WRONG AGAIN

HOW WRONG WE CAN BE

I distinctly recall being shocked out of my wits when I was reading extensively on what it meant to think critically—a subject on which I now offer a one day workshop.

HOW WRONG WE CAN BE

Top scientists tell us that the history of scientific developments in the last 4 or 5 centuries tell us something starkly simple—almost all of our cherished beliefs may be wrong!

I have been advocating the use of data preferably in numeric format whenever applicable and reliably available to reach conclusions. Ironically and seemingly paradoxically I also caution that we ought to treat our conclusions as tentative since we can never be sure !

These thoughts came to my mind when I was talking to friends on how to interpret the rout of the DMK party in the elections to the Tamilnadu Assembly.

The near unanimous conclusion seems to be that the state voter had finally decided to take a stand against the massive corruption that the DMK was accused of. The countrywide praise for the TN voter was along expected lines—that the voter had not been carried away by freebies that were thrown at him/her, that the 2 G scam had shaken the people, that finally people have come to accord priority to probity in public life.

Now these conclusions seem justified and even obvious to all. But wait a minute. Did I not say that wherever possible we ought to look at quantitative information? That’s exactly what N.Gopalaswami [former Chief Election Commissioner]and Preveen Chakravarty have done and published their findings in the Business Standard of 23 rd may 2011.

In brief their data shows that:

-In 2006 , 46 out of every 100 voters voted for the DMK when that party had its candidate on the list. In 2011, 43 out of 100 voted for the same party. So much for voter disenchantment with the ‘corrupt’ regime !Only 3 out of 100 was disenchanted.

--In 2006 the DMK won 73 out of 100 seats that it contested. In 2011 the corresponding figure was 19.

The immediate conclusion—that the 3 out of 100 voters whom we deem astute switched sides and this led to the DMK sliding and losing 54 out of 100 seats vis a vis the 2006 elections. It was the arithmetic of alliances –not any overriding concern for probity—that won the day.

Going further the two analysts say that had the ADMK not had an understanding with its main ally DMDK the DMK may have swept the polls. Had the DMK not allied with the Congress [allegedly less corrupt] it would have done far better.

So much for the astute voter.

What does all thus lead to? You can guess.

To put it in simple terms—our most cherished beliefs may be wrong.

K.R.RAVI

WWW.KRRAVI.COM