A review of NL Hafta by Bharat, Deepak & others

Hi,

1. Please don’t announce my name. I am a long-time subscriber.
2. Love the show, however, Hafta episode 211 was sub-par. A few possible reasons: as one of your letters brought out, the panel seems a little ill-prepared. Also, a lot happened on Thursday, February 14, i.e. Pulwama. I understand that you record on Thursday, but if such a major news item has occurred, you could consider adding a short “audio comment” and appending it to the Hafta (maybe at the beginning), telling listeners that this is an “unfolding event” and will be discussed next week? Especially, in the case of Pulwama, since there has been a lot of media content generated over it. Thirdly, please try to have Madhu on board (even on a short 15-20 minute phone-call) every week. Either her, or Hartosh Bal/some other guest? 
3. Lastly, on a lighter note: no Hindi rants, Abhinandan. You sound horrible (re: ep 211). Also, the pronunciation sycophancy (it is sick-o-fency/sick-o-fant). 🙂
4. Personal request: can you have a page on your website with a running list of recommended books & articles, that you keep adding to with every passing week (duly sorted in categories such as books, articles, podcasts, with the date that they were recommended on/mentioned)? 
5. All the best to the team. I’m very fond of your content. Keep up the good work. 

Cheers & Jai Hind.

***

Hello panel,
I heard two conversations in this week’s Hafta that I felt I needed to write about. One was about pseudo-science and the second one was about the definition of liberalism. This is going to be a long mail and I fear, it still won’t cover everything I have to say because it has taken 1000s of hours for me to arrive here but here’s my attempt.

Firstly, I hear this often among liberals, as I did in this podcast as well, where they try to define liberalism in a way that doesn’t describe it as a world view of which there are other equal alternate ones as well. When one doesn’t know what’s in future, one can take any of the alternate stances and they are all valid. But the way the panel described it, would constitute a tautological definition such that it is meaningless to define it to begin with. There’s no one who doesn’t agree with the merit of an established and demonstrable result (saanch ko aanch nahin) and yet there’s no one in the world who doesn’t follow traditions or results created by someone else purely on faith.

In that sense, everyone is a liberal and yet everyone is a conservative. In reality, a snapshot of world population or any regions population will easily show that people are mostly centre-right in their world outlook and the reason for that is evolutionary. My personal view is that it is meaningless to claim oneself as belonging to any “ism” and stick with it ideologically all the time. If one connected with ones society around, that’s all one needs to be and if that ends up falling into conservative view then be it and if it isn’t, then be it too. The difference between any two stances is that of “better supported” vs “less supported” and not that of liberal vs conservative. I think people should hear each others fears out and try to find the right equilibrium (which is not the same as middle ground).

Secondly, let me also elucidate on the discussion on science and pseudo-science. Science is not more special human endeavour than any other. Pursuit of truth is common to law, art, science, religion/spirituality or even public service. I went to IIT and then MIT so I say this with some pedigree. I value the analytical thought the most. But I also recognise the fact that scientific output is ultimately a belief system. Several competing scientific theories coexist at any time and they are not much different from the existence of different religions.

Several theories about the origin of the universe–whether in science or in religion, for example–are all valid except that some have lot more supporting evidence than others and it would be judicious to pursue further research in the promising avenues even while recognising that less supported ones may have something good to offer as well. In my view, when people cite a mythological miracle to claim science, it’s as futile as me predicting a scientific future that may never come to pass. Bragging rights for a past or a future that I have no ability to see makes no difference and hence it’s ok. When people employ science or pseudo-science, they are employing deductive as well as inductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning is logical but static and inductive reasoning is illogical but dynamic and humans employ both all the time to survive in an ever-changing universe. Without going too technical into all this, let me just say that what people really fear in this debate is the wastage of tax money by the uninformed citizenry and to that I say: one just has to trust the process of democracy and free market that sooner or later, population will gravitate towards the truth. If you are far removed from the society you live in, you will find the society moving too slow for you but remember there are people for whom the society is moving too fast as well. In reality, all of us need to find our peace with the pace of the society around us. Easier said than done–trust me because I am one of the outliers myself.

Lots more to say, will do in future. Sorry to miss you in Boston this weekend. Maybe next time you come to Boston, you can stay over at my place. I am happy to host.

Finally, my intention with this incoherent rant is not to critique you guys. Keep up the good work. Hopefully, you can start a science podcast as well.

Thanks,
Bharat

***

Hi All

I have been following newslaundry.com for over 5 years now–almost since you launched. I have also been a subscriber for over 4 years. I always felt Newslaundry fills a very important gap in news media where all outlets are motivated/completely biased towards one side. The idea to have people from all viewpoints and share view is great one but I am sad to see that standards of discussion have been falling and Hafta 211 was the probably the worst of all 211 I have heard. 

Let me take just one example of particular discussion on SC decision on Delhi government. We all are aware of Abhinandan’s association with AAP but his analysis of SC decision was not only ridiculously biased but also filled with “Bhadda Logic” which he cites all the time. He quoted from Kejriwal: “Democracy is defeated as party with 67 MLAs is not able to take decision of transfer whereas party 3 seats is able to do so.” One must not forget that the BJP central government is also a democratically-elected government of the nation; situation in the Lok Sabha is the other way round. It is clear to everyone that Delhi is special state/territory as it is also national capital where central government sits and runs the country so if not all but some aspects of the territory will be with the central government. We can always debate that there is a need for clarity over Delhi’s governance so that CM can freely operate but saying it is against democracy is ridiculous.

Now coming to ACB related discussion in the same light. I am no expert on law but when the lawyer pointed out that there was no amendment by home ministry but just a circular there was no reaction Abhinandan at all. Modi government definitely has hidden agenda and motivation behind not allowing ACB under Arvind Kejriwal but he is himself responsible for creating this situation. According to Arvind, he will start opening investigations against anything or everything which happens in Delhi including which means he will have influence over the entire central government just by being the CM of Delhi. He feels he can indirectly rule over the entire central government just because he won 67 MLAs in state of Delhi which happens to be the seat of the central government. This is completely against democracy. Arvind started opening investigations against BJP ministers under ACB and then I guess BJP used the loophole of Delhi’s special status to stall them. So accordingly, Abhinandan we should give full control over ACB to AAP and then they can go after everyone in central government or rather India like Ambani etc. Wouldn’t that be un reasonable and undemocratic.

I can go on and on and I am sure you will quickly paint me as Bhakt or RSS but I feel your organisation is on a downhill. I am worried that you will end up as Scroll or Print eventually. People like me who don’t like Republic or NDTV or Swarajya or OpIndia or Scroll will have to option for content eventually. My mails earlier regarding clarification on Anand Ranganathan were always ignored and I have noticed that Abhinandan never responds on this topic whenever he reads listener emails. You guys have never given any clarification on why he moved out and it happened after a spat between him and Meghnad but no clarification was ever given by the Newslaundry leadership.

I wish you all the best and hope that better sense will prevail and you will come back to your original strength.