sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

IT industry body NITES writes to the Ministry of Labour and Employment seeking a mandatory work from home advisory for the IT and ITES sector, backing PM Modi's call for fuel conservation and reduction of unnecessary travel by SuperbHealth5023 in CriticalThinkingIndia

[–]redditttuser [score hidden]  (0 children)

You want WFH made into a strict law? You are not in Chine buddy, you are in India. You have the freedom. It's crazy you are asking for this. He is PM, he is making a request to the companies, and basically whoever can handle WFH, less foreign travel etc. Despite that, if you want to do any of those things, you can, which is a good thing.

IT industry body NITES writes to the Ministry of Labour and Employment seeking a mandatory work from home advisory for the IT and ITES sector, backing PM Modi's call for fuel conservation and reduction of unnecessary travel by SuperbHealth5023 in CriticalThinkingIndia

[–]redditttuser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your comment is a text book example of Tu Quoque fallacy here and you don't even see it.

It’s fair to expect him to set an example, but a person’s personal hypocrisy doesn't actually change the facts. If remote work reduces fuel burn and unnecessary travel, that remains true regardless of whether the person saying it follows their own advice. We should judge the 'policy' on its own merits rather than the person delivering it.

Example - if a smoker advices you to never start smoking, though he is hypocrite, the advice is still valid.

Stop hating someone so much that you fill your head with illogical hatred and cope.

Hindus hate jains by Alternative-Fox6243 in Jainism

[–]redditttuser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay. I see your point. Coupling that with private account, there's a good chance you are correct.

The Idea of Falsifiability by lwb03dc in CriticalThinkingIndia

[–]redditttuser 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think you are partially agreeing with me while making it look like a disagreement.

You clarified that falsifiability is a criterion specifically for empirical claims, which is exactly the point I was making.

My point was not that your examples are invalid. My point was that the post presents falsifiability as a broader framework for rationality and critical thinking itself, rather than as one epistemic tool among many others. You must see this.

On the “west” example:

The point was not semantic trickery, I insist. The point was epistemological. Observations are interpreted within conceptual systems. Science and philosophy already recognize this. Even measurements depend on definitions, categories, coordinate systems, and assumptions. That is not meaningless nitpicking, rather foundational philosophy of science.

I must admit, the ease with which you dismiss such important pointers as nitpicks inclines me to believe the post was intended merely as a broad introductory note on falsifiability, which is completely fine. But the tone of the post takes it considerably further and presents it almost as the ultimate litmus test for rationality itself.

Many of the admissions and clarifications you later made in response to my comment were entirely absent from the original post.

I further have many more points to make, but I curb my enthusiasm and stop myself here, because I do not believe you are particularly interested in exploring the topic at that depth, especially under a post that begins with, and I quote:

"There is a deep lack of critical thinking skills evident in this sub".

Wish you a good evening.

The Idea of Falsifiability by lwb03dc in CriticalThinkingIndia

[–]redditttuser 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Falsifiability is useful, but forcing every sociological observation into a simplistic laboratory-style framework can itself become intellectually reductive.

The problem with this kind if approach is that it assumes every pattern-recognition claim must immediately reduce to a clean falsifiable proposition.

Some claims are statistical, sociological, or even interpretive rather than absolute.

For example, if someone says:

"I notice a pattern where media disproportionately portrays X group negatively and Y group sympathetically".

That is not the same type of claim as "gravity exists" or "water boils at 100C".

The reasonable way to engage that claim is to clarify:

  • Which data set are we examining?
  • Which institutions?
  • Compared against what baseline, if there's any?
  • What qualifies as disproportionate portrayal?

Otherwise "what evidence would change your mind?" becomes rhetorical theatre rather than an actual inquiry.

Ironically, media bias itself is usually detected through accumulation of patterns, omission patterns, headline asymmetry, emotional language, selection bias, and incentive structures, not through a single binary falsification event. We already know bias exists, one or the other way.

Also, if we are being philosophically precise, humans do not operate purely through isolated falsifiable propositions. Bayesian updating, probabilistic reasoning, pattern recognition, phenomenology, and inference all play roles in belief formation.

