggressive spirit. If u still continue to play your shots, if u are ready to take risks, if you are not ready to be tied down by the bowling, then you can claim to play Aggressive cricket. Or when the opposing batsman is tearing apart your attack, u still back yourself to bowl wicket taking deliveries.

So the most aggressive team, according to me, is the West Indies team of 80s who just did not know what fear was. They just played their natural game and intimidated the opposition. Their aggressive brand of cricket, though crude, was very effective. Australians just borrowed it from them, perfected it and are using it very efficiently as is evident from their results. The sledging that they employ is just an embellishment. Teams all over the world are mistaking it to be aggressive cricket.

Is India playing aggressive cricket? Certainly not. In batting, we don’t mind converting twos into ones, we are risk averse and we always get into a shell if we lose wickets, thereby conceding the match there itself. In bowling, we mistake aggressive bowling for faster, aimless bowling. The fielders don’t assert their presence. We need to charge towards the ball, send in rocket throws to the keeper, hit the stumps and tell them LOOK OUT, A TIGER IS PROWLING HERE.

What we do is mouthing abuses just like them. Dude, they are not BP patients who can’t handle shocks, they are battle hardened veterans. U need to instill fear by your deeds and not by words. If the bowler showers expletives on you, don’t rattle off BCs or MCs. Just hit a full blooded shot at his face. He will take an evasive action, then u go and tell him to shut up or next time the ball wont miss his head.

The sledging is just an addendum, an accessory; we can play aggressively the gentleman’s game, even without that

A Tool thats not used as it should be.

This blog is the outcome of an argument that I had with my friend Arjun Nehra, while we were returning back from office by the company bus ST 5. We were debating if certain sectors have matured enough to open them up or rather can they actually withstand the onslaught of the MNCs? The moot question is will the country benefit by such a move?

Though Arjun is very much in favour of opening up of the economy, he feels it is not yet the right time.Since we used the banking industry as the support tool for our arguments, the argument finally boiled down to are Indian banks ready to face the competition from foreign banks from April 2009. He feels Indian companies need to be given some more time so that they can grow enough, thereby making it difficult for the MNCs to gobble them up ( both literally and metamorphically. In literal sense, I mean taking over and in the other sense, drive them out of business.)

He gave many arguments in support of his stand by giving examples how the western countries actually did the same, there by helping them to grow big so that they can now be the “MNCs”. I use this blog to convey what is my opinion in such matters, for Arjun is not the only the one with whom I had this debate.

I don want to talk about the benefits of opening up of economy nor about the negative consequences. I feel neither the need nor have the ability to dwell on those. Let it be left to those who are better qualified to talk about them. The question that I strive to answer is why some people get swayed by the arguments of protectionism and why I am not so convinced by it.

The arguments they come up with are the standard ones like : “I do not want the profits to go to a foreign country.” “ these corporations would destroy indigenous industries” “ they benefit only the urban elite “ and so on and so forth. The arguments they put forward are extremely logical and analytical that you don’t have an option but not to disagree with it. The arguments are quite coherent and for the unopinionated they actually look very sensible. It is based on the grounds of infallibility of Logic. I do not intend to attack the infallibility of logic, but what I SAY IS LOGIC IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE.

All the horrors, consequemnces they portray would hold true if business were like Physics or Maths. Unfortunately, its like economics which makes it an Analytical Science rather than Predictive Science. In predictive science like maths, physics given the circumstances, we can predict the outcome of an experiment. It is invariant in the sense that it does not matter if it is carried out in USA or India. Economics is no predictive science. We just cant predict the outcome of any policy or move purely on the basis of theory, ( for it allows the co-existence of two contradicting theories). What we do, is, given the result that we have observed , we try to construct a logical explanation of it according to some theory.

The best example of it is illustrated by so called Stock Market Analysts. They give 100 solid reasons why there will be a rally tomorrow, but if there is a crash tomorrow, they will give 100 other, equally solid and water tight reasons that would logically explain the melt down of the market. The fault is not their analysis but in the inherent inadequacy of economics/business to able to predict. It is an analytic science. So its like you are using an axe to clear the rubble. ( boss, u need a shovel).

