Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
May 16, 2017, 9:05:54 AM5/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, online_sa...@googlegroups.com
In
one
of the past postings on this group Dr. Ádám Kun asked a question “I kept on asking what is your problem with evolution,
and you keep on not answering that question. How does evolution interfere with
your faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?” and we
have also sent reply for the same from one perspective. Serge
Patlavskiy also said on the same thread “Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution may continue to be studied
at schools and universities, however not as a theory, but as a hypothesis and
together with other valid scientific hypotheses UNTILL a true theory of
evolution is adopted by scientific community.” Here we want to emphasize
that science is not sacrosanct and scientists should also answer the
question: “Are scientific theories merely the collective opinions of
scientists, or do such theories give us genuine knowledge of the real world?” In
the same thread Professor
Priyadarshi Jetli also wrote “As for
needing help from those who have higher knowledge, I do not like the
authoritative tint you give it.” Among scientists we can often find a
standard criticism of religion is that it leads to absurd consequences that no
rational person would accept. Scientists claim that by surrendering to religious
wisdom, we abandon any stable notion of reality and place ourselves at the
mercy of cultural biases, fanatical social groups, and power hungry tyrants who
are more than happy to twist our conceptual frameworks to their benefits. However,
scientists never even analyze how science can be free from this same criticism. We
are also highlighting in this message the point that science itself is dependent
on tradition and authority. If we can see in an unbiased vision then we can easily
recognize that science practice also becomes a matter of customs that are
imposed on us. Therefore, claims in science on fundamental aspect of reality do
not deserve any special respect as portrayed in modern society and educational
system.
Even though the seed of modern science can be traced back to the ancient Greek philosophy, in the modern time empirical sciences have superficially tried to follow a process of independence from philosophy which has never been achieved. Science cannot be independent of philosophy because scientific method itself is hermeneutically conditioned and its dependence on philosophy becomes more apparent when one reflects upon the teleologically conditioned aim of modern science. Both hermeneutical and teleological conditionings come from a particular tradition. Scientists simply presume that they can arrive at truth because they erect their conclusions on data they obtain through sensory perception. On the basis of this premise scientists criticize different subtle philosophical and religious claims because they strongly believe that their information originates from real rather than imaginary things. This conviction of scientists is inherently based on another implicit presupposition that real things are only those that can be accessed through gross sensory perception assisted by technological advancement. This adherence of scientific epistemology to empirical (Greek word empeiria means experience) conditioning in turn comes from teleological and hermeneutical conditionings. The entire scientific enterprise is based on scientists’ implicit presupposition of what real means and the ideas come into science from the side of the hermeneutical conditions of scientific methodology.
Scientists will agree that they obtain information from two sources. The suggestions of previous studies help a new scientific research to identify a problem and a new scientific research cannot initiate itself by remaining completely independent of previous studies. This indicates that the progress of science is dependent on both empirical data and the suggestions of previous scientists. Thus scientific research is conditioned by both tradition and testing. Moreover, the ultimate goal (teleological conditioning) of modern science is to build a cosmology (an all comprehensive worldview) and this is exactly the goal of metaphysics and ontology that philosophy and religion try to address. Therefore, the difference between science, philosophy and religion is one of the method rather than aim. This common goal of science, philosophy and religion must be kept in mind when one deals with the questions on consciousness, origin of life, matter, biodiversity and universe.
In the course of time, a myth of scientific rationality was developed from a continual uneasy atmosphere and the conflicts between Western science and religion, where scientists have started claiming that their scientific methods can produce the absolute universal truth about reality which religion and traditional philosophy cannot produce. However, in recent time scientists have gradually started to realize that the scientific method can only produce partial approximations and that scientific method is inapt to produce any absolute infallible truth. The progress of science is helping us realize that by utilizing scientific methods scientists can proceed for ever to erect increasingly so called truer (although problematic and improvable) rebuilding of reality. As Mario Bunge concludes:
“Hence, science cannot have an ultimate goal, such as building a complete and flawless cosmology. The goal of science is rather the ceaseless perfecting of its chief products (theories) and means (techniques), as well as the subjection of more and more territory to its sway.”
Scientists dealing with studies on consciousness, origin of life, origin of matter (majority of scientist simply presume that matter is primitive), origin of biodiversity, origin of universe and so on, should first recognize the need to consider the content and scope of science. The goal (teleological conditioning) of science demands that scientists must test their hypotheses with the empirical source of information. Empirical science can only be applied to any theory that can be tested empirically. The study of origin (of life, matter, biodiversity and universe) and the subtle subjects like mind, consciousness, soul, God, fulfillment and so on, is beyond the scope of limited methodology that modern science has adopted.
Moreover, being influenced by scientific tradition, in science the conception, formulation, and advancement of hypotheses take place a priori and then scientists try to prove/disprove hypotheses by empirical testing. Previous scientific teaching helps scientists construct their hypotheses and thus the work of scientists is not solely a product of facts produced by nature but is also influenced by human reason. If we carefully analyze this scientific method then it appears that science take place within an orthodox tradition and this tradition subsumes (hermeneutical conditioning) all that scientists bring to scientific method.
Conditioned by this orthodox tradition scientists simply presume that things or events that can be observed in space and time exist and can be taken as evidence on which to build scientific knowledge. This orthodox tradition also bestows a primary revelatory status to natural phenomena and in this tradition historical phenomena only play an assisting role in the revelatory process. Thus, scientists use testing hypotheses as the ultimate ground of scientific truth and it renders the best results only when applied to the recurring cycles of nature.
This orthodox tradition also does not allow scientists to build their views on the basis of any divine revelation (scriptures) and thus scientific studies do not include any topics on soul, God and the eternal constitutional relationship between souls and God (devotion). On the other hand, all bonafide religions are based on divine revelation (Scriptures) and Scriptures reveal that both material (things or events within material space and time) and spiritual (reality beyond material space and time) realms exist. We observe the greatest incongruity between the religion and modern science because being influenced by orthodox tradition scientists embrace empiricist foundationalism and thus in science the divine revelation (Scriptures) is plainly rejected as mere fantasy.
Being conditioned by orthodox tradition, majority of scientists never seriously doubt the foundationalist role conferred in science to empirical testing. On the other hand, even an elementary education in religious tradition helps the individuals to clearly understand the limits of empiricist foundationalism. Thus, scientists have no rational justification to dismiss the wisdom of Scriptures because the methods of religion and modern science appear to be mutually exclusive of one another.
Sincerely,
 | |
 +91-( | |
 #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India | |
 | |
priyedarshi jetli
May 16, 2017, 3:21:32 PM5/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bhakti Niskama Shanta,
Any theory, any perspective, any world view is open to criticism. And this is good, otherwise we would become stagnant. However, every theory being open to criticism does not mean that every theory is equally plausible. Theory of evolution and Creationism are both open to criticism and have been criticized but this does not mean that both are equally implausible and should be rejected. Rather, accepting or rejecting a theory will be based on some rigorous procedures. Plato had a very nice methodological tool called 'second best hypothesis'. According to this, whatever the accepted theory or hypothesis is, which is better than all the alternative theories of hypotheses on the subject matter, can be accepted tentatively as the second best hypothesis. This means that the search for the best hypothesis that will replace the second best hypothesis continues. Once this is found, then again, this becomes the second best hypothesis. Popper's perspective in philosophy of science and approximate truth is inspired by this Platonic methodology. I do not know if scientists themselves operate in this manner. Sometimes it seems like they do not. This is because they spend their whole life working on a theory and their passion for it leads them to believe that it is the ultimate: "The Grand Unified Theory of Evverything" or something like that. This is understandable. But observing the progress of science from outside it seems to follow more Plato's "second best hypothesis" methodology. Relition is of course different in this regard and this methodology does not apply to it,as far as I know.
Priyedarshi
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:39 PM, priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bhakti Niskama Shanta,Scientists criticising religion may be like Sachin Tendulkar telling Roger Federer how to play tennis. But the same goes for Religious critique of science. My statement about authority stands. Whether it is religion or science whenever something is stated and held on to only the basis of authority and the attitude that others should follow it blindly, then it leaves no room for debate or dissent. It is up to each individual to decide whether scientists have tendencies to become autocratic or religious leaders.So far I have not had any scientist tell me that I must accept their theories because they are the ultimate truth. However, I have had religious leaders tell me that I must accept spirituality and supreme consciousness as it has been revealed to the enlightened.PriyedarshiOn Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org> wrote:In one of the past postings on this group Dr. Dr. Ádám Kun asked a question “I kept on asking what is your problem with evolution, and you keep on not answering that question. How does evolution interfere with your faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?” and we have also sent reply for the same from one perspective. Serge Patlavskiy also said on the same thread “Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution may continue to be studied at schools and universities, however not as a theory, but as a hypothesis and together with other valid scientific hypotheses UNTILL a true theory of evolution is adopted by scientific community.” Here we want to emphasize that science is not sacrosanct and scientists should also answer the question: “Are scientific theories merely the collective opinions of scientists, or do such theories give us genuine knowledge of the real world?” In the same thread Professor Priyadarshi Jetli also wrote “As for needing help from those who have higher knowledge, I do not like the authoritative tint you give it.” Among scientists we can often find a standard criticism of religion is that it leads to absurd consequences that no rational person would accept. Scientists claim that by surrendering to religious wisdom, we abandon any stable notion of reality and place ourselves at the mercy of cultural biases, fanatical social groups, and power hungry tyrants who are more than happy to twist our conceptual frameworks to their benefits. However, scientists never even analyze how science can be free from this same criticism. We are also highlighting in this message the point that science itself is dependent on tradition and authority. If we can see in an unbiased vision then we can easily recognize that science practice also becomes a matter of customs that are imposed on us. Therefore, claims in science on fundamental aspect of reality do not deserve any special respect as portrayed in modern society and educational system.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/444808804.492268.1494936480402%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Vidya Sundar
May 16, 2017, 3:21:32 PM5/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Rupert Sheldrake addressed this issue in his TEDx talk he gave in 2013 http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/02/10/banned-ted-talk-the-science-delusion-by-rupert-sheldrake-10-dogmas-that-exist-within-mainstream-science/
The article more or less summarizes his views of dogmatic nature of modern science which presents itself as another religion. The talk will answer this challenging observation. The video is at the bottom of the article.
sincerely,
vidya sundar
dinadhama vidya sundar
"You were born of Nectar to taste Nectar." | 604 992 2702 | www.vidyafusion.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org> wrote:
In one of the past postings on this group Dr. Dr. Ádám Kun asked a question “I kept on asking what is your problem with evolution, and you keep on not answering that question. How does evolution interfere with your faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?” and we have also sent reply for the same from one perspective. Serge Patlavskiy also said on the same thread “Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution may continue to be studied at schools and universities, however not as a theory, but as a hypothesis and together with other valid scientific hypotheses UNTILL a true theory of evolution is adopted by scientific community.” Here we want to emphasize that science is not sacrosanct and scientists should also answer the question: “Are scientific theories merely the collective opinions of scientists, or do such theories give us genuine knowledge of the real world?” In the same thread Professor Priyadarshi Jetli also wrote “As for needing help from those who have higher knowledge, I do not like the authoritative tint you give it.” Among scientists we can often find a standard criticism of religion is that it leads to absurd consequences that no rational person would accept. Scientists claim that by surrendering to religious wisdom, we abandon any stable notion of reality and place ourselves at the mercy of cultural biases, fanatical social groups, and power hungry tyrants who are more than happy to twist our conceptual frameworks to their benefits. However, scientists never even analyze how science can be free from this same criticism. We are also highlighting in this message the point that science itself is dependent on tradition and authority. If we can see in an unbiased vision then we can easily recognize that science practice also becomes a matter of customs that are imposed on us. Therefore, claims in science on fundamental aspect of reality do not deserve any special respect as portrayed in modern society and educational system.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Ádám Kun
May 16, 2017, 3:21:32 PM5/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Shanta,
For me, the important part is this:
> foundationalism/ and thus in science the divine revelation
scientist - believe that the world around us can be known. I would also
bet that most of us thinks that it is our sacred (sic!) duty to know the
world around us. We can only ask Nature about nature. And this is what
we do with our limited set of tools (experimental science).