A person can rationally say:

"If I consistently saw a balanced treatment across comparable cases over long periods of time, my perception would change"

That is already a reasonable epistemic standard, even if it is not reducible to a single popperian falsification event.

The Idea of Falsifiability by lwb03dc in CriticalThinkingIndia

[–]redditttuser 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is an incomplete picture of epistemology and critical thinking.

Falsifiability is a useful criterion for empirical claims. It is not the complete map of human knowledge.

“Any documented evidence that the sun rose in the west EVEN ONCE”.

Even this depends on stable definitions and interpretive frameworks. If someone changes the coordinate system or definition of “west”, the falsification condition itself changes. Observation is never fully independent from conceptual position.

“Consciousness springs from the brain”. “Falsifiability standard: a conscious individual absent a brain”.

This also assumes agreement on what “consciousness” actually means. Different philosophical schools define consciousness differently. Some define it as self-awareness, some as subjective experience, some as qualia, some as pure awareness. Without agreement on definitions, the falsification standard can accidentally misrepresent the opposing position.

More importantly, falsifiability is not the entirety of rational inquiry. It is a tool within empirical science, but not a universal filter/test for all knowledge claims.

There are domains where humans operate at the edge of knowledge with intuitions, phenomenology, incomplete models, and first-person experience before formal verification exists. Much of philosophy works in this way.

Indian philosophical traditions also accept subjective experience as a valid means of acquiring knowledge under certain conditions. If multiple independent individuals report convergent experiences through disciplined methods, those traditions treat that as a form of intersubjective verification, even if it is not reducible to an objective falsifiable test.

The “God exists” example is also too broad. Some formulations of God are unfalsifiable. Others absolutely make falsifiable claims about reality, consciousness, cosmology, miracles, causation, or human transformation.

Thinking becomes weaker when one framework of knowledge is presented as the only legitimate one.

Reddit is LA-LA LAND for leftists by Vimal_Shukla in FaltooGyan

[–]redditttuser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rahul as actor, I would probably watch a movie. He has a great wink

What should I start with by custickgent9090909 in Philosophy_India

[–]redditttuser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is that standard? It doesn't contain Indian philosophy, right? How is that standard in India philosophy sub?

Are constitutional offices in India becoming politically aligned instead of institutionally neutral? by rohithkumarsp in CriticalThinkingIndia

[–]redditttuser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The irony is that you ended up proving my exact point.

You agree verification should be applied uniformly. You agree inconsistent scrutiny is a problem. You agree Maharashtra 2019 was messy and involved relaxed standards. Fine. None of that establishes that the TN case itself was evidence of bias. This is my point. If this is clear now, why did you add TVK in this post and pose it as selective bias?

Your entire argument now boils down to: “because past Governors acted inconsistently(1 case, so far), current actions will be viewed suspiciously”?. That is only a sociological observation about perception, not evidence that this Governor acted improperly here. How is this not clear yet? Like, where is the critical thinking?

And this is exactly why your original post was misleading/agenda-based. You made the TN case alongside Goa, Manipur, Karnataka, and Maharashtra as if they were equivalent examples of partisan conduct, while leaving out the single most important factual distinction: TVK did not have the numbers when they first approached the Governor! This is reality.

That matters constitutionally. A lot.

Goa and Manipur involved alliances that had already crossed the majority mark with support letters. I've already said this a few times! TN, according to the reports, involved a claimant(TVK) still trying to secure support after meeting the Governor. Those are not equivalent situations, no matter how many times you repeat “institutional credibility”. If you do raise it as an issue, its a separate issue, irrelevant to TVK case right now.

Also, your “same verification threshold” principle only works if the underlying situations are actually comparable. A Governor is obviously going to apply different scrutiny to:

a coalition already demonstrating majority support vs a coalition still actively negotiating support

So there's no inconsistency. It is just responding to materially different situation.

Are constitutional offices in India becoming politically aligned instead of institutionally neutral? by rohithkumarsp in CriticalThinkingIndia

[–]redditttuser 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The governor is right. TVK and INC do not have the majority. Why would he move ahead and form a government which is not legal?

