27th March 2017
For the deluded:
I am a graduate of Ayurveda and, I questioned the diagnosis, medicines, and surgery done by so-called SACRED healers.
Filed a complaint to Drug controller, but you know, Modi inaugurates a Reliance hospital and preaches how GANESH was cloned by Ayurvedic surgeons.
Dr Arun is 200% true and I congratulate him for voicing the issue.
The gullible and unsuspecting patients, fell prey to such Ayurvedic criminals, need be named as VICTIM and must be compensated, the culprits need be brought to justice. [Source]
ALSO FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION OF USA
26th March 2017
25th March 2017
A comment received on my blog, I thought worth publicising. Even if I persuade one person to abjure ayurveda/ homeopathy, it would be a good outcome for humanity.
I’m a general surgeon who stumbled upon this blog while putting together a case series on anal canal cancer. Going thorough the hospital records, to my amazement 26.4 percent of all patients (138) over the past five years who were diagnosed with this cancer were “treated” by Ayurvedic and homeopathic doctors for piles.
And therein lies the purpose of such blogs. These people who could have been treated by radical surgery will sadly now be treated by palliative measures. The pseudo scientific community of healers have to be questioned for their understanding of how basic medical sciences work.
– Arun Sharma [See the comment here]
22nd March 2017
I have differences on a few issues, but overall, I’d rate this book “good“.
At the same time, there is the book The Bell Curve that Murray wrote in 1994. That book has earned him a major reputation as a racist across the world.
Before proceeding further, let me state that I’ve NOT read The Bell Curve. Nor intend to read it, since I’ve read far more recent and relevant stuff on the subject of IQ (and also commented in my book BFN, as well as extensively on this blog).
KEY ARGUMENTS PEOPLE MAKE AGAINST MURRAY
This is a pretty good takedown of Murray.
What I find problematic – from reading this particular review – is that Murray relied on Richard Lynn. Lynn is, in my opinion, a sad specimen of a “scientist”. I’ve extensively critiqued his work on this blog. Lynn is a an abomination with zero capacity to understand science.
Now, it is quite possible that Murray doesn’t understand science, that’s why he cited Lynn. But in that case he should not be dabbling in matters such as IQ which require a thorough grasp on the science of human biology. And economics.
Thomas Sowell, the great economist, took down Murray’s book. See this. I would tend to agree with Sowell.
KEY ARGUMENT IN HIS FAVOUR
Murray defends himself here, quite persuasively.
What this suggests is that he took on a subject without understanding it; came to no conclusion; but then managed to give the impression to readers that he had a bias towards the genetic explanation (even though elsewhere in the book he said he didn’t know the answer). Clearly this was a project that he should have left alone.
But here, in an interview 20 years later he said: “I immodestly suggest that “The Bell Curve” was about as prescient as social science gets.” [Source] – I think that means he believes he HAD said something meaningful. In which case he is fibbing about not having a view on the subject.
He actually said this: “Here’s what Dick and I said: There is a mean difference in black and white scores on mental tests, historically about one standard deviation in magnitude on IQ tests (IQ tests are normed so that the mean is 100 points and the standard deviation is 15). This difference is not the result of test bias, but reflects differences in cognitive functioning. The predictive validity of IQ scores for educational and socioeconomic outcomes is about the same for blacks and whites.” [Source]
Overall, his is a highly questionable approach.
And it is PURE NONSENSE to suggest that IQ has anything to do with modern trends (I’ve discussed this issue elsewhere).
HE HAS BEEN MAKING REALLY STUPID COMMENTS EVEN TILL TODAY
American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray … told an audience at the University of Texas this week that there is no “evidence” showing that any woman has ever been a “significant original thinker.” He then said the reason for this was the smaller size of the female brain.
“When you compare the size of a man’s brain with that of a woman, there’s no comparison,” explained Murray. “It’s not that I have anything against women. They’re nice enough, but it’s just a physical fact that their brains have developed to the same degree that men’s brains have developed.”
“I’m not a doctor,” he added, “but it may have something to do with their need to develop breasts. The human body can’t do everything.”
His comments came as he was defending his assertions in a 2005 paper that women have not played significant roles in the field of philosophy. He argued that he could only recall a single female philosopher, “and she was not a significant thinker in the estimation of historians of philosophy. Until somebody gives me evidence to the contrary, I’ll stick with that statement.” [Source]
In 2005 he wrote a paper titled “Where Are the Female Einsteins?”
This is REALLY, really bad. The man is not just a goof, he is a fool.
MY CONCLUSION ABOUT MURRAY
Murray is a fool. He has little to no understanding of science but imagines he understands it. REJECT ALL HIS VIEWS ON IQ/ WOMEN/ HUMAN BRAIN, ETC. ETC.
Having said that, his work on liberalism would still pass muster and he is actually a reasonably competent classical liberal thinker. So you can read him occasionally, but with a GREAT PINCH OF SALT, for he is in a sense, quite STUPID.
20th March 2017
Now to Ruskin.
MISES’S VIEW OF CARLYLE
“The fundamental dogma of all brands of socialism and communism is that the market economy or capitalism is a system that hurts the vital interests of the immense majority of people for the sole benefit of a small minority of rugged individualists. It condemns the masses to progressing impoverishment. It brings about misery, slavery, oppression, degradation and exploitation of the working men, while it enriches a class of idle and useless parasites.