There is also a not often mentioned assumption in science: the higher
powers does not influence or have a constant influence on the things we
study. Thus it could be the will of Gods that things fall down toward
Earth, but this will is constant. Thus we can understand gravity.
In similar vein, one can understand how life came to be, and how it
diversified. The scientific study of the act of Creation is the study of
evolution.
A quote from Kenneth R. Miller is in order here: "What evolution tells
us is that we are part of a grand, dynamic, and ever-changing fabric of
life that covers our planet. Even to a person of faith, in fact
especially to a person of faith, an understanding of the evolutionary
process should only deepen their appreciation of the scope and wisdom of
the creator's work."
Now you have asked about how the natural sciences deal with topics of
God, souls, etc. My answer: nohow. This is your topic of expertise. The
scriptures are written by humans on "topics on soul, God and the eternal
constitutional relationship between souls and God" And if one wants to
understand humans and our relations with each other we should first go
to the accumulated wisdom we humanity have already gathered about
ourselves. The social sciences, psychology, humanities are all there to
continue these studies. Please note that while the scriptures
acknowledge the existence of matter, they contain very little about it.
Thus my proposal is: leave the study of the material world to natural
scientist. They know what they are doing.
We leave the study of soul, Gods and the relationship between these to
You. We keep in touch and we might converge in time (I bet it will take
quite some time, so it might not be in our time). How is that?
best wishes,
Ádám
For me, the important part is this:
>
> This orthodox tradition also does not allow scientists to build their
> views on the basis of any divine revelation (scriptures) and thus
> scientific studies do not include any topics on soul, God and the
> eternal constitutional relationship between souls and God (devotion).
> On the other hand, all bonafide religions are based on divine
> revelation (Scriptures) and Scriptures reveal that both material
> (things or events within material space and time) and spiritual
> (reality beyond material space and time) realms exist. We observe the
> greatest incongruity between the religion and modern science because
> being influenced by orthodox tradition scientists embrace /empiricist
> This orthodox tradition also does not allow scientists to build their
> views on the basis of any divine revelation (scriptures) and thus
> scientific studies do not include any topics on soul, God and the
> eternal constitutional relationship between souls and God (devotion).
> On the other hand, all bonafide religions are based on divine
> revelation (Scriptures) and Scriptures reveal that both material
> (things or events within material space and time) and spiritual
> (reality beyond material space and time) realms exist. We observe the
> greatest incongruity between the religion and modern science because
> foundationalism/ and thus in science the divine revelation
> (Scriptures) is plainly rejected as mere fantasy.
We can create a religion around science, but we should not. We -
scientist - believe that the world around us can be known. I would also
bet that most of us thinks that it is our sacred (sic!) duty to know the
world around us. We can only ask Nature about nature. And this is what
we do with our limited set of tools (experimental science).
There is also a not often mentioned assumption in science: the higher
powers does not influence or have a constant influence on the things we
study. Thus it could be the will of Gods that things fall down toward
Earth, but this will is constant. Thus we can understand gravity.
In similar vein, one can understand how life came to be, and how it
diversified. The scientific study of the act of Creation is the study of
evolution.
A quote from Kenneth R. Miller is in order here: "What evolution tells
us is that we are part of a grand, dynamic, and ever-changing fabric of
life that covers our planet. Even to a person of faith, in fact
especially to a person of faith, an understanding of the evolutionary
process should only deepen their appreciation of the scope and wisdom of
the creator's work."
Now you have asked about how the natural sciences deal with topics of
God, souls, etc. My answer: nohow. This is your topic of expertise. The
scriptures are written by humans on "topics on soul, God and the eternal
constitutional relationship between souls and God" And if one wants to
understand humans and our relations with each other we should first go
to the accumulated wisdom we humanity have already gathered about
ourselves. The social sciences, psychology, humanities are all there to
continue these studies. Please note that while the scriptures
acknowledge the existence of matter, they contain very little about it.
Thus my proposal is: leave the study of the material world to natural
scientist. They know what they are doing.
We leave the study of soul, Gods and the relationship between these to
You. We keep in touch and we might converge in time (I bet it will take
quite some time, so it might not be in our time). How is that?
best wishes,
Ádám
Bruno Marchal
May 17, 2017, 6:16:39 AM5/17/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 16 May 2017, at 14:08, Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta wrote:
In one of the past postings on this group Dr. Dr. Ádám Kun asked a question “I kept on asking what is your problem with evolution, and you keep on not answering that question. How does evolution interfere with your faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?” and we have also sent reply for the same from one perspective. Serge Patlavskiy also said on the same thread “Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution may continue to be studied at schools and universities, however not as a theory, but as a hypothesis and together with other valid scientific hypotheses UNTILL a true theory of evolution is adopted by scientific community.” Here we want to emphasize that science is not sacrosanct and scientists should also answer the question: “Are scientific theories merely the collective opinions of scientists, or do such theories give us genuine knowledge of the real world?”
Science can never do that. We can't prove that there is a moon. But we can judge of the plausibility of this or that theory.
In the same thread Professor Priyadarshi Jetli also wrote “As for needing help from those who have higher knowledge, I do not like the authoritative tint you give it.” Among scientists we can often find a standard criticism of religion is that it leads to absurd consequences that no rational person would accept.
Wen a scientist critics religion, he might criticize some method. If he criticizes a content, he is doing religion himself. The problem in Occident is that the theological science are still forbidden in the academies. This means that we are still in the middle-age. Doubt and modesty is still feared by the "religious authorities", and, even worse, feared by the atheists who are anxious to let people understand that the roots of their beliefs is ... religious.
Scientists claim that by surrendering to religious wisdom, we abandon any stable notion of reality and place ourselves at the mercy of cultural biases, fanatical social groups, and power hungry tyrants who are more than happy to twist our conceptual frameworks to their benefits. However, scientists never even analyze how science can be free from this same criticism. We are also highlighting in this message the point that science itself is dependent on tradition and authority. If we can see in an unbiased vision then we can easily recognize that science practice also becomes a matter of customs that are imposed on us. Therefore, claims in science on fundamental aspect of reality do not deserve any special respect as portrayed in modern society and educational system.
Science is just a method. Scientists, very usually, confuse science, and their own religion. But that is just "bad science". Many scientists do bad science when they talk in a flied where they are not expert, and in theology, they are under the influence of 1500 years of argument by terror and violence.
Even though the seed of modern science can be traced back to the ancient Greek philosophy, in the modern time empirical sciences have superficially tried to follow a process of independence from philosophy which has never been achieved. Science cannot be independent of philosophy because scientific method itself is hermeneutically conditioned and its dependence on philosophy becomes more apparent when one reflects upon the teleologically conditioned aim of modern science. Both hermeneutical and teleological conditionings come from a particular tradition. Scientists simply presume that they can arrive at truth because they erect their conclusions on data they obtain through sensory perception. On the basis of this premise scientists criticize different subtle philosophical and religious claims because they strongly believe that their information originates from real rather than imaginary things. This conviction of scientists is inherently based on another implicit presupposition that real things are only those that can be accessed through gross sensory perception assisted by technological advancement. This adherence of scientific epistemology to empirical (Greek word empeiria means experience) conditioning in turn comes from teleological and hermeneutical conditionings. The entire scientific enterprise is based on scientists’ implicit presupposition of what real means and the ideas come into science from the side of the hermeneutical conditions of scientific methodology.Scientists will agree that they obtain information from two sources. The suggestions of previous studies help a new scientific research to identify a problem and a new scientific research cannot initiate itself by remaining completely independent of previous studies. This indicates that the progress of science is dependent on both empirical data and the suggestions of previous scientists. Thus scientific research is conditioned by both tradition and testing. Moreover, the ultimate goal (teleological conditioning) of modern science is to build a cosmology (an all comprehensive worldview) and this is exactly the goal of metaphysics and ontology that philosophy and religion try to address. Therefore, the difference between science, philosophy and religion is one of the method rather than aim. This common goal of science, philosophy and religion must be kept in mind when one deals with the questions on consciousness, origin of life, matter, biodiversity and universe.In the course of time, a myth of scientific rationality was developed from a continual uneasy atmosphere and the conflicts between Western science and religion, where scientists have started claiming that their scientific methods can produce the absolute universal truth about reality which religion and traditional philosophy cannot produce. However, in recent time scientists have gradually started to realize that the scientific method can only produce partial approximations and that scientific method is inapt to produce any absolute infallible truth. The progress of science is helping us realize that by utilizing scientific methods scientists can proceed for ever to erect increasingly so called truer (although problematic and improvable) rebuilding of reality. As Mario Bunge concludes:“Hence, science cannot have an ultimate goal, such as building a complete and flawless cosmology. The goal of science is rather the ceaseless perfecting of its chief products (theories) and means (techniques), as well as the subjection of more and more territory to its sway.”Scientists dealing with studies on consciousness, origin of life, origin of matter (majority of scientist simply presume that matter is primitive), origin of biodiversity, origin of universe and so on, should first recognize the need to consider the content and scope of science. The goal (teleological conditioning) of science demands that scientists must test their hypotheses with the empirical source of information. Empirical science can only be applied to any theory that can be tested empirically. The study of origin (of life, matter, biodiversity and universe) and the subtle subjects like mind, consciousness, soul, God, fulfillment and so on, is beyond the scope of limited methodology that modern science has adopted.Moreover, being influenced by scientific tradition, in science the conception, formulation, and advancement of hypotheses take place a priori and then scientists try to prove/disprove hypotheses by empirical testing. Previous scientific teaching helps scientists construct their hypotheses and thus the work of scientists is not solely a product of facts produced by nature but is also influenced by human reason. If we carefully analyze this scientific method then it appears that science take place within an orthodox tradition and this tradition subsumes (hermeneutical conditioning) all that scientists bring to scientific method.Conditioned by this orthodox tradition scientists simply presume that things or events that can be observed in space and time exist and can be taken as evidence on which to build scientific knowledge. This orthodox tradition also bestows a primary revelatory status to natural phenomena and in this tradition historical phenomena only play an assisting role in the revelatory process. Thus, scientists use testing hypotheses as the ultimate ground of scientific truth and it renders the best results only when applied to the recurring cycles of nature.This orthodox tradition also does not allow scientists to build their views on the basis of any divine revelation (scriptures) and thus scientific studies do not include any topics on soul, God and the eternal constitutional relationship between souls and God (devotion). On the other hand, all bonafide religions are based on divine revelation (Scriptures) and Scriptures reveal that both material (things or events within material space and time) and spiritual (reality beyond material space and time) realms exist. We observe the greatest incongruity between the religion and modern science because being influenced by orthodox tradition scientists embrace empiricist foundationalism and thus in science the divine revelation (Scriptures) is plainly rejected as mere fantasy.Being conditioned by orthodox tradition, majority of scientists never seriously doubt the foundationalist role conferred in science to empirical testing. On the other hand, even an elementary education in religious tradition helps the individuals to clearly understand the limits of empiricist foundationalism. Thus, scientists have no rational justification to dismiss the wisdom of Scriptures because the methods of religion and modern science appear to be mutually exclusive of one another.
I agree with many points you say. But it pertains on bad science. I like to say that in Occident, science is born in -500 with Pythagorus, and has disappear in +500 with Damascius. With the enlightenment Period, natural science has come back to academy, but the most fundamental science (theology) is still in the hand of "charlatan and authorities".
Now, using sacred text can be inspiring and can play some role, but they should never be taken as authorities. Science asks for personal inquiry, as independent as possible from anything else.
In the case of theology/religion, we should favor the personal mystical experience, and/or reports on them, and the attempt to rationally explain them in testable theories.
Best regards,
Bruno
Sincerely,
+91-(
9748906907)
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/444808804.492268.1494936480402%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Serge Patlavskiy
May 18, 2017, 7:04:04 AM5/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org> on May 16, 2017 wrote:
>... scientists should also answer the question: "Are scientific theories
>merely the collective opinions of scientists, or do such theories give
>us genuine knowledge of the real world?"
