Do we need to redefine science? (continued 6)

Openness is one of the cornerstones of scientific approach. The old Newtonian laws that had been taken as correct for long, were revised, with no hesitation, in the light of new findings by Einstein et.al. There are many cases in the history of science where we have openly discarded old theories and accepted new ones that survived the test of scientific validity. 

 

But in the case of several mysterious practices, this openness is a taboo. The propagators of such practices claim them to be eternally true and unquestionable. Though none of them stand the test of science, can we at least glean whatever is worth from these theories and practices by relaxing some of the stringent yardsticks of science? How do we do that?

I have suggested one way in my book “Important missing dimensions in our current understanding of the Mind”. In that book I have considered a range of ancient philosophies that deal with Mind and reality, to see what we can learn from them. The criteria I have laid down for this purpose are the following.

We need to check whether

• The theory is self consistent: i.e. it has no internal conflicts. If the theory or practice is proposed in a book, then no part of the book should contradict any other part of the same book. Sometimes, there may be several books dealing with similar ideas and related to each other. In that case also they have to be consistent across.If someone talks about a theory claiming it to be based on some book or sage, and if the said book or the words of the sage don’t support that view or contradict that view, then also there is an internal conflict.
• The theory is unambiguous:  i.e. it has clearly defined concepts. Most of the times, mysterious theories are defined in terms of ambiguous terms. They could also be vague statements immersed in several obviously true statements that have no relation to the statement being made. Such suggestive implications often pass off as logically arrived conclusions.
• The theory is conflict free: i.e. it does not seriously conflict with well known scientific results. There are many scientific facts that have remained unchallenged for long. If some mysterious theory challenges such facts, then it better have very strong evidence. Or else it is likely to be false or fraudulent.
• The theory is useful: i.e. it provides additional insights beyond what science can, as of today, and may provide answers to some of the unanswered questions as well. Usefulness does not make the theory right. But it could be accepted as ‘to be verified’ theory/practice as long as it is not harmful. Many of our faiths and beliefs fall in this category. They are not proven valid, but may be useful and not known to be harmful.

Now, subject each of the things I discussed in my earlier posts – Homeopathy, Kundalini explanation to Yoga, Mantra, Mudra – to the above criteria and see how many of these survive the test? 

Previous    Start

Do we need to redefine science? (continued 5)

Every person who knowingly or unknowingly propagates a mysterious theory or practice as valid may not have arrived at those theories by being at “super-conscious states” or acquired it by scientific means or from a reliable source. That being the case, it is in our interest that we ask  the following questions.

• What is the basis of their theory?                                  
• Can they explain it logically?
• Even if they cannot explain how it works, can they at least show that it works in a sufficiently large scale, without being a chance happening? Mere anecdotal evidence – “you try it out and see it for yourself” - is not sufficient.

If answers to these questions are in the negative, then it is most likely that the theory/practice propounded is not worth considering. For all you know, they can be harmful as well. Not just because of the theory, but because of the malintentions of the propagator of such a theory/practice.

Continued
Previous   Next   First

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

Previous  Next  First

Do we need to redefine science? (continued 3)

One of my readers suggested to me that I should write something on as that can be very useful in many ways. There are several authors who have done it before. I myself have written one book ("A mantra to enhance your mental capabilities"). But my effort has been to rationalize the practice and explain it in scientific terms.

 

But what I see now-a-days is that people seem to be least bothered about scientific basis or otherwise of several mysterious practices – be it mantra chanting or some weird hand gestures (called mudras) – that are supposed to be a cure-all for all our problems. Going by their popularity, I wonder whether science has become obsolete!

Mantra (mono syllabic) and mudra are remnants of age old tantric practices – the other three that are left out being liquor, meat and ritual sex (mantra, mudra, madira, maamsa, maithuna – the five ‘M’s of tantric practice). If one looks at the tantric books, the first principles of tantra are completely anti scientific – secrecy, subjectivity, total surrender to the teacher, acceptance without questioning, total rejection of reasoning, and so on.

 

If tantra can really achieve things as claimed, in spite of its being anti-science, it is high time that we redefine science.

                                                                                                                        Continued

Do we need to redefine science? (continued 2)

Recently I watched a prerecorded video of a well known Yoga teacher of yester-years about how Yoga works. This supposedly Cambridge educated, one time NASA scientist was giving mysterious explanation about how Yoga works. The theory was not something new – the same “opening up of the mystical Sushumna  Naadi by regular Yoga practice so that the dormant Kundalini force gets channeled through it and reaches the Sahasrara – all located in the Pranic body and ‘somehow’ connected to the physical body” and so on.

 

Many people including several well known Yoga proponents put forth this theory. What is amazing is the fact that

1. There is no verifiable evidence that such a body/naadi/force exists and such a process actually takes place.
2. Yoga system of Patanjali talks about none of these. 
3. The theory is neither consistently nor logically defined, let alone its correctness.

In spite of these limitations, how is it that teachers after teachers talk about such mysterious things that can neither be scientifically verified, nor logically concluded, nor supported by ancient texts?

I only hope that the proponents of these theories do some serious scientific research and provide an acceptable explanation. Or suggest ways of extending our current scientific approach.   

                 

Continued

Do we need to redefine science?

Recently (March 2015), the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) released a statement concluding that “there is no good quality evidence to support the claim that Homeopathy is effective in treating health conditions”

Though many Homeopathy fans are furious about this statement, the finding is by no means surprising. With its two fundamental principles – (1) whatever causes the disease can itself cure it as well, when administered in small quantities, and (2) more dilute the medicine is, the more effective it is - Homeopathy can easily be brushed aside as unscientific and illogical.

But there are several anecdotal reports claiming miraculous cures by Homeopathy. Even highly qualified allopathic doctors sometimes vouch for the efficacy of Homeopathy. In one of the cases I know, a gynecologist friend of mine who was almost bed ridden due to slip disk problem that needed immediate surgery, claims that she recovered completely by Homeopathy with no surgery. And today she is completely alright and attends to her busy medical practice.

In spite of all illogical principles and lack of concrete evidence, is there something in Homeopathy that science is yet to discover? I keep wondering. Though Homeopathy practitioners are very defensive about their system and attack with emotionally charged words anyone who questions, they seem to offer very little concrete evidence or convincing explanation about the working of their system.

I wish that they do it sooner than later. We need to either forget about Homeopathy and move ahead, or evolve our scientific approach based on new findings. I only hope one of these happens in the near future.

Continued

Mind Magic!!!

Watch a very interesting free video on Mind in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KpY12AHUc

The Indian Prime minister on Yoga

Today, different body postures (asana) have become synonymous with Yoga, thanks to several renowned  teachers who laid over-emphasis on it for whatever reason.

I was curious to know what the Indian Prime minister Mr. Narendra Modi has to say about it since he is considered to be someone who sincerely practices Yoga. This is what he said during the International Yoga day celebration on 21st June 2015 in New Delhi. (I am giving a simple English summary of what he said in Hindi)

"(Just) body postures (asana) is not Yoga. If twisting and turning were Yoga, then every circus artist would have to be called a Yogi. Body postures are only a small part of Yoga. Their role is just to prepare the body for the main thing. It is like tuning the musical instruments before a concert begins.. Tuning definitely serves the purpose of producing the right sound during the concert, but tuning itself is not the musical concert"

Original Hindi audio clip

Well said.

Free videos

I just released a short  video on Yoga.

You can even click Yoga scientifically explained
Please feel free to share this link with people you know. Please leave your comments.

You can find more free videos in the page "Free videos" on the right column of this blog (right now there is only one, I will add more later)

Thank you.