Search This Blog

Translate to your language

Sunday, August 2, 2015

Do we need to redefine science? (continued 4)


The Greek philosopher Aristotle (~300 B.C.) is generally considered to be the father of modern scientific approach. Aristotle recommended observation, classification, and deduction of implications, as the sole basis of understanding nature. Or in other words, he laid emphasis on sense perception, objectivity, deduction, as we have today in our scientific approach.
 
Even ancient Indians considered the same – sense perception (pratyaksa), deduction (anumäna) and valid testimony (äpta väkya) - as the basis of understanding anything. But they added a rejoinder that "this approach is restricted only to knowledge related to material things. When it comes to things that are not material in nature, this approach does not work and one needs to resort to knowledge attained in super conscious state or samädhi". The statements of a person who has attained the said knowledge in such a state can be taken as “valid testimony” though it is not based on sense perception.

This is often taken as an escape route to justify all mysterious theories and explanations. In such cases we need to satisfy ourselves the credentials of the persons propagating such theories and whether they are indeed capable of transgressing the material limits. We need to be very careful before accepting such claims since in most cases they are no “valid testimony” in the strictest sense. 

If it indeed turns out that such theories are true, then we need to expand the scope of science to include such findings. Definitely not otherwise.

Continued

No comments:

Post a Comment