Ok. If its not a predictive science, then how can u be sure that the horrors wont come true. That’s ur question right? Read on.

I am saying it partly on the basis of my understanding of how Capitalism works and partly on the basis of historical data. I believe history repeats itself. So the lessons of a particular industry is not just relevant for that industry but to BUSINESS AS A WHOLE. Lets answer the critics’ charge that it will favour only the urban rich.

Yes I agree, it will favour them initially. However, when the urban market saturates they don have the option but to cater to the needs of the rural populace. Sounding preposterous? I have data to support me. Consider Telecom industry. They first expanded in the urban market. Their offerings and products were customized to the needs of an urban clientele. It no doubt widened the urban- rural divide in this particular aspect. But with the passage of time and the companies realizing that there is tremendous scope in rural areas, they changed track and now are quite bullish about it. They have come up with offerings that appeals to the village folks. So the divide which was widening earlier is not shrinking at a rate which no protectionist expected or dreamt.

Similar is the case with ICICI BANK. With their innovative business model, they have proved that offering banking facilties to rural areas is not about Social Obligations but a viable business reality.

To explain why banking sector can be opened up, I will write a separate blog sometime in the near future.

Computer Scientists of India

Indians are considered quite good at software. The success of services firms like Infosys, Wipro, TCS have contributed handsomely to the resurgence of Indian economy, which is now one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The low-cost service model of these companies has created lakhs of jobs between them already and their recruitments show no sign of abating. Its like, these companies have an insatiable hunger for man power, which can be fulfilled only by converting every engineer from any college into a software engineer. Even the colleges have woken up to this and we see every college ensuring that core computer science subjects are covered in almost all the courses, so that those guys also get a piece of the software pie.

I would not be writing this blog, if I want to talk about the software industry. What I plan to do is to profile the students of computer science department of a good engineering college. The students can generally be classified into 7 seven categories ranging from the absolute geeks to the other end of the spectrum for whom C is some sort of Satan and its better to move as much away from him as the “Fate” allows.

Since I am no fan of left leaning communists, let the geeks be allotted the position at far right. As ur level of geekiness decreases u move leftwards.

To start with, far right consists of people who start their day with “#include” and end it with a return statement. They are the proverbial geeks who are happiest when they sit in front of a computer and solve some programming problems. They don care a damn if Iraq is bombed or stock market tumbles. For them their compiler is the bible and their computer table the world.

To their left sits the category of people, who are excellent with their computer science, love it to the core but are not obsessed with it. They realize that world offers many good things other than computer also. They generally are in the job for 5 years and they move out in search of new challenges.

Next come the people who are quite good at computer science but it is not their first love. They like it for the reason that they have a good future here (for they are good at it) and also lack of opportunity to pursue their first love and an aversion to risk. They prefer the stability offered by computer science to the risks involved in going after a wild goose, even though that goose may lay the golden egg for them. So they are quintessential journeymen, who keep their receptors always tuned so that jump out at the first opportune moment. ( Mind you, they don create these opportunities but just wait for it to come)

To their left are the technology freaks. They may not be quite good with their computer science but they love technology. They realize the power of technology and that’s what keeps them going. What ever they lack in skill they make it up with their enthusiasm.

Now we come to the leftists. Right most among them are the ones who are not so great at computer science nor do they have any passion for it. They are the best lot as they don chase money, fame and a great job. They like what ever they do and equally comfortable with moving in and leaving computer science.

To their left are those, who don like computer science but are there because of the cruel fate. They don get any high in writing code. They just go on and on and all the time looking to get out. But the irony is they stay the longest there.

The far left is the one which feels computer science was some sort of punishment in medieval Europe which was meted out to the incorrigible criminals. Their hatred for the subject takes birth the moment the teacher talks about “ printf(“ Hello World” )”.

They don bother to know beyond it and are extremely happy about it. For them it’s like an admission into a privileged secret society. They wait for these four years to end so that they have to study computer science again. The only hope that sustains them through this horrific years is HOPE, THAT IT’S JUST FOUR YEARS.

So where do u see itself in the prism?