[S.P.] I hate to be a legislator myself, but I prefer to live and act in a lawful environment. My applied theory of appearance, development, and compatibility of intellectual products (or, the Applied ADC Theory for short) answers the questions what is a theory, what is a meta-theory, what is a hypothesis, what is a simple observation and description, in which they differ, how they relate, and many-many other questions.
Now then, the constitutive and determinative feature of a theory (as of intellectual product of a certain level) is possession of explanatory and predictive power. Simply speaking, a theory -- it is what explains something and predicts something. So, a theory is by no means just a "collective opinions of scientists".
In so doing, a theory provides not a "genuine knowledge of the real world", but an expedient knowledge, or the most adequate model of Noumenal Reality at this concrete historic moment of the development of Science and human civilization.
Kindly,
Serge Patlavskiy
From: Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:05 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
In
one
of the past postings on this group Dr. Dr. Ádám Kun asked a question “I kept on asking what is your problem with evolution,
and you keep on not answering that question. How does evolution interfere with
your faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?” and we
have also sent reply for the same from one perspective. Serge
Patlavskiy also said on the same thread “Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution may continue to be studied
at schools and universities, however not as a theory, but as a hypothesis and
together with other valid scientific hypotheses UNTILL a true theory of
evolution is adopted by scientific community.” Here we want to emphasize
that science is not sacrosanct and scientists should also answer the
question: “Are scientific theories merely the collective opinions of
scientists, or do such theories give us genuine knowledge of the real world?”
<abridged>
Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
May 18, 2017, 7:39:57 AM5/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Ádám Kun
Namaskar.
We should accept the simple
fact that science conditioned by an orthodox tradition will not guarantee that more
and more scientific advancement will budge towards truer understanding of
reality. This raises the question: Do science and religion differ in any
meaningful way when it comes to biases in processing information, or are both
all equally susceptible?
However, there are some clear
differences. Religion denial today is considerably more prominent on the scientific
right and this scenario is more evident if one surveys the field of scientific studies
dealing with the questions on consciousness, origin of life, matter,
biodiversity and universe. Most importantly, we can observe the fact that there
are psychological differences between the 'good science' and the 'bad science' that might
impact responses to the available empirical information. All available empirical
data shows that 1. Life comes from Life, 2. Matter comes from Life, 3. There is
no Macroevolution (dog comes from dog, cow comes from cow, ape comes from ape
and human comes from human) and so on. However, being conditioned by an
orthodox tradition majority of scientists are more rigid and authoritarian (authoritarian
nature of modern science is evident from its pro-materialistic agenda and a biased
peer-review process followed by scientific publications). On the other hand, genuine religionists/scientists are more tolerant and are ready to follow the evidence wherever it
may lead.
Scientists with a presumed
materialistic agenda in mind are endlessly engaged in motivated reasoning to
defend the status quo. Therefore, all we can currently bank on is the fact that
being conditioned by an orthodox tradition, the presumed materialistic stand of
scientists acts as blinders in the act of different scientific claims. Given
the power of scientists’ prior beliefs to skew how they respond to the empirical
data contradicting the prior beliefs, one thing is becoming clear: Scientists
are forced to assume dogmatism in their defense of presumed materialistic stand,
which obviously triggers a defensive, emotional reaction from those (it also includes
a small section of scientists) who are unwilling to attach themselves to this dogmatism.
Scientists often
confront empirical data that deeply challenges their belief in materialistic
stand but they discard the same with a subconscious negative response. Such a
response, in turn, guides the type of memories and associations formed in the
conscious mind of scientists. They only retrieve thoughts that are consistent
with their materialistic presumptions and that will lead them to build an
argument and challenge what they are actually observing. With such an attitude scientists
may think that they are reasoning but they may instead be rationalizing. In other
words, with such a framework scientists may think they are being scientists,
but they are actually being lawyers. As a stubborn follower of Darwin’s idea of
objective evolution of bodies you may argue that scientists push threatening
information away and they pull friendly information close because, according to
Darwin’s evolution concept we have to react very quickly to stimuli in our
environment. Darwinism encourages scientists to apply fight-or-flight reflexes
not only to predators, but to data itself. But, the question then becomes: How
can science overcome this fatal conditioning?
Modern scientific reasoning is a means to a predetermined end (establishing materialistic worldview at any cost) and is shot through with biases. That is not to suggest that there is no honest scientist who is motivated to perceive the world accurately. There are indeed a few prominent scientists who have changed their minds based on pure honest science practice. On the other hand, majority of scientific community have other important goals besides accuracy and often those make them highly resistant to changing their beliefs when the facts say they should. In other words, science should lead with the facts in order to remain trustworthy in a healthy society. Similarly, leaving aside any fanatic attitude, a true religion also should be ready to embrace science if it comes to them via an unbiased source, which can set the issue in the context of available empirical data than those from which biased scientists often argue. Doing so is, effectively, to signal a détente between science and religion.
Sincerely,
 | |
| +91-( | |
| #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India | |
 | |
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/6b8f06f0-1fd6-fbdd-f454-07e6831c4e04%40ludens.elte.hu.
Kun Ádám
May 18, 2017, 11:54:31 AM5/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Shanta,
and we know more and more about the world around us.
denied by scientist. Scientist are but a tiny minority of the populace.
Science is under siege. You yourself do it. You blamed science for
pollution, evil, greed, etc. But these come from how humans deal with
the world, and not from science. Nudging people toward good behaviour
should be the aim of religions. We leave it to them. Science deals with
mother Nature.
but then that does not say too much about either Life or Matter. (3) Is
also nonsense. Macroevolution is a proven fact of Life on Earth. We see
the product of macroevolution all around us. Us included. We descended
from apes. It is clear from our biology.
> However, being conditioned by an orthodox tradition majority of
> scientists are more rigid and authoritarian (authoritarian nature of
> modern science is evident from its pro-materialistic agenda and a
> biased peer-review process followed by scientific publications). On
> the other hand, genuine religionists/scientists are more tolerant and
> are ready to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
Do you really think that religious people on average are tolerant?
materialistic world view? (and in the end I think we have a very
different notion of what this materialistic world view is. For me it is
just that we can study matter and know something about matter, or maybe
a bit about how the universe works. Hermetic tradition is just like
that. As above, so below.) Physics works. Chemistry works. Biology
works. Even evolution works. We were able to evolve fantastic crops and
animals to help and feed humanity.
> As a stubborn follower of Darwin’s idea of objective evolution of
> bodies you may argue that scientists push threatening information away
> and they pull friendly information close because, according to
> Darwin’s evolution concept we have to react very quickly to stimuli in
> our environment. Darwinism encourages scientists to apply
> fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.
>
I have never encountered this flight response. See, I'm still here
helping you to understand evolution.
best wishes,
Ádám
> We should accept the simple fact that science conditioned by an
> orthodox tradition will not guarantee that more and more scientific
> advancement will budge towards truer understanding of reality.
You might accept that. I do not. I frankly believe that science advanced
> orthodox tradition will not guarantee that more and more scientific
> advancement will budge towards truer understanding of reality.
and we know more and more about the world around us.
> However, there are some clear differences. Religion denial today is
> considerably more prominent on the scientific right and this scenario
> is more evident if one surveys the field of scientific studies dealing
> with the questions on consciousness, origin of life, matter,
> biodiversity and universe.
Science is often denied by religious people. Religion is not that much
> considerably more prominent on the scientific right and this scenario
> is more evident if one surveys the field of scientific studies dealing
> with the questions on consciousness, origin of life, matter,
> biodiversity and universe.
denied by scientist. Scientist are but a tiny minority of the populace.
Science is under siege. You yourself do it. You blamed science for
pollution, evil, greed, etc. But these come from how humans deal with
the world, and not from science. Nudging people toward good behaviour
should be the aim of religions. We leave it to them. Science deals with
mother Nature.
> Most importantly, we can observe the fact that there are psychological
> differences between the 'good science' and the 'bad science' that
> might impact responses to the available empirical information. All
> available empirical data shows that 1. Life comes from Life, 2. Matter
> comes from Life, 3. There is no Macroevolution (dog comes from dog,
> cow comes from cow, ape comes from ape and human comes from human) and
> so on.
(1) Is true. (2) Is nonsense, except if you define life as everything,
> differences between the 'good science' and the 'bad science' that
> might impact responses to the available empirical information. All
> available empirical data shows that 1. Life comes from Life, 2. Matter
> comes from Life, 3. There is no Macroevolution (dog comes from dog,
> cow comes from cow, ape comes from ape and human comes from human) and
> so on.
but then that does not say too much about either Life or Matter. (3) Is
also nonsense. Macroevolution is a proven fact of Life on Earth. We see
the product of macroevolution all around us. Us included. We descended
from apes. It is clear from our biology.
> However, being conditioned by an orthodox tradition majority of
> scientists are more rigid and authoritarian (authoritarian nature of
> modern science is evident from its pro-materialistic agenda and a
> biased peer-review process followed by scientific publications). On
> the other hand, genuine religionists/scientists are more tolerant and
> are ready to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
> Scientists often confront empirical data that deeply challenges their
> belief in materialistic stand but they discard the same with a
> subconscious negative response.
What empirical evidence exist that somehow does not comfort with our
> belief in materialistic stand but they discard the same with a
> subconscious negative response.
materialistic world view? (and in the end I think we have a very
different notion of what this materialistic world view is. For me it is
just that we can study matter and know something about matter, or maybe
a bit about how the universe works. Hermetic tradition is just like
that. As above, so below.) Physics works. Chemistry works. Biology
works. Even evolution works. We were able to evolve fantastic crops and
animals to help and feed humanity.
> As a stubborn follower of Darwin’s idea of objective evolution of
> bodies you may argue that scientists push threatening information away
> and they pull friendly information close because, according to
> Darwin’s evolution concept we have to react very quickly to stimuli in
> our environment. Darwinism encourages scientists to apply
> fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.
>
helping you to understand evolution.
best wishes,
Ádám
Shafiq Khan
May 18, 2017, 11:54:31 AM5/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear All,
Paradigm of science is so framed that it is biased towards materialism and there just cannot be any explanation of consciousness and immaterial soul under the adopted paradigm of physical & biological sciences. Some members are trying to explain consciousness under Quantum Mechanics whereas nobody knows what wave-function represents and it in no case could represent consciousness and anything connected with it. Wave-function at the most represents the wave characteristics of the electromagnetic wave-motion of light/radiation. It would be pure wastage of time to explain consciousness through materialistic science.
The foundation of materialistic modern physical science was laid in 1887 when Maxwell's aether was rejected. Having shown that aether was erroneously rejected the door for existence of immaterial substances opens. Consciousness has to be because of interaction of some immaterial substance with the material body of the living organisms. For details you will have to read https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/adopted-paradigm-physics-incorrect-shafiq-khan?trk=prof-post and free book at https://www.slideshare.net/mohammadshafiqkhan1/natural-world-order-the-islamic-thought.
With Best Regards
Mohammad Shafiq Khan
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/6b8f06f0-1fd6-fbdd-f454-07e6831c4e04%40ludens.elte.hu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1462315689.599089.1495106866189%40mail.yahoo.com.
Serge Patlavskiy
May 18, 2017, 4:32:16 PM5/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Adam Kun <kun...@ludens.elte.hu> on May 18, 2017 wrote:
>Macroevolution is a proven fact of Life on Earth. We see
>the product of macroevolution all around us. Us included.
>We descended from apes. It is clear from our biology.
[S.P.] First. What we see around us is that every living organism, to stay alive, must be expediently evolved. It seems that every living organism is satisfied with what it is now and it (me including) shows no interest to "evolve" into other species.
Second. Our (human) biology tells us that, anatomically, we are the closest relatives with pigs. But, this notwithstanding, I want to congratulate you on that the apes are your personal predecessors. May I know which apes in particular? What about Darwinian idea that the humans and apes could have had a common ancestry? As I see, you disagree with this idea? I have used the modal word "could" because there are still no ancient fossils found.
When the coelacanth was found alive and kicking, many evolutionists must have gone out of their mind at that very moment. Instead, there are a lot of fossilized remnants of gigantic humans found all over the globe. These remnants are being stubbornly ignored by academic community.
