Scrutinising the subject, 'Science'

[nachi naga]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

raghy,anand,nara

faith is the evidence.

Sure. Vedic mathematics is science. The results to mathematical problems using vedic mathematics can be verified objectively. Since it can be proven, it does not come under the umbrella of 'faith or belief'.

in this mathematics has the origin in vedas,as a cause,only the effect we see as evidence.

vedas are apoureshyam,is the faith.that is evidence.

science needs validation ,only then its acepted as science,thats the rule.its all about knowing.how you know,only one knows.isn't it?now,how one knows is the question?if one knows how he knows he will explain,or just assert he knows,untill one explains how he knows.

 

[anandb]

Hi,

People often conflate opinion with belief and faith. As long as there is not a common understanding of the terminologies, our normal tendency to talk past each other will only get further aggravated.

Personal experience by definition cannot be validated, it can only be claimed. One may claim to have experienced seeing an invisible pink unicorn and say science has still not developed the necessary tools to measure this experiences, and, one day it may, and then my experience will get scientifically validated, is not a serious position to take.

Science indeed is the only way to validate opinions. If one is interested in claiming validity for his/her opinion, then it is up to that person to develop the necessary tools to generate objective and accurate data, analyze the data and present a cogent argument. Until this is done, claims of personal experience have to remain just unverified opinions. Just because some of the opinions can turn out to be true does not mean all opinions will.

Of course, individuals can ignore all this and insist on claiming validity for their opinions based solely on their personal experience. They also may get a lot of people to go along with these claims. Truth is not determined through majority. Only science can tell us what truth is, to the extent possible.

Cheers!

Science is again limited by the extent of human understanding at that point of time. This is the point I am trying to make. If someone like Einstein was supposed to have used only 11% of his brain we can imagine that Science still has a long way to go. Meanwhile personal experiences are just that. As far as the person is concerned it does not need validation. Validation is more for the scientist who is curious. The person who is experiencing it may really not have the resources to prove his claim. And what if these experiences are outside the physical realm of things. For example, if i claim to get benefits doing the Sandhya it is personal and I don't really need to prove it to anyone. It also goes without saying that I should not trash the belief system of the person not doing it. I may be accused of hallucinating the beneficial effects of the Sandhya but after a point of time these accusations really don't matter to the person experiencing them because the value derived from these experiences far outweigh the accusations from certain people. In any case I would prefer hallucinating about the Sandhya than from drugs.

I am not against Science at all. I understand we cannot live without it. But we should understand its limitations because it is limited by the human mind performing less than its potential. Unless we fully comprehend our own human brain fully we cannot really pass judgments about these experiences. Faith, personal experiences, personal transformations, belief systems, in whatever name we call it has always existed and will continue to do so. IMHO, Science will continue to validate or devalidate them as and when the tools become available. Till then PEACE between FAITH and SCIENCE.

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Nara suggested,

....I am sure you have studied the issue sufficiently.....

Greetings, Sri.Nara. No, I have not paid much attention to global warming issue at all. In the recent uni course too, I side stepped the global warming issues.

When I read from various sources accusing the mankind for the major if not the only contributor to global warming and production of green house gases, I was very sceptical about the whole thing. I sincerely believed that human activity is only a small percentage. ( But it is very high when coming from one single species; that is a different issue though).

Here is something to kindle your interest, please.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Cheers!