“This doctrine was not the work of Karl Marx. It had been developed long before Marx entered the scene. Its most successful propagators were not the Marxian authors, but such men as Carlyle and Ruskin, the British Fabians, the German professors and the American Institutionalists.” – Mises
RUSKIN VICIOUSLY ATTACKED ADAM SMITH
“Adam Smith was ‘that half-bred and half-witted Scotchman’ who had taught the ‘deliberate blasphemy’ that ‘thou shalt hate the Lord thy God, damn his laws, and covet thy neighbour’s goods”. (The Complete Works of John Ruskin, 1903-1912. vol. XXVII; 764, and XXIX: 134; 212; 282; London: George Allen & Unwin). [Source]
HE ARGUED THAT ECONOMIC FREEDOM IS HARMFUL
John Ruskin who insisted that economic freedom would promote, not the wealth, but rather its opposite, the ‘illth’ of nations [From Fritz Machlup’s The Dismal Science and the Illth of Nations, Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 59-63]
RUSKIN BELIEVED IN AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL AND HATED FREEDOM
John Ruskin (1819–1900) vies with Carlyle as the pre-eminent antieconomist
of the Right, and (like Carlyle) is remembered almost as well for
his crazed anti-economics as he is for anything else. Adam Smith, in
Ruskin’s mind, was a ‘half-bred and half witted Scotchman’ (quoted in Fain
1956, p. 108) with ‘an entirely damned state of soul’ (quoted in Anthony
1983, p. 75).
Ruskin’s mind was too personal in its contents to conjure with the
sociological generalities of Right anti-economics, but he shared Carlyle’s
preoccupation with hierarchy and command, and expressed them
pungently in his anti-economics. Ruskin described himself as a ‘violent
Tory of the old school’ with a ‘most sincere love of kings, and a dislike of
everybody who attempted to disobey them’. [Source: Economics and Its Enemies: Two Centuries of Anti-Economics by William Oliver Coleman]
RUSKIN, A FANATICAL ENEMY OF ECONOMICS
John Ruskin, perhaps the most fanatical of all enemies of economics.
I know no previous instance in history of a nation’s establishing
a systematic disobedience to the first principles of its professed religion.
The writings which we (verbally) esteem as divine, not only denounce
the love of money as the source of all evil, and as an idolatry abhorred of
the Deity, but declare mammon service to be the accurate and irreconcilable
opposite of God’s service. ( 1967, p. 61)
To Ruskin the error of political economy lay in it ‘considering the human
being merely as a covetous machine’. No precepts of any worth could be
derived from such an assumption, for Ruskin professed an extreme altruistic
code. To Ruskin it is the moral duty of any superior to treat their subordinates
as their children, quite literally [Source: Economics and Its Enemies: Two Centuries of Anti-Economics by William Oliver Coleman]
RUSKIN WAS A VIGOROUS PROPONENT OF WAR
The influential Victorian art critic and anti-Enlightenment Tory socialist John Ruskin waxed rhapsodic about the virtues of war and insisted that “no great art ever yet arose on earth, but among a nation of soldiers. There is no art among a shepherd people, if it remains at peace. There is no art among an agricultural people, if it remains at peace. Commerce is barely consistent with fine art; but cannot produce it. Manufacture not only is unable to produce it, but invariably destroys whatever seeds of it exist. There is no great art possible to a nation but that which is based on battle.” [Source: Peace, Love, & Liberty – Students for Liberty]
“Modern science,” he writes, “economic and of other kinds, has reached its climax at last. For it seems to be the appointed function of the nineteenth century to exhibit in all things the elect pattern of perfect Folly, for a warning to the farthest future.” He insisted that men and women “will neither be so good nor so happy as without the machines.” Of what value the electric telegraph, he asks, if you have no message of any importance or significance to send over it? Of what value your railroad trains, if they only serve the purpose of enabling a fool in one town to be transported to another at break¬neck speed? [THE UTOPIA OF JOHN RUSKIN – BY J. V. NASH ]
DREAM OF AUTOCRATIC PLATONIAN UTOPIA
Ruskin denounced and repudiated nineteenth century industrial society and all its works. He would have none of it. What he proposed as a substitute was the return to a kind of medieval Arcadia, in which virtuous and trustful common people should work with their own hands on little farms, raising all their own food, and making, by simple handicrafts, everything that was needful for their welfare. The government was to be in the hands of a wise and good aristocracy, to which the common people should give unquestioning obedience. He would thus realize Plato’s dream of long ago. [THE UTOPIA OF JOHN RUSKIN – BY J. V. NASH ]
TOTAL ENEMY OF LIBERTY
“We will have no steam-engines upon it, and no railroads ; we will have no untended or unthought-of creatures on it ; none wretched but the sick ; none idle but the dead. We will have no liberty upon it, but instant obedience to known law and appointed persons ; no equality upon it, but recognition of every betterness that we can find, and reprobation of every worseness. When we want to go anywhere, we will go there quietly and safely, not at forty miles an hour in the risk of our lives ; when we want to carry anything anywhere we will carry it either on the backs of beasts, or on our own, or in carts or boats. We will have plenty of flowers and vegetables in our gardens, plenty of corn and grass in our fields,—and few bricks. We will have some music and poetry; the children shall learn to dance to it and sing it ; perhaps some of the old people, in time, may also.”[THE UTOPIA OF JOHN RUSKIN – BY J. V. NASH ]
GREAT PROPONENT OF IMPERLAISM
Griffin says, “He taught that those who had inherited the rich culture and traditions of the British Empire had an obligation to rule the world and make sure that all the less fortunate and stupid people had proper direction.” [Source]
RUSKIN WENT MAD IN 1878
John Ruskin was a grossly disturbed human being who fell conclusively
into madness in 1878. [Source: Economics and Its Enemies: Two Centuries of Anti-Economics by William Oliver Coleman]
RUSKIN AS A DANGEROUS INFLUENCER OF URBAN PLANNING
His ideas on beauty have caused enormous harm – elitist ideas that looked down upon the live of the common man. It opened the path for the socialism of cities – excessive urban planning.