Third. What do you think about the hypothesis of involution which holds that, in fact, the hominids descend from humans, but not vice versa?
Fourth. What do you think about the idea that the human races are the results of exquisite genetic experiments performed in pre-ancient times by some highly developed civilization in laboratories situated on different continents? This same pertains to such plants as wheat, maize, soya, etc. -- they could not in principle appear in result of selection from wild predecessors.
Fifth. What do you think about my idea that the natural selection is always a conscious selection? I mean that every organism is able to make a conscious choice whom to mate.
Sixth. What do you think about the evolution of consciousness? My approach is that for a living organism to stay alive, it must possess the expediently evolved and necessarily potent exemplar of consciousness. All the living organisms are "equal" in the sense that they all are alive. The exemplars of consciousness of all possible living organisms are "equal" in the sense that these all exemplars are expediently evolved and necessarily potent.
Seventh. What do you think about my idea that we have to consider simultaneously three theories --1) the theory of the origin of life and consciousness; 2) the theory of consciousness; and 3) the theory of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems -- for these theories to possess necessary explanatory and predictive power? I mean that whatever theory of evolution we construct, it will not be a theory until we construct another two theories as well.
And, finally, I would much like to know your opinion concerning the ideas I have expressed in my post on April 23, 2017. I case you have missed it, it is here:
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy
From: Kun Ádám <kun...@ludens.elte.hu>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
Dear Dr. Shanta,
> Most importantly, we can observe the fact that there are psychological
> differences between the 'good science' and the 'bad science' that
> might impact responses to the available empirical information. All
> available empirical data shows that 1. Life comes from Life, 2. Matter
> comes from Life, 3. There is no Macroevolution (dog comes from dog,
> cow comes from cow, ape comes from ape and human comes from human) and
> so on.
(1) Is true. (2) Is nonsense, except if you define life as everything,
but then that does not say too much about either Life or Matter. (3) Is
also nonsense. Macroevolution is a proven fact of Life on Earth. We see
the product of macroevolution all around us. Us included. We descended
from apes. It is clear from our biology.
<abridged>
Ádám Kun
May 19, 2017, 4:51:17 AM5/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Serge,
>
>
> [S.P.] First. What we see around us is that every living organism, to
> stay alive, must be expediently evolved. It seems that every living
> organism is satisfied with what it is now and it (me including) shows
> no interest to "evolve" into other species.
Have you ever heard wishes like: Wish I could fly! Wish I could go on
with much less sleep! Or eat as much as I want and still stay thin, grow
muscles without going to the gym, etc. Indeed we very much want to
become another species.
available for anatomical studies than apes. Pigs do not have hands for
example, apes do.
I do not understand your next 2 questions. The common ancestor of
humans, chimps and bonobos were a species disctinct from all three and
taxonomically belonged to apes (Hominoidea). As for fossils, there are
some that could have been one of those common ancestor. Check Orrorin
tugenensis and Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Albeit jungles and woody
savannas are not very good for fossilization.
the higher mental facilities we display. Civilization can collapse, but
we won't go back to the trees munching leaves.
some aliens just push the problem of evolution of life and intelligence
to another place. It does not solve the problem. Is Earth such a bad
place that life cannot form here, or that intelligent life cannot
emerge? What is missing? In what kind of environment did those aliens
evolved?
me this word means something deliberate, something I ponder on for a
while and then give an answer. The answer I give here are conscicious
efforts. Mate choice have quite some elements that are subconscious.
Many here just use the word consciousness as a synonym for "able to
react to the environment". As organism live in the environment, they
have to be able to react to it in order to stay alive.
not have predictive and explanatory power. Why? Give an example of a
theory (from any disciple) that have according to your definition.
best wishes,
Ádám
>
>
> [S.P.] First. What we see around us is that every living organism, to
> stay alive, must be expediently evolved. It seems that every living
> organism is satisfied with what it is now and it (me including) shows
> no interest to "evolve" into other species.
with much less sleep! Or eat as much as I want and still stay thin, grow
muscles without going to the gym, etc. Indeed we very much want to
become another species.
>
> Second. Our (human) biology tells us that, anatomically, we are the
> closest relatives with pigs. But, this notwithstanding, I want to
> congratulate you on that the apes are your personal predecessors. May
> I know which apes in particular? What about Darwinian idea that the
> humans and apes could have had a common ancestry? As I see, you
> disagree with this idea? I have used the modal word "could" because
> there are still no ancient fossils found.
Noone told that we are anything like a pig. Pigs are just generally more
> Second. Our (human) biology tells us that, anatomically, we are the
> closest relatives with pigs. But, this notwithstanding, I want to
> congratulate you on that the apes are your personal predecessors. May
> I know which apes in particular? What about Darwinian idea that the
> humans and apes could have had a common ancestry? As I see, you
> disagree with this idea? I have used the modal word "could" because
> there are still no ancient fossils found.
available for anatomical studies than apes. Pigs do not have hands for
example, apes do.
I do not understand your next 2 questions. The common ancestor of
humans, chimps and bonobos were a species disctinct from all three and
taxonomically belonged to apes (Hominoidea). As for fossils, there are
some that could have been one of those common ancestor. Check Orrorin
tugenensis and Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Albeit jungles and woody
savannas are not very good for fossilization.
>
> When the coelacanth was found alive and kicking, many evolutionists
> must have gone out of their mind at that very moment. Instead, there
> are a lot of fossilized remnants of gigantic humans found all over the
> globe. These remnants are being stubbornly ignored by academic community.
What is the problem with the coelacanth?
> When the coelacanth was found alive and kicking, many evolutionists
> must have gone out of their mind at that very moment. Instead, there
> are a lot of fossilized remnants of gigantic humans found all over the
> globe. These remnants are being stubbornly ignored by academic community.
>
> Third. What do you think about the hypothesis of involution which
> holds that, in fact, the hominids descend from humans, but not vice versa?
I do not think that we can "unevolve" our ability for language and all
> Third. What do you think about the hypothesis of involution which
> holds that, in fact, the hominids descend from humans, but not vice versa?
the higher mental facilities we display. Civilization can collapse, but
we won't go back to the trees munching leaves.
>
> Fourth. What do you think about the idea that the human races are the
> results of exquisite genetic experiments performed in pre-ancient
> times by some highly developed civilization in laboratories situated
> on different continents? This same pertains to such plants as wheat,
> maize, soya, etc. -- they could not in principle appear in result of
> selection from wild predecessors.
The idea of origin of life on other planet, or genetic experiments by
> Fourth. What do you think about the idea that the human races are the
> results of exquisite genetic experiments performed in pre-ancient
> times by some highly developed civilization in laboratories situated
> on different continents? This same pertains to such plants as wheat,
> maize, soya, etc. -- they could not in principle appear in result of
> selection from wild predecessors.
some aliens just push the problem of evolution of life and intelligence
to another place. It does not solve the problem. Is Earth such a bad
place that life cannot form here, or that intelligent life cannot
emerge? What is missing? In what kind of environment did those aliens
evolved?
>
> Fifth. What do you think about my idea that the natural selection is
> always a conscious selection? I mean that every organism is able to
> make a conscious choice whom to mate.
I do not prefer the broad definition of consciousness adpoted here. For
> Fifth. What do you think about my idea that the natural selection is
> always a conscious selection? I mean that every organism is able to
> make a conscious choice whom to mate.
me this word means something deliberate, something I ponder on for a
while and then give an answer. The answer I give here are conscicious
efforts. Mate choice have quite some elements that are subconscious.
Many here just use the word consciousness as a synonym for "able to
react to the environment". As organism live in the environment, they
have to be able to react to it in order to stay alive.
>
> Sixth. What do you think about the evolution of consciousness? My
> approach is that for a living organism to stay alive, it must possess
> the expediently evolved and necessarily potent exemplar of
> consciousness. All the living organisms are "equal" in the sense that
> they all are alive. The exemplars of consciousness of all possible
> living organisms are "equal" in the sense that these all exemplars are
> expediently evolved and necessarily potent.
>
> Seventh. What do you think about my idea that we have to consider
> simultaneously three theories --1) the theory of the origin of life
> and consciousness; 2) the theory of consciousness; and 3) the theory
> of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems -- for these
> theories to possess necessary explanatory and predictive power? I mean
> that whatever theory of evolution we construct, it will not be a
> theory until we construct another two theories as well.
>
> And, finally, I would much like to know your opinion concerning the
> ideas I have expressed in my post on April 23, 2017. I case you have
> missed it, it is here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/online_sadhu_sanga/0UAN-0Gpr4o/Qndwndi8CwAJ
>
I did read it and were puzzled that you think that evolution theory does
> Sixth. What do you think about the evolution of consciousness? My
> approach is that for a living organism to stay alive, it must possess
> the expediently evolved and necessarily potent exemplar of
> consciousness. All the living organisms are "equal" in the sense that
> they all are alive. The exemplars of consciousness of all possible
> living organisms are "equal" in the sense that these all exemplars are
> expediently evolved and necessarily potent.
>
> Seventh. What do you think about my idea that we have to consider
> simultaneously three theories --1) the theory of the origin of life
> and consciousness; 2) the theory of consciousness; and 3) the theory
> of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems -- for these
> theories to possess necessary explanatory and predictive power? I mean
> that whatever theory of evolution we construct, it will not be a
> theory until we construct another two theories as well.
>
> And, finally, I would much like to know your opinion concerning the
> ideas I have expressed in my post on April 23, 2017. I case you have
> missed it, it is here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/online_sadhu_sanga/0UAN-0Gpr4o/Qndwndi8CwAJ
>
not have predictive and explanatory power. Why? Give an example of a
theory (from any disciple) that have according to your definition.
best wishes,
Ádám
Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
May 20, 2017, 5:07:18 AM5/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Serge Patlavskiy
Namaskar.
Thank you for expressing
your sincere observations.
Through theories scientists try to provide explanations
of why different events occur and in contrast empirical generalizations merely encapsulate
a specific set of observations. Scientists try to derive support for theory based
upon empirical data and the years of training received in an orthodox
scientific tradition helps scientists develop the faith that this methodology
will gradually lead them towards truer understanding of reality.
In modern science, scientists come up with different theories about reality, which are nothing but
a set of empirically falsifiable abstract statements of scientists. Thus, in
plain words, theories are nothing but stories concocted by different individual
subjects (scientists) that can be falsified by observation. Scientists unreservedly
reject all the theistic explanations of scriptures from different religions but
they are happily embracing the endless materialistic stories of different
individual subjects (scientists). Scientists suppose to rely upon observations
collected in a manner that is as unbiased as possible but on the contrary what
we are actually witnessing is that the wholesale goal of entire scientific
enterprise is to establish a presumed materialistic view of reality. This
biased goal of modern science gives the impression that as if scientific
theories are merely the collective opinions of scientists. What is the
scientific basis for this deliberately presumed goal of science?
Scientists also cannot
explain what constitutes sense data and how one can acquire pure sense data
that is not influenced by the personality, experience, and preconceived ideas
of the scientist. Scientists are thinking beings and the sense data that they
collect can never be free from their own thinking. Observation is an endeavor
of a human subject and it is always affected by values and bias. Scientific
methodology itself is self contradictory because nothing is observed directly
by the senses and all observations are distilled through the experiences and
biases of scientists who interpret the sense data gathered by their gross
senses. Scientists being brainwashed by an orthodox tradition maintain
different non-scientific notions about religion but they never want to realize
that this very non-scientific notion (presumed materialistic stand) is in fact
integral part and foundation of the actual practice of modern science. Thus, it
is a plain fact that modern science is far from true reality and the very
methodology that it has adopted ensures that science MUST be based upon stories
that in principle can be falsified by observation.
Scientists mainly try
to reduce all observations to their basic components of sense data which in turn
results in an attempt to reduce all statements ad infinitum to some fundamental
building block of reality. Being subjective, understanding of reality, however,
is always bound to reflect only abstractions drawn from sense data. Scientists may
try to reduce a blade of grass in description to the nature of its atomic
structure but the blade of grass is an abstraction of these building blocks.
All the description possible, from now until eternity, of the basic building
blocks of the blade of grass never will equal "blade of grass" until
the scientist (observer) calls this collection of building blocks a blade of grass, thereby
creating the abstract concept: blade of grass.