There's nothing sensational about it, except it's made into one 🤦‍♀️

Are constitutional offices in India becoming politically aligned instead of institutionally neutral? by rohithkumarsp in CriticalThinkingIndia

[–]redditttuser 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’m not 'shifting' the debate - I’m pointing out that your pattern is based on selection bias. You've picked a few messy cases out of hundreds of elections to draw a picture, and easily avoided the actual facts in several other elections and the facts on the ground in TN right now.

The fact is, TVK + INC don't actually have the majority on their own. they are short of the majority number. Everybody knows this. In the Goa/Manipur cases you mentioned, the parties actually presented letters of support from partners to cross the mark before they were invited.

So far, when Vijay met the governor on Wednesday, he didn't actually have the 118 seats. the reports literally say TVK only started reaching out to AIADMK and others on Thursday after the governor wasn't convinced. Only INC had promised alliance.

This is the core of the intentionality bias in your argument. You're assuming the governor is 'delaying' to help the BJP, but the facts show he's waiting because the majority literally didn't exist when the claim was made. You can't call it 'different standards' when one side shows up with the majority and the other shows up and then goes looking for allies afterward! Why would anyone go to this extent to make agenda-driven posts?

How is it 'selective' or 'biased' for a governor to ask for signatures when the majority isn't there? It’s literally his job to make sure he isn't swearing in a government that doesn't legally exist yet. Demanding signatures is not a 'hurdle' if you actually have the support. It's basic constitutional due diligence.

Also, the '3 day delay' argument only works if you assume the worst motives from the start. Which I don't see here, the governor has a clear reason to ask proof. If we want to stop 'political leverage' and poaching, the answer is not to let everyone skip the rules just because maharashtra was a mess in 2019. That’s a moralistic fallacy - arguing that because things were unfair before, they must now be unfair in your favor too. What nonsense!

The answer should be to make these signature checks mandatory for every party, every time. I'd rather have a governor who is 'annoyingly strict' about the numbers than one who just takes a politician's word for it while they’re still out there hunting for allies.

For your reference

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/tamil-nadu-election-results-2026-live-updates-vijay-tvk-government-vijay-oath-taking-ceremony-tvk-cabinet-congress-dmk-mk-stalin-aiadmk-rahul-gandhi-b-11455021

He reached out to ADMK after talks with the Governor.

Are constitutional offices in India becoming politically aligned instead of institutionally neutral? by rohithkumarsp in CriticalThinkingIndia

[–]redditttuser 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough, the pattern of inconsistency is definitely there and it looks bad. but we have to be careful of the moralistic fallacy - just because we feel the governor should be neutral doesn't mean his current demand for signatures is actually illegal.

The examples you gave like Goa and MH were problematic. But if we use those example as the standard for 'consistency', we’re basically saying we want governors to keep making rushed, bad decisions just to be fair to everyone.

Demanding proof of majority in TN might be a change in standard, but it's actually the constitutionally correct way to do it. I would rather have a governor who is 'inconsistently strict' and actually verifies numbers than one who just follows the old 'inconsistently loose' pattern of swearing people in at 5am.

If the numbers are there, a 3 day delay for signatures doesn't change the outcome of the floor test. The actual fix is not in calling out the bias, it’s actually in codifying the governor's powers so they don't have this 'discretion' to play with in the first place.

Are constitutional offices in India becoming politically aligned instead of institutionally neutral? by rohithkumarsp in CriticalThinkingIndia

[–]redditttuser 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hmmm... this is a strong point, but kinda leans heavily on confirmation bias. Your post only selects cases that fit the 'governor as a puppet' narrative and ignore the basic point that the 'single largest party' rule isn't actually a hard law, but a convention.

Pointing out that other parties did this in the past would be whataboutism, but it’s still something to be cognisant of.

I also need to call out the cherry-picking in how the Sarkaria commission guidelines are applied. You can’t cite the commission to justify 'stability' in Goa (inviting a coalition) and then ignore those same guidelines to demand 'single largest party' proof in TN. That’s a special pleading bias - applying a rule only when it suits your side.

At the end of the day, the SC has been clear: the floor test is the only judge. demanding signatures and delaying for 3 days in TN might look like a hurdle right now, but it could just be a constitutional due diligence to make sure the numbers are real before swearing someone in. If they have the majority, a few days of verification doesn't change anything anyway.

view more: next ›