Beyond Science and Technology……
//Science is no more than a collection of fully verified knowledge and a process that adds to this sphere of verified knowledge. So, how can it be flawed? All one can say is it is not complete. That is not a flaw. Scientists have never claimed that they have licked all the unresolved questions there are and there could be.//
This is exactly what scientists had been telling us all along. What do they mean by ‘it is not complete’. Not being complete is itself a major flaw. When you take the axiom which defines the straight-line as the shortest distance between two points it was true upto a point in time. When our understanding grew we understood that this axiom is true only for short distances. For longer distances the approximation that has been brought in because of the curvature of the earth’s surface becomes obvious and the original axiom is no more an axiom. The statement that “all one can say………complete” is an innocuous escape door which becomes useful in case of need. My contention as well as the contention of many others is that science is not finally verified set of truths which are true for all time. The truths propounded in science are all relative truths. They are relative to time; relative to initial conditions; relative to point of view etc. etc., This is what is said in a different way by Sankara and Ramanuja when they discuss the inadequacy of the various pramanas.
//If Sravna's claim is that there is a set of knowledge that will always remain outside the realm of systematic scientific study, but is accessible through methods that are not scientific, then that is nothing more than his pet theory. For it to be universally accepted he has to come up with more persuasive arguments than just saying one has to experience it//
That does not appear to be the claim here. Scientific method is only one of the methods available to arrive at the truth. There are other methods also. They are equally valid. Just because scientific method is relative to time(and hence is not reliable) we do not reject it outright because it serves a very useful purpose in a time frame. Similarly the other intuitive method is also to be accepted as useful. Trying to prove the existence of intuition through a scientific method is doomed to fail. This is because of the limitation of language, the nature of the intuition, and the inadequacy of science itself.
//IMO, the scientists of the west who comment on Hindu philosophy are not familiar with the full gamut of the Hindu beliefs, or just ignore that part. When they compare the completely bizarre beliefs of the so called Abrahamic religions, for whom earth is no more than 5000 years old, with that of much the more interesting speculations of the Hindu sages of yore, they are impressed, with good reason. But, this does not mean they buy into all the beliefs of the so called Hindus, they don't.//
While it is true that they do not buy into all the beliefs of the Hindus, it is somewhat presumptive to dismiss the scientists’ understanding of the religion and the belief system. If science is all about rigorous analysis then scientists do understand everything about the subject taken up for study. After understanding, accepting or rejecting or reserving for further study takes place.
//It is quite possible that science can never find all the answers. This is very true. Human mind may lack the capability to understand everything there is. But that does not mean there is something called, spirit, spirituality, etc., and, that such spirituality can give all the answers. That is just a leap of faith.//
When science is unable to find the answers or the answers given by scientific methods are bizarre and misleading, intuition comes in and takes over. When I sit in front of my FIM and look at the pattern in the fluorescent screen and am disappointed by what I see and wonder whether all the known and unknown approximations that have gone into my experiment are misleading me, exactly at that moment I have felt many a time helpless. That helplessness is not due my failure to prepare a good specimen or failure to set up a good apparatus. It is just that the question that I had addressed to ‘nature’ has returned a question to me as the answer. It is at times like this that I find the intuition helpful. I think this is the process that is explained in the Brikuvalli of Thaithreeya Upanishad by Varuna to his son/student Briku. Briku had to contemplate again and again to travel the path of truth.
//As I have said many times, science is a process of observing, etc., etc. It is a continuous process, always pushing the envelop of knowledge further and further. It is a never ending process. Whether it ever gets complete or not is immaterial. The so called spirituality, on the other hand, is stuck in the musings of ancient yogis, unable to explain anything, and worse yet, not even making an attempt to explain anything, but demanding that it must be taken seriously//
I think there is no conflict and there is no need to use terms like “on the other hand” here. To me intuition is a process which takes over where science leaves me unsatisfied. Only because I am unable to analyze intuition with scientific methods it remains a mysterious another process. May be as eminent scientists say, I am too much used to cause and effect kind of constructs, am comfortable with breaking down and looking at the parts to understand the whole, am unable to express the altogether different kind of process with the language that I have, this intuition remains an enigma. Again due to our comfort and familiarity with cause and effect constructs a spirit is brought in and the intuitive process has become a spiritual one. But then what is in a name?