Scientific tradition simply
presumes that the capacity of theories to be falsified by observation as the vital
element of science that sets it apart from religion. However, majority in
scientific community simply ignore the fact that theories can in principle be falsified
only if truth can be verified. The study of origin (of life, matter,
biodiversity and universe) and the subtle subjects like mind, consciousness,
soul, God, fulfillment and so on, is beyond the scope of this limited
methodology that modern science has adopted. Scientists every moment experience
different subjective experiences but they cannot build theories on this
subjective reality because they cannot prove/disprove anything about the subjective
realm. Moreover, if we analyze different studies in the modern science then it
raises the ambiguity about: whether the hypothesis is an outcome of scientific research
or it is the hypothesis that drives the scientific research. If the goal of modern
science is merely the ceaseless perfecting of its chief products (theories) and
means (techniques), and that it can never know Absolute Truth then a true
falsification will never be achievable. Thus the prime objective of true
science (search for truth) is greatly compromised by the conditioning imposed
by the orthodox scientific tradition. Scientists cannot ascertain a fixed set
of rules for verification for everything and thus science becomes a human
enterprise, which is subject to the dynamics of other human enterprises. If we
think carefully, we cannot give a special credibility to the epistemology of
science that sets it apart from religious epistemology. Moreover, the
boundaries of the epistemology used in science are well studied in religion. Thus,
modern science does not have any scientific credibility to challenge the
logical arguments of religion (also assisted by empirical evidence: life comes
from life and matter comes from life; logically => God (first life) is the
original source and basis of the entire reality) about the existence of God.
Sincerely,
| |
| +91-( | |
| #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India | |
| |
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/319191711.294631.1495071510125%40mail.yahoo.com.
Ádám Kun
May 20, 2017, 8:47:53 PM5/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Shanta,
The problem with most holy scripts is that they tell next to nothing
about the natural world. They can be very explicit about human
relations, human interactions, etc. But what do they tell us about
electricity, gravity, black holes, viruses, the diversification of life,
etc.? The Bible in Genesis says that God has created plants, and then
fishes, birds, mammals, etc. Fine. But we want to know how it was done.
Thus scientist pursue the origin of life and how evolution explain the
diversification of life. Does it contradict the scripts? I do not think so.
"Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the
land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."
So it is the land, created earlier, that produces the plants. How is
that different from seeking the origin of life (plants included) comming
from inorganic material, unfolding on mineral surfaces?
You question our ability to fully sense the world objectively. Your are
right. This is why we repeat the experiments. If all of our subjective
sense tells us the same, then that is the closes we can have as
objective. I think it is still better than relying only on script that
have been penned by a human being. Even if he or she was listening to
the words of the Gods, his senses are subjective and thus whatever
he/she penned down is as much subjec to subjectivity as the senses of
the scientist.
I do not think that your methods of getting knowledge is that much
different from ours. We are asking questions. From each other at first,
but then from Nature. Who else to ask? If we want to know more about
Nature then we need to ask Her. Our senses can get into the way. But we
hope that if we keep on asking, and devise better and better ways of
listening to the answer, we will hear the full answer. That is the
Ultimate Truth you are seeking.
best wishes,
Ádám
The problem with most holy scripts is that they tell next to nothing
about the natural world. They can be very explicit about human
relations, human interactions, etc. But what do they tell us about
electricity, gravity, black holes, viruses, the diversification of life,
etc.? The Bible in Genesis says that God has created plants, and then
fishes, birds, mammals, etc. Fine. But we want to know how it was done.
Thus scientist pursue the origin of life and how evolution explain the
diversification of life. Does it contradict the scripts? I do not think so.
"Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the
land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."
So it is the land, created earlier, that produces the plants. How is
that different from seeking the origin of life (plants included) comming
from inorganic material, unfolding on mineral surfaces?
You question our ability to fully sense the world objectively. Your are
right. This is why we repeat the experiments. If all of our subjective
sense tells us the same, then that is the closes we can have as
objective. I think it is still better than relying only on script that
have been penned by a human being. Even if he or she was listening to
the words of the Gods, his senses are subjective and thus whatever
he/she penned down is as much subjec to subjectivity as the senses of
the scientist.
I do not think that your methods of getting knowledge is that much
different from ours. We are asking questions. From each other at first,
but then from Nature. Who else to ask? If we want to know more about
Nature then we need to ask Her. Our senses can get into the way. But we
hope that if we keep on asking, and devise better and better ways of
listening to the answer, we will hear the full answer. That is the
Ultimate Truth you are seeking.
best wishes,
Ádám
Serge Patlavskiy
May 20, 2017, 10:39:13 PM5/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Adam Kun <kun...@ludens.elte.hu> on May 19, 2017 wrote:
>Pigs do not have hands for example, apes do.
[S.P.] Sorry, but I expected to hold this discussion on "a bit" higher analytical level.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy
From: Ádám Kun <kun...@ludens.elte.hu>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
--
Ádám Kun
May 21, 2017, 7:50:16 AM5/21/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Serge,
So you want me to make a list of anatomical features that makes it clear
that pigs are not our closes relatives while apes are? I have chosen
hands, not just because that is obvious, and hands with opposable thumb
is a characteristic we share with Old Word monkeys (apes included). But
pigs are members of the Artiodactyla, even-toed ungulates, their
defining characteristic is the hoofed leg with the 3rd and the 4th
fingers holding their weight. So this characteristic (hand vs. hoofed
leg) is something we share with our close relatives. We find no hands
among the even toed ungulates and we do not find hoofs among the apes
(not even the primates as a whole).
Or should I also list the lack of tail, which is something specific to
the apes (Hominoidea). Pigs do have tails.
Pigs are used in medical science for practice, as they are of comparable
size to humans and widely available. Apes are a slow growing and
endangered species, and while they would be a better candidate to train
doctors on / do medical research, they are just too similar to us to kill.
The fact that a species not very close to us in the mammalian
phylogenetic tree is still this similar proves a common ancestry. We are
both part of the Boreoeutheria branch of the placental mammals which
evolved in the northern supercontinent as opposed to the Atlantogenatha
which evolved on the southern supercontinent. Pigs are in the
Laurasiatheria clade (insectivores, whales, ungulates, carnivores, bats,
etc.), primates are in the Euarchontoglies clade (rodents, rabbits,
primates, etc.).
best wishes,
Ádám
> -
> Adam Kun <kun...@ludens.elte.hu> on May 19, 2017 wrote:
> >Pigs do not have hands for example, apes do.
>
> [S.P.] Sorry, but I expected to hold this discussion on "a bit" higher
> analytical level.
>
> Best,
> Serge Patlavskiy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Ádám Kun <kun...@ludens.elte.hu>
> *To:* Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Friday, May 19, 2017 11:50 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21msg/online_sadhu_sanga/0UAN-0Gpr4o/Qndwndi8CwAJ>
So you want me to make a list of anatomical features that makes it clear
that pigs are not our closes relatives while apes are? I have chosen
hands, not just because that is obvious, and hands with opposable thumb
is a characteristic we share with Old Word monkeys (apes included). But
pigs are members of the Artiodactyla, even-toed ungulates, their
defining characteristic is the hoofed leg with the 3rd and the 4th
fingers holding their weight. So this characteristic (hand vs. hoofed
leg) is something we share with our close relatives. We find no hands
among the even toed ungulates and we do not find hoofs among the apes
(not even the primates as a whole).
Or should I also list the lack of tail, which is something specific to
the apes (Hominoidea). Pigs do have tails.
Pigs are used in medical science for practice, as they are of comparable
size to humans and widely available. Apes are a slow growing and
endangered species, and while they would be a better candidate to train
doctors on / do medical research, they are just too similar to us to kill.
The fact that a species not very close to us in the mammalian
phylogenetic tree is still this similar proves a common ancestry. We are
both part of the Boreoeutheria branch of the placental mammals which
evolved in the northern supercontinent as opposed to the Atlantogenatha
which evolved on the southern supercontinent. Pigs are in the
Laurasiatheria clade (insectivores, whales, ungulates, carnivores, bats,
etc.), primates are in the Euarchontoglies clade (rodents, rabbits,
primates, etc.).
best wishes,
Ádám
> -
> Adam Kun <kun...@ludens.elte.hu> on May 19, 2017 wrote:
> >Pigs do not have hands for example, apes do.
>
> [S.P.] Sorry, but I expected to hold this discussion on "a bit" higher
> analytical level.
>
> Best,
> Serge Patlavskiy
>
> *From:* Ádám Kun <kun...@ludens.elte.hu>
> *To:* Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Friday, May 19, 2017 11:50 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science
Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
May 21, 2017, 11:13:13 AM5/21/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Kun Ádám
Namaskar.
Thank you for your reply and here is our point by point response.
KÁ: You
might accept that [science conditioned by an orthodox tradition will not guarantee that more and more scientific advancement will budge towards truer understanding of reality.]. I do not. I frankly believe that science advanced and
we know more and more about the world around us.”
Reply: Any rational person will appreciate the frank belief of others on honest science practice but there is no rational justification to maintain one's frank belief on bad science which is conditioned by a presumed materialistic stand.
Following a reductionist approach we can come up with more and more
stories (molecular description) about a ‘blade of grass’ (world is a far claim) but that does not
mean that we are advancing towards a truer understanding of a ‘blade of grass’. The
evidence collected by only direct sense perception and inference is always
liable to be affected by the presumed notions that scientists cultivate under
the influence of an orthodox scientific tradition. Hence, we cannot deny that there is also a possibility
that in modern science we are eternally getting engaged in a mere
misunderstanding of different things due to our unwillingness to explore the unscientific nature of conditioning
that the orthodox scientific tradition is imposing on its practitioners.
KÁ: Science
is often denied by religious people. Religion is not that much denied by scientist.
Scientist are but a tiny minority of the populace. Science is under siege. You
yourself do it. You blamed science for pollution, evil, greed, etc. But
these come from how humans deal with the world, and not from science.
Nudging people toward good behaviour should be the aim of religions. We
leave it to them. Science deals with mother Nature.
Reply: A mere repetition of spurious claims
(Science is often denied by religious
people. Religion is not that much denied by scientist. Scientist are but a tiny minority of the populace.
Science is under siege.)
do not make them credible. A true religionist will not deny the scientific claims that are made on honest science practice. But the practice of bad science (conditioned by a presumed materialistic stand) should be condemned on a rational basis by both honest scientists and religionists. Science is not under siege but ‘honest science practice’ is under
siege and James A. Shapiro explains the same in Boston Review:
“we are just on the threshold of a new
way of thinking about living organisms and their variations. Nonetheless, these
questions serve to illustrate the potential for addressing the deep issues of
evolution from a radically different scientific perspective. Novel ways of
looking at longstanding problems have historically been the chief motors of
scientific progress. However, the potential for new science is hard to find in
the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest
in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be
expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's
remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our
world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be
scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of
inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and
assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the
Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a
science.”
A materialistic world
view in an orthodox scientific tradition does not have solutions for the problems
that it has created in the form of pollution, evil, greed, and so on, because it thrives
on denial of religion which comes with whole tradition of moral teaching. Following an arrogant mood that materialistic science encourages, scientists believe that they must subdue nature, penetrate its secrets and chain it to satisfy their desires. People educated in science do not see environment as a worshipable divine gift of God. The relationship between man and nature is completely dependent on the type of attitude one cultivates with the help of education. Even though
scientists are tiny minority of the populace, the widespread teaching of their misconceptions
affect how people think about themselves as spiritual beings, and thus it
influences the way they think about such concerns as abortion, euthanasia,
bioethics in research and medicine, cloning, genetic modification of food,
animal rights, environmental problems and so on. You have stated “Nudging people toward good behaviour should
be the aim of religions. We leave it to them. Science deals with mother Nature.”
and we also agree that science itself does not have any scientific methodology for cultivating
good behaviour even among scientists. The notion of good in materialistic (exploitative)
world view is completely opposite to that of religious (dedication to
absolute) world view. Therefore, a scientific critique of modern science’s own
presumed materialistic world view is also very much essential.
