Reasoning by Analogy

So what really is religion? Is it just a set of beliefs of some men of intellect and influence who thought a great deal about life? Who decided for you what is black, and what is white, so that you don't have to think for it yourself?

This point of view is more interesting than it appears. Knowing the possible theories, you can you just verify their theories, rather than solving the whole mystery all by yourself. Not bad, or so it might seem, even to those who accept Vique's law (of the fish, and the bicycle).

The catch is that there is no black or white. So, then, how do you test their 'theory'?

The most straightforward approach would fail for most such experiments. There are very few aspects of a religion which contradict with itself. So if you are looking for inconsistency, it is hard to find. It is hidden, or if it is obvious, it is justified by way of examples. If one has been brought up in that religion, it is so ingrained in that person that looking for alternatives is extremely hard. Much harder than looking for inconsistencies. And consistency, or apparent consistency, is extremely satisfying, and convincing.

It is, therefore, easy to be conviced by the dictims and laws of the religions, and their explanations of how the system works. The flaws are not obvious, and embedded in fiction, peppered with glorification, the religious arguments sell to you the ideas they premeditatedly want to. The epic stories and the fables and quoted, the response of the protagonist is deemed to be good, and the justification is derived from what happens next. Which, remember, is completely in hands of the author.

This holds true for many purportedly non-religious authors as well. These authors seem to arrive at logical conclusions from some basic axioms. First, the conclusions are made to seem logical, by way of analogies. Second, the axioms are chosen to suit the conclusions. In effect, its a choice for the axiom, one or the other, or a third. Ayn Rand, for example, took this route. Even Gandhi, if you read Hind Swaraj.

This, precisely, is the art of Reasoning by Analogy. If a theory is specious, and most aspects of it are reasoned by alluding to analogies, a warning sign should appear in your mind.

The foundations of this art rest on the fact that there can not be a single theory detailing the 'ideal' response in a social situation. It depends strongly on what your axiom set is. Social sciences, by their very nature, lack objectivity.


That is why it becomes all the more important to question the axiom set you were spoonfed as a child. Question the beliefs that you developed because of those axioms. Show the courage to leave them for once, and look at them from a distance. Look hard for flaws, for counter-analogies, for alternatives. Test it to the extreme, and go back if you deem it reasonable.

Why is this exercise useful?

Religion, has been used, and abused, for controlling the masses. Take Hiroshima, for example. Apparently, Japanese people harbor no dissent against the Americans. The Christian clergymen from all over the world arrived in Japan right after the bomb was dropped, and their sermons had a pacifying effect. Where the bomb was dropped, there exists a park today, "the park of peace".

Then again, it is also a useful tool when agitating masses for a wrongdoing. Sadly, examples of this case are omnipresent today.

It is important to know if you are being used as a pawn in furthering interests of some blind believers. It is important, at a personal level, to stop arguing in their favor if you find you should not agree with them. It is important, at a social level, to stop others from agreeing with them, too.

If you look back, my argument is somewhat circular. I argue by way of analogies, too. And I argue for my axioms, my notions of right and wrong, black and white. I do not refute that there is no escape from this style of argument, because when dealing with social situations, it is the examples and the analogies which take place of reasoning. But being a skeptic may not always be worse than being a blind believer.

Be a sport!

"Tiger Woods is one of the greatest athletes ever, right alongside Jordan"

When my couch-athlete roommate remarked this, something in the statement irked me. Golf, a leisurely sport of the rich, where they hit a small ball far, and drive in a vehicle to where it landed, and hit it again. Athlete, did you say? Apart from a few swings of arms in the day, what do these men with clubs do? Picture Johnson, Jordan, Armstrong, Navratilova, their sweat dripping, sinews bulging, as they smoothly conduct their business. And picture Michelle Wie fretting about that missed putt. By what standards are golf players athletes?

"They have to concentrate so hard." Point well taken. With raised brows and condescending glare, he adds "... under pressure!", okay, okay. But remember that the word athletics is reserved for jumpers, runners and likes. "Sportsperson, then?" More general a term, but still, calling golf a sport, and hence putting it in same category as tennis, seems like stretching the definition.

To think of it, tennis players run hard, hit hard, jump around everywhere, it sure takes someone physically sound to do that. Think Federer, think Jordan, how they use their athletic ability to reach that ball and put it in the right spot. It involves concentration, certainly, but surely much more.

Then again, what makes Federer a Federer? Jordan a Jordan? Is it physical superiority? Federer is certainly not physically the best of this generation. There is nothing in his joints, in his sight, in his muscles, that makes the motions so smooth, almost poetic, and shots so accurate.

Yes, a basic fitness, power, athleticism is a must. And most players in top-50 have that. But to hit those backhand crosscourts from outside the court, when no such angle seems feasible, or to find your way and score a three-pointer, when you are the person being targeted by the whole defense a couple of seconds from the whistle, and to do such stunning acts consistently, certainly, speaks of a mental suppleness. Of an ability to 'see' the possibility of making that shot, and the ability to execute it, knowing what it takes to adjust your racket to just the right level and the right angle. Its not mere practice, or physical ability, or a combination of both.

"So you see!" My room-mate exclaims on overhearing my loud-thinking.

But wait a minute, by that measure, chess too, is a sport. And so is mathematics! Music, too. Hardy, leave apart his cricket skills, was quite a sportsperson. Heady Lamarr was one, too. Vishy Anand, Kolmogrov, Kramnik, Shannon, Bach, you name it!

Considering this expansion of what 'sport' encompasses, what really is the definition of sport, then?

Running a hundred meters in less than ten seconds is more physical than mental, while getting that golf-ball to the green is quite the other way. Both qualify as sport. In some sense, physical and mental are two ways to express our abilities. To make them tangible, even quantifiable. To achieve a great deal on any of these requires one to stretch oneself to the maximum. This in turn, stretches the definition of what is human.

That's what 'Sports' is all about: stretching what we believe is humanly possible. It is about expanding the domain, element by element, by competing, eventually, with ourselves.