majority rules?

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
-Michael Crichton (1942 - ), Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003

I recently found a very telling example of this in an article trying to separate Indians as Hindus and non-Hindus and trying to increase the social evil of superstition in Hindus by trying to glorify it.

QUOTE
Satya Sai Baba cannot have millions of disciples from the most humble to the Presidents of India without 'something' which is beyond superstition.
UNQUOTE

I have nothing against Satya Sai Baba here in particular but the notion that because millions of people, and their president, do something, it must be right. This is clearly an appeal to leave your own thinking backstage and move around intellectually naked. People are being told that they do not have to think for themselves, it has already been done for them. They can just go and watch the k-series on idiot boxes and be happy and take "Hindu"stan forward.

Even our own Sanskrit has a famous quote that people ignore when they say such things:
युक्तियुक्तं वचो ग्राह्यं बालादपि शुकादपि
युक्तिहीनं वचस्त्याज्यं व्रूध्हादपि शुकादपि


i.e. whatever is consistent with right reasoning should be accepted even if it comes from a boy or a parrot, and whatever is not, should be rejected even if it comes from an old man or the sage Suka himself.

Feynman had said that you should never repeat something someone has said unless you understand it yourself. He even said that one should be able to derive everything from first principles. That may be a tall task for mere mortals but we can at least take a vow not to aid superstitions by spreading second hand stories.

Especially now that any बाळु can write anything on a webapge we have to be wary in what we believe. We have to use our judgment.


Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you read.