KÁ: (1) [Life comes from Life] Is true. (2) [Matter comes from Life] Is nonsense, except if you define life as everything, but then
that does not say too much about either Life or Matter. (3) [There is no Macroevolution] Is also
nonsense. Macroevolution is a proven fact of Life on Earth. We see the
product of macroevolution all around us. Us included. We descended from
apes. It is clear from our biology.
Reply: As you have agreed that 'Life comes from Life' and hence you are inherently accepting the logical conclusion of this principle that life is primitive and reproductive of itself. Science itself is struggling to
come up with precise definitions for life and matter, but conflicting
definition is not the main issue of discussion here. The complex molecules, DNA, proteins, and so on are not found lying around in nature but only in living organic bodies. The bodies of living organisms themselves are physical but do not exist as such in nature without the life principle they are built on. In this sense we can say that matter comes from life. Hence life is the basis of both life and matter. Being nurtured by an
orthodox scientific tradition you have never doubted your own unflinching faith on “Life
came from Matter – abiogenesis” idea but against empirically verifiable observation you have irrationally called
the “Matter comes from Life” view as nonsense. What is the rational justification for this stand of yours? In one
of your past replies you have told “Please
bear in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. I.e. the
fact that we cannot do macroevolutionary experiment because of time constraints
does not disprove the theory. Indirect evidence in the fossil record proves
that macroevolution works. Why do you think that it does not?” You are ready to accept
macroevolution (human being came from ape, etc.) on the basis of misinterpretations taught to you by an orthodox scientific tradition but you are leveling nonsense tag to the empirically verifiable
fact that there is no macroevolution (biology disproves macroevolution: ape comes
from ape and human comes from human, etc.). Someone who has no knowledge about the process
of origin of different vehicles may look at a junkyard of different defunct vehicles
and it is very much possible that like fossil record based claims of evolutionists about macroevolution, he/she can strongly believe that the body of one vehicle
evolved from another and can construct different stories about ‘tree of vehicles’.
Like the procedure followed by evolutionists, it is not that difficult to produce a vast amount of biased scientific literature to support the concept of ‘tree of vehicles’,
but should we accept this practice as a genuine scientific process?
KÁ: Do
you really think that religious people on average are tolerant?
Reply: The subjective qualities like humility, tolerance and giving honour to others (without aspiring any honour for oneself) are divine qualities and they cannot come to us by a mere imitation. There is a proper process that one must undergo to develop these qualities. It is true that we may come across the practitioners of science and religion, who are not that tolerant, but that is not the problem of real science or religion. We may find dishonesty is prevalent
among the so called followers of science/religion and that does not mean that science/religion
is meant for dishonesty. As a honest follower of genuine science/religion one should try to understand the real goal of science/religion
and thus he/she should try sincerely to attain that goal.
KÁ: What
empirical evidence exist that somehow does not comfort with our materialistic
world view? (and in the end I think we have a very different notion of
what this materialistic world view is. For me it is
just that we can study matter and know something about matter, or maybe a bit about how the universe works. Hermetic tradition is just like that. As above, so below.) Physics works. Chemistry works. Biology
works. Even evolution works. We were able to evolve fantastic crops and animals to help and feed humanity.
Reply: You can take “Life comes from Life”
and “Matter comes from Life” as valid empirical evidence that does not support materialistic
world view of modern science, which is based on the presumption that “Life came
from Matter”. Crops and animals are not a product of evolution. During the entire history of human civilization, plant cultivators and animal breeders employed the method of selection to those individual organisms as breeding stock, which had the desired characteristics suiting the breeders’ requirement. So this selection process requires some genuine intelligence. This ‘selection’ process of a breeder is a subjective process and it thus represents an ‘external teleology’. However, in contrast, Darwin had simply taken the idea of ‘selection’ from animal breeders and plant cultivators, and had misrepresented it in his concept of evolution. Darwin’s ‘natural selection’ is a disingenuous attempt to replace teleology with a mechanistic principle, because, unlike a breeder, there is no apparent ‘self’ in the ‘environmental conditions’ that will perform this subjective task of ‘selection’. As you have confirmed that "we [human beings] were able to evolve fantastic crops and animals to help and feed humanity" and thus unintentionally you have emphasized that nature cannot do that type of selection.
KÁ: I
have never encountered this flight response. See, I'm still here helping
you to understand evolution.
Reply: I have asked you in one
of my past replies: “About the
views of scientists under www.thethirdwayofevolution.com you have told “Did they ever question the basics of evolution...?” Please elaborate what are those
basics of evolution.”
But unfortunately, you have only displayed a flight response and you have never answered my question. By
overcoming the influence of Darwinian evolution, can you explain what are the basics of evolution?
Sincerely,
| |
| +91-( | |
| #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India | |
| |
Dear Dr. Shanta,
> We should accept the simple fact that science conditioned by an
> orthodox tradition will not guarantee that more and more scientific
> advancement will budge towards truer understanding of reality.
You might accept that. I do not. I frankly believe that science advanced
and we know more and more about the world around us.
> However, there are some clear differences. Religion denial today is
> considerably more prominent on the scientific right and this scenario
> is more evident if one surveys the field of scientific studies dealing
> with the questions on consciousness, origin of life, matter,
> biodiversity and universe.
> considerably more prominent on the scientific right and this scenario
> is more evident if one surveys the field of scientific studies dealing
> with the questions on consciousness, origin of life, matter,
> biodiversity and universe.
Science is often denied by religious people. Religion is not that much
denied by scientist. Scientist are but a tiny minority of the populace.
Science is under siege. You yourself do it. You blamed science for
pollution, evil, greed, etc. But these come from how humans deal with
the world, and not from science. Nudging people toward good behaviour
should be the aim of religions. We leave it to them. Science deals with
mother Nature.
denied by scientist. Scientist are but a tiny minority of the populace.
Science is under siege. You yourself do it. You blamed science for
pollution, evil, greed, etc. But these come from how humans deal with
the world, and not from science. Nudging people toward good behaviour
should be the aim of religions. We leave it to them. Science deals with
mother Nature.
> Most importantly, we can observe the fact that there are psychological
> differences between the 'good science' and the 'bad science' that
> might impact responses to the available empirical information. All
> available empirical data shows that 1. Life comes from Life, 2. Matter
> comes from Life, 3. There is no Macroevolution (dog comes from dog,
> cow comes from cow, ape comes from ape and human comes from human) and
> so on.
(1) Is true. (2) Is nonsense, except if you define life as everything,
but then that does not say too much about either Life or Matter. (3) Is
also nonsense. Macroevolution is a proven fact of Life on Earth. We see
the product of macroevolution all around us. Us included. We descended
from apes. It is clear from our biology.
> differences between the 'good science' and the 'bad science' that
> might impact responses to the available empirical information. All
> available empirical data shows that 1. Life comes from Life, 2. Matter
> comes from Life, 3. There is no Macroevolution (dog comes from dog,
> cow comes from cow, ape comes from ape and human comes from human) and
> so on.
(1) Is true. (2) Is nonsense, except if you define life as everything,
but then that does not say too much about either Life or Matter. (3) Is
also nonsense. Macroevolution is a proven fact of Life on Earth. We see
the product of macroevolution all around us. Us included. We descended
from apes. It is clear from our biology.
> However, being conditioned by an orthodox tradition majority of
> scientists are more rigid and authoritarian (authoritarian nature of
> modern science is evident from its pro-materialistic agenda and a
> biased peer-review process followed by scientific publications). On
> the other hand, genuine religionists/scientists are more tolerant and
> are ready to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
> scientists are more rigid and authoritarian (authoritarian nature of
> modern science is evident from its pro-materialistic agenda and a
> biased peer-review process followed by scientific publications). On
> the other hand, genuine religionists/scientists are more tolerant and
> are ready to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
Do you really think that religious people on average are tolerant?
> Scientists often confront empirical data that deeply challenges their
> belief in materialistic stand but they discard the same with a
> subconscious negative response.
> belief in materialistic stand but they discard the same with a
> subconscious negative response.
What empirical evidence exist that somehow does not comfort with our
materialistic world view? (and in the end I think we have a very
different notion of what this materialistic world view is. For me it is
just that we can study matter and know something about matter, or maybe
a bit about how the universe works. Hermetic tradition is just like
that. As above, so below.) Physics works. Chemistry works. Biology
works. Even evolution works. We were able to evolve fantastic crops and
animals to help and feed humanity.
materialistic world view? (and in the end I think we have a very
different notion of what this materialistic world view is. For me it is
just that we can study matter and know something about matter, or maybe
a bit about how the universe works. Hermetic tradition is just like
that. As above, so below.) Physics works. Chemistry works. Biology
works. Even evolution works. We were able to evolve fantastic crops and
animals to help and feed humanity.
> As a stubborn follower of Darwin’s idea of objective evolution of
> bodies you may argue that scientists push threatening information away
> and they pull friendly information close because, according to
> Darwin’s evolution concept we have to react very quickly to stimuli in
> our environment. Darwinism encourages scientists to apply
> fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.
>
> bodies you may argue that scientists push threatening information away
> and they pull friendly information close because, according to
> Darwin’s evolution concept we have to react very quickly to stimuli in
> our environment. Darwinism encourages scientists to apply
> fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.
>
I have never encountered this flight response. See, I'm still here
helping you to understand evolution.
best wishes,
Ádám
>
>
>
helping you to understand evolution.
best wishes,
Ádám
>
>
>
NYIKOS, PETER
May 21, 2017, 5:06:46 PM5/21/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
In answer to your last question, Dr. Shanta:
The basics of evolution are that there has been a tremendous number of profound changes in the bodies of animals (also other living things, but let's focus on animals), especially over the last 500 million years, including the successful invasion of land by descendants of animals who had no capability of even walking on land.
It is unquestioned by competent biologists that evolution as described is a phenomenon that involves changes between parents and offspring accumulating over the eons, and that this genealogy is like the family trees we draw for us humans, except on a vaster scale and involving "single parenting" of one species giving rise to one or more others.
We can argue about the causes of these changes, and the extent to which spiritual influences were involved, but I think it is best to view evolution in this way to minimize confusion about what it is we are talking about.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
The basics of evolution are that there has been a tremendous number of profound changes in the bodies of animals (also other living things, but let's focus on animals), especially over the last 500 million years, including the successful invasion of land by descendants of animals who had no capability of even walking on land.
It is unquestioned by competent biologists that evolution as described is a phenomenon that involves changes between parents and offspring accumulating over the eons, and that this genealogy is like the family trees we draw for us humans, except on a vaster scale and involving "single parenting" of one species giving rise to one or more others.
We can argue about the causes of these changes, and the extent to which spiritual influences were involved, but I think it is best to view evolution in this way to minimize confusion about what it is we are talking about.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [online_sa...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta [b...@scsiscs.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 10:39 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 10:39 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
--
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1618053531.3290411.1495377581713%40mail.yahoo.com.
Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
May 22, 2017, 11:12:25 AM5/22/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Professor Peter Nyikos
Namaskar.
Thank you for explaining the basics of evolution.
You have told: “It is unquestioned by
competent biologists that evolution as described is a phenomenon that involves
changes between parents and offspring accumulating over the eons”
However, prominent biologists under www.thethirdwayofevolution.com
do question the gradualist model that is considered as the basics of evolution.
For example, James A. Shapiro states in his book Evolution:
A View from the 21st Century that:
“Conventional
evolutionary theory made the simplifying assumption that inherited novelty was
the result of chance or accident. Darwin theorized that adaptive change resulted
from natural selection applied to countless random small changes over long
periods of time. In Chapter 6 of Origin
of Species, he wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ
existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,
slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out
no such case” [1]. His neo-Darwinist followers took the same kind of black-box approach
in the pre-DNA era by declaring all genetic change to be accidental and random
with respect to biological function or need.”
He had emphasized the fact that nature does not follow a gradualist
model:
“The advent
of molecular genetics and genome sequencing was a major step forward in
evolutionary science. Examining the DNA record made it possible to subject traditional
evolution theories to rigorous empirical testing. Do the sequences of
contemporary genomes fit the predictions of change by “numerous, successive, slight
variations,” as Darwin stated [1], or do they contain evidence of other, more
abrupt processes, as numerous other thinkers had asserted [644, 685–687] [643,
688]? The data are overwhelmingly in favor of the saltationist school that postulated
major genomic changes at key moments in evolution. Only by restricting their
analyses to certain classes of genomic DNA, such as homologous protein coding
sequences, can conventional evolutionists apply their gradualist models.
Moreover, we will see from genome sequencing that protein evolution itself
often proceeds in relatively large steps. Contrary to the views of Linnaeus and
Darwin, nature does indeed make leaps, and we now have molecular evidence of
how some leaps occurred.”
His book highlights the fact that “life requires cognition at all
levels” and thus Prof. Shapiro stated in the book:
“The
contemporary concept of life forms as self-modifying beings coincides with the
shift in biology from a mechanistic to informatic view of living organisms. One
of the great scientific ironies of the last century is the fact that molecular
biology, which its pioneers expected to provide a firm chemical and physical
basis for understanding life, instead uncovered powerful sensory and
communication networks essential to all vital processes, such as metabolism,
growth, the cell cycle, cellular differentiation, and multicellular
morphogenesis.”
You have also told “this genealogy is like the
family trees we draw for us humans, except on a vaster scale and involving
"single parenting" of one species giving rise to one or more others.”, and
we would like to bring to your notice that scientists are reporting about the
concept of “web of life” since last one decade, which refutes the oversimplified
concept of ‘tree of life’. You may like to read: Darwin’s
“tree of life”, which shows how species are related through evolutionary
history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists.
Evolutionary biologists could not establish a scientifically
verifiable relationship between microevolution (adaptation) and macroevolution
(the development of complex organs). We can observe microevolution both in
nature and in the laboratory experiments as well. On the other hand, biologists
speculate that macroevolution cannot be witnessed because it occurs over
intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. Moreover, following a reductionist
mindset they simply presume that macroevolution is reducible to microevolution
and they do not provide any scientific justification for this presumption that macroevolutionary
phenomena can be fully explained by microevolutionary processes. Patterns
observed in the fossil record do not substantiate the presumption that macroevolution
is indeed reducible to microevolution. All macroevolutionary generalizations that
scientists provide are mere derivative of microlevel theory and initial
conditions. Hence, there is no distinctive body of macroevolutionary theory. A mere
belief (macroevolution is reducible to microevolution) without any scientific
justification is the major source of conflict between how science and religion view
the origin of different living forms. Under the guidance of Sripad Bhakti
Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. we are trying to highlight how Vedānta offers a
way of resolving this issue, and the proposal of Vedānta is ripe for reevaluation
in the light of recent research.
In congruence with empirical observation (an immanent miraculous subjective
process within a single cell zygote produces varieties of cells and organs that
are necessary for different functions in the body of a particular species), Vedāntic
view advocates that different forms originate from the ādi-puruṣa or primeval personal Absolute (first life) by
a miraculous developmental process, and in the reflected material sphere, the
various species of life are subject to a developing principle of evolution of
consciousness. To understand living organisms, biologists may dissect the body
of a living organism into muscles, organs, bones, nerves, molecules and atoms.
The practitioner of that type of analysis may only gain certain useful new
information but those smallest parts will never provide all the answers that
are necessary for understanding life as a whole. Similarly, an extensive study on
microevolution (adaptation) can only tell us about how an organism adapts to
its environment and it cannot reveal any real knowledge about the appearance of
different organs of varieties of organisms that we find on our Earth. The
complex molecules like proteins, DNA, RNA, enzymes and so on that we find
within a cell are not an outcome of mere mutation of simple inorganic matter. The
cell is not an outcome of mutation or mere accumulation of complex molecules like
proteins, DNA, RNA, enzymes and so on. Similarly, the nerves, bones, organs, muscles
and bodies of different multicellular organisms are not an outcome of mutations
of zygotes. The complex molecules like proteins, DNA, RNA, enzymes and so on that
we find within a cell are an outcome of a wholistic organic developmental
process. Similarly, cell comes from another cell by a wholistic organic developmental
process and the bodies of multicellular organisms appear from a single cell
zygote by a wholistic organic developmental process. It is empirically
verifiable that a miraculous wholistic organic developmental process is the
cause of appearance of all these things. Yet, a naive framework adopted by
biologists simply ignores this direct empirical observable miraculous creative
power of the wholistic organic developmental process and to explain evolution
they simply invoke some superstition about the creative power of mutation,
recombination, gene flow, drift, natural selection, local interaction among
species and so on. Hence, there is a need for critical reevaluation of the
simplistic presumptions that are made in the evolutionary biology to provide
different speculative explanations about the origin of life and different living
forms. Scientists also must consider the possibility that a miraculous wholistic
organic developmental process can indeed be the cause for the appearance of different
living forms that we witness on our Earth.
Sincerely,
| |
| +91-( | |
| #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India | |
| |
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/956F056B71785C498214DC8208A55634780DB05A%40CAE145EMBP04.ds.sc.edu.
kun...@ludens.elte.hu
May 22, 2017, 12:06:58 PM5/22/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Shanta,
Prof. Nyikos has not wrote the world "gradual", thus please do not
criticize him based on that. Changes small or large are still changes
between parent and offspring.
>
>
Indeed there are horizontal gene transfers which makes phylogeny not
like a tree in matemathics, i.e. there could be circles in the graph.
However treelike phylogeny is still fine on the species level,
especially for higher organism like mammals.
best wishes,
Ádám
Prof. Nyikos has not wrote the world "gradual", thus please do not
criticize him based on that. Changes small or large are still changes
between parent and offspring.
> You have told: “It is unquestioned by competent biologists that
> evolution as described is a phenomenon that involves changes between
> parents and offspring accumulating over the eons”
>
> evolution as described is a phenomenon that involves changes between
> parents and offspring accumulating over the eons”
>
> You have also told “this genealogy is like the family trees we draw
> for us humans, except on a vaster scale and involving "single
> parenting" of one species giving rise to one or more others.”, and we
> would like to bring to your notice that scientists are reporting about
> the concept of “web of life” since last one decade, which refutes the
> oversimplified concept of ‘tree of life’. You may like to read:
> Darwin’s “tree of life”, which shows how species are related through
> evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to
> leading scientists
> <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life>.
> for us humans, except on a vaster scale and involving "single
> parenting" of one species giving rise to one or more others.”, and we
> would like to bring to your notice that scientists are reporting about
> the concept of “web of life” since last one decade, which refutes the
> oversimplified concept of ‘tree of life’. You may like to read:
> Darwin’s “tree of life”, which shows how species are related through
> evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to
> leading scientists
>
>
Indeed there are horizontal gene transfers which makes phylogeny not
like a tree in matemathics, i.e. there could be circles in the graph.
However treelike phylogeny is still fine on the species level,
especially for higher organism like mammals.
best wishes,
Ádám
priyedarshi jetli
May 22, 2017, 12:07:34 PM5/22/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Shanta,
A very detailed account. My worry is that you may be jumping from a criticism of a theory to the rejection of it. Theories develop over time, over centuries really. The theory of evolution has gone through revision and evolution itself and many of the earlier hypotheses have been rejected or revised. There may still be major problems as Shapiro points out. This does not however mean that the theory should be rejected. If there is a competing theory, then it will have to be compared to the theory of evolution in its plausibility and explanatory coherence. If this alternative theory has as wide a domain that the theory of evolution covers and provides a better explanation and can also be supported by archaeological evidence, then indeed it should be accepted and the theory of evolution rejected. Scientific theories are always falsifiable and open to rejection when a better falsifiable theory enters the ring. But it cannot be replaced by an unfalsifiable or infallible theory. We must indeed look at Vedanta and get some insights, but I doubt that any biologist, Indian or Western would accept that a developed theory of origins of life that can be rigorously formalized exists in the Vedanta. The same goes for the Bible. Of course I do not know much about biology but we could consult someone like Sahotra Sarkar on this.
Priyedarshi
From: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com [online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta [b...@scsiscs.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 10:39 AM
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/956F056B71785C498214DC8208A55634780DB05A%40CAE145EMBP04.ds.sc.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1916639178.4164387.1495462721224%40mail.yahoo.com.
priyedarshi jetli
May 22, 2017, 1:15:32 PM5/22/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Shanta,
I think you are conflating revision with replacement. All scientific theories are open to revision it does not mean that whenever any particular part of the theory has a problem then the whole theory should be rejected and replaced but rather that it should be revised. This is how scientific theories evolve. The theory of gravitation has some problems so it needs to be revised. It does not mean that it should be rejected and replaced by a theory which says that there is some unseen force in the center of each planet that causes gravitation. Even if a theory is to be rejected if the problems it cannot handle are too grave, then there should be a theory to replace it, or at least a beginning of a theory that will replace it. I am sounding like Thomas Kuhn here but I do not mean to.
Priyedarshi
best wishes,
Ádám
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1b96ba0b-9a3b-e50f-f87a-c06f5828edce%40elte.hu.
BMP
May 22, 2017, 1:15:42 PM5/22/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear thoughtful friends,
Namaste. The article linked below sort of pulls out the plug for those who think it is all only electricity,
Why Brain Scientists Are Still Obsessed With The Curious Case Of Phineas Gage
Why Brain Scientists Are Still Obsessed With The Curious Case Of Phineas Gage
In 1848, a railroad worker survived an accident that drove a 13-pound iron bar through his head. The injury chan...
|
Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
May 22, 2017, 8:22:50 PM5/22/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Kun Ádám
Namaskar.
Please note that I have only tried to present the scientific facts from the recent developments in biology and I have not criticized Prof. Peter Nyikos. Adaptive changes cannot explain anything about the macroevolution because we do not have a scientifically verifiable relationship between microevolution (adaptation) and macroevolution (the development of complex organs).
We cannot comment at present on "Mammal Family Tree" because it is contentious and it is still rapidly evolving (subjective evolution) in the minds of biologists and geologists. You can read an interesting article "The Refined, Fine-Tuned Placental Mammal Family Tree" where it explains that the concocted "Tree" from molecular data is not in agreement with the "Tree" erected based on anatomical data.
Sincerely,
| |
| +91-( | |
| #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India | |
| |
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1b96ba0b-9a3b-e50f-f87a-c06f5828edce%40elte.hu.
Venkataramanaiah Chekuru
May 23, 2017, 8:21:34 AM5/23/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/157862485.3793442.1495473084487%40mail.yahoo.com.
priyedarshi jetli
May 23, 2017, 8:21:34 AM5/23/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Refinements and revisions of a theory are generally from within the theory as it seems to be the case here. The refinements will not introduce Adam and Eve along the way.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1b96ba0b-9a3b-e50f-f87a-c06f5828edce%40elte.hu.For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/89661826.4741883.1495497068364%40mail.yahoo.com.
con...@howgravityworks.org
May 23, 2017, 8:21:34 AM5/23/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
It is curious and I had never heard the Gage story. I had worked in a rehab hospital for 11 years that
had a floor dedicated to Traumatic Brain Injury. I had witnessed the behavior described after Gage's injury
in a small number of patients in rehab for TBI. It is apparent that it depends on the area of the brain affected.
There are a few YouTube videos about Phineas Gage;
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Why Brain Scientists Are Still Obsessed With The
Curious Case Of Phineas Gage
From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M.
Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Mon, May 22, 2017 1:11 pm
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com"
<Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Dear thoughtful friends,Namaste. The article linked below sort of pulls out the plug for those who think it is all only electricity,Why Brain Scientists Are Still Obsessed With The Curious Case Of Phineas Gage
Why Brain Scientists Are Still Obsessed With The Curious Case Of Phineas Gage
In 1848, a railroad worker survived an accident that drove a 13-pound iron bar through his head. The injury chan...
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/157862485.3793442.1495473084487%40mail.yahoo.com.
Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
May 23, 2017, 11:56:24 AM5/23/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Professor Priyadarshi Jetli ji
Namaskar.
You might be surprised to know that molecular biology had already introduced
“Mitochondrial Eve
hypothesis” a long time back, which assumes that in humans all mitochondrial
DNA (mtDNA) can only be passed from mother to offspring without any
recombination. Based on this unverified assumption, the Mitochondrial Eve
hypothesis explains that mtDNA in every living person has directly descended
from a hypothetical woman called Eve (named after Biblical Eve). According to this hypothesis all present humans came
from Mitochondrial Eve. Thus biologists simply assume that mtDNA is passed intact
from great-grandmother to grandmother to mother to daughter with virtually no
input from males. In such assumption there is no mixing, no blending of
father’s and mother’s genes and the reason for such assumption is that mixing
can jumble, complicate, and thus obscure the history of mtDNA. It is a general
notion that paternal leakage is prevented in sexual reproduction because
paternal mitochondria within the sperm are dynamically destroyed by the egg
cell after fertilization. However, evidence has started challenging this commonly
accepted concept. Some studies report that the tail of the sperm, which have
extra mtDNA, can successfully enter the egg. Numerous studies also report
paternal mtDNA inheritance in animals, for example in the case of Mytilidae,
sheep,
Drosophila
simulans and so on. These empirical observations directly invalidate the
assumption that mtDNA is only passed down along the matrilineal line. In 2008 an
invited review in Molecular Ecology
also highlighted the presence of paternal leakage, recombination and
heteroplasmy and its impact on analyses based on mtDNA:
“The power of mtDNA analyses derives from a relatively high mutation
rate and the apparent simplicity of mitochondrial inheritance (maternal,
without recombination), which has simplified modelling population history
compared to the analysis of nuclear DNA. However, in biology things are seldom
simple, and advances in DNA sequencing and polymorphism detection technology
have documented a growing list of exceptions to the central tenets of
mitochondrial inheritance, with paternal leakage, heteroplasmy and
recombination now all documented in multiple systems. The presence of paternal
leakage, recombination and heteroplasmy can have substantial impact on analyses
based on mtDNA, affecting phylogenetic and population genetic analyses,
estimates of the coalescent and the myriad of other parameters that are
dependent on such estimates. Here, we review our understanding of mtDNA
inheritance, discuss how recent findings mean that established ideas may need
to be re-evaluated, and we assess the implications of these new-found
complications for molecular ecologists who have relied for decades on the
assumption of a simpler mode of inheritance.”
Hence, till date mtDNA analysis cannot explain who the human
mitochondrial ancestor is: Adam, Eve or both.
The main point to note is that based on their confidence that
evolution can be explained purely by the genealogical/genomic record,
biologists have now started proclaiming that fossil record is inadequate and
unreliable (please refer: A
Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes).
Still many respected journals (for example the Nature article “Fossil
algae hold clues to origin of modern photosynthesis”) continue to publish
articles on fossil evidence to support Darwinian evolution. As we have
explained in our earlier message that the “tree of life” from various data
contradict each other, but being adamant on their claims the scientists constructing “tree of life” concocted from different sources of data run into trouble again
and again. Hence, scientists are vulnerable to what they call confirmation
bias—the tendency to look for and see only evidence that confirms what they
already believe. Yet, common public is unaware about this naive science
practice that goes on in the modern science to support the ideological stand and
propagate a materialistic view.
It is not surprising that gullible public simply accept whatever
stories different scientists narrate about different things because our lives
are permeated by science and technology as never before. We subsist in an age
where all comportment of religious wisdom—from the good moral standards and cultivation
of good subjective qualities among individuals in society to the concept of dedication
(devotion) to Absolute Truth (God)—faces organized and often furious
opposition. Empowered by their own beliefs that scientists have cultivated under
an orthodox scientific tradition and their own stories (interpretations) about
reality, scientists have declared war on the religious wisdom. We are witnessing
so much of disharmony among science and religion these days, which may force
someone think that a diabolical agency had put something in the water to create
this conflict among scientists and religionists. Even the hardcore scientific
literature in the form of books, articles, and academic conferences show a clear
trend where an increasing number of honest scientists (who have not allowed
themselves to be conditioned by a presumed materialistic stand that the
orthodox scientific tradition impose on its practitioners) have raised serious doubts
on the credibility of biased science practice that we witness in the modern
science. Many of these sincere scientists (as I have given the example of Prof.
James A. Shapiro) often express that, due to a biased stand that modern science
adopts, the credibility of science now faces risks that scientists cannot easily
analyze and increasingly the situation is becoming more complicated and sometimes
unnerving.
At a tender age innocent students are asked to accept, for example,
that Man is simply an enclosed membrane of chemicals because, the majority of
scientists believe the same under the influence of biased scientific tradition.
On the contrary there is zero evidence to support the presumption that life can
be produced from matter and we all know that even a blade of grass is inconceivable
for physicochemical methods which are foundation of modern science. It is very
clear that with a presumed materialistic view in mind, by a mass propaganda, scientists
have deliberately tried to undermine the religious wisdom and public’s understanding
of the consensus about spiritual nature of life. In this bewildering situation the
thoughtful scholars have to decide what to believe and how to act on that. In
principle true science is meant to decide whether what we choose to believe has
a basis in the laws of nature or not. However, this truthful attitude that honest
science practice demands do not come naturally to most science practitioners
because they are conditioned by an orthodox tradition. Under the influence of such
conditioned state majority of scientific community has trouble digesting the
facts of complex reality and their minds search for simple pattern and meaning
of reality. Scientists love to debunk one another but it is quite amazing to
witness that hundreds of scientists from all over the world only work to substantiate
a presumed materialistic stand. Modern science crackles with real and imaginary
claims, and distinguishing the former from the latter is not easy for common gullible
public. Even when majority of scientists out of compulsion accept many of these
precepts of science, they subconsciously cling to the question: “where it is a
honest science practice?” True science warns us, however, that we can deceive
ourselves.
Sincerely,
| |
| +91-( | |
| #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India | |
| |
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+ unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ 89661826.4741883. 1495497068364%40mail.yahoo.com .
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfD4FbXeUKt0h6TCLHJ9toGtb31%3D0FtutS%2BVY1YLYwuLVA%40mail.gmail.com.
Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
May 23, 2017, 4:04:33 PM5/23/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Professor Priyadarshi Jetli ji
Namaskar.
Method of hypothesis seems to be useful for one who is unaware of what one is searching for with a place to begin, a hypothesis to examine, when no knowledgeable person is any longer to be traceable. Even though you are serving as a professor (authority) and teaching students to
help them learn from your experience in the philosophical studies, please explain
why you think that learning from one who knows should be abandoned. To have a
fruitful discussion (on your view that method of Platonism is comparable to the methodology
followed by modern science), can you broach the two fundamental features of classical Platonism: method of recollection
and hypothesis?
Sincerely,
| |
| +91-( | |
| #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India | |
| |
On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:51:32 AM UTC+5:30, pjetli wrote:
Bhakti Niskama Shanta,Any theory, any perspective, any world view is open to criticism. And this is good, otherwise we would become stagnant. However, every theory being open to criticism does not mean that every theory is equally plausible. Theory of evolution and Creationism are both open to criticism and have been criticized but this does not mean that both are equally implausible and should be rejected. Rather, accepting or rejecting a theory will be based on some rigorous procedures. Plato had a very nice methodological tool called 'second best hypothesis'. According to this, whatever the accepted theory or hypothesis is, which is better than all the alternative theories of hypotheses on the subject matter, can be accepted tentatively as the second best hypothesis. This means that the search for the best hypothesis that will replace the second best hypothesis continues. Once this is found, then again, this becomes the second best hypothesis. Popper's perspective in philosophy of science and approximate truth is inspired by this Platonic methodology. I do not know if scientists themselves operate in this manner. Sometimes it seems like they do not. This is because they spend their whole life working on a theory and their passion for it leads them to believe that it is the ultimate: "The Grand Unified Theory of Evverything" or something like that. This is understandable. But observing the progress of science from outside it seems to follow more Plato's "second best hypothesis" methodology. Relition is of course different in this regard and this methodology does not apply to it,as far as I know.PriyedarshiOn Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:39 PM, priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com> wrote:Bhakti Niskama Shanta,Scientists criticising religion may be like Sachin Tendulkar telling Roger Federer how to play tennis. But the same goes for Religious critique of science. My statement about authority stands. Whether it is religion or science whenever something is stated and held on to only the basis of authority and the attitude that others should follow it blindly, then it leaves no room for debate or dissent. It is up to each individual to decide whether scientists have tendencies to become autocratic or religious leaders.So far I have not had any scientist tell me that I must accept their theories because they are the ultimate truth. However, I have had religious leaders tell me that I must accept spirituality and supreme consciousness as it has been revealed to the enlightened.PriyedarshiOn Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org> wrote:In one of the past postings on this group Dr. Ádám Kun asked a question “I kept on asking what is your problem with evolution, and you keep on not answering that question. How does evolution interfere with your faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?” and we have also sent reply for the same from one perspective. Serge Patlavskiy also said on the same thread “Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution may continue to be studied at schools and universities, however not as a theory, but as a hypothesis and together with other valid scientific hypotheses UNTILL a true theory of evolution is adopted by scientific community.” Here we want to emphasize that science is not sacrosanct and scientists should also answer the question: “Are scientific theories merely the collective opinions of scientists, or do such theories give us genuine knowledge of the real world?” In the same thread Professor Priyadarshi Jetli also wrote “As for needing help from those who have higher knowledge, I do not like the authoritative tint you give it.” Among scientists we can often find a standard criticism of religion is that it leads to absurd consequences that no rational person would accept. Scientists claim that by surrendering to religious wisdom, we abandon any stable notion of reality and place ourselves at the mercy of cultural biases, fanatical social groups, and power hungry tyrants who are more than happy to twist our conceptual frameworks to their benefits. However, scientists never even analyze how science can be free from this same criticism. We are also highlighting in this message the point that science itself is dependent on tradition and authority. If we can see in an unbiased vision then we can easily recognize that science practice also becomes a matter of customs that are imposed on us. Therefore, claims in science on fundamental aspect of reality do not deserve any special respect as portrayed in modern society and educational system.
Even though the seed of modern science can be traced back to the ancient Greek philosophy, in the modern time empirical sciences have superficially tried to follow a process of independence from philosophy which has never been achieved. Science cannot be independent of philosophy because scientific method itself is hermeneutically conditioned and its dependence on philosophy becomes more apparent when one reflects upon the teleologically conditioned aim of modern science. Both hermeneutical and teleological conditionings come from a particular tradition. Scientists simply presume that they can arrive at truth because they erect their conclusions on data they obtain through sensory perception. On the basis of this premise scientists criticize different subtle philosophical and religious claims because they strongly believe that their information originates from real rather than imaginary things. This conviction of scientists is inherently based on another implicit presupposition that real things are only those that can be accessed through gross sensory perception assisted by technological advancement. This adherence of scientific epistemology to empirical (Greek word empeiria means experience) conditioning in turn comes from teleological and hermeneutical conditionings. The entire scientific enterprise is based on scientists’ implicit presupposition of what real means and the ideas come into science from the side of the hermeneutical conditions of scientific methodology.Scientists will agree that they obtain information from two sources. The suggestions of previous studies help a new scientific research to identify a problem and a new scientific research cannot initiate itself by remaining completely independent of previous studies. This indicates that the progress of science is dependent on both empirical data and the suggestions of previous scientists. Thus scientific research is conditioned by both tradition and testing. Moreover, the ultimate goal (teleological conditioning) of modern science is to build a cosmology (an all comprehensive worldview) and this is exactly the goal of metaphysics and ontology that philosophy and religion try to address. Therefore, the difference between science, philosophy and religion is one of the method rather than aim. This common goal of science, philosophy and religion must be kept in mind when one deals with the questions on consciousness, origin of life, matter, biodiversity and universe.In the course of time, a myth of scientific rationality was developed from a continual uneasy atmosphere and the conflicts between Western science and religion, where scientists have started claiming that their scientific methods can produce the absolute universal truth about reality which religion and traditional philosophy cannot produce. However, in recent time scientists have gradually started to realize that the scientific method can only produce partial approximations and that scientific method is inapt to produce any absolute infallible truth. The progress of science is helping us realize that by utilizing scientific methods scientists can proceed for ever to erect increasingly so called truer (although problematic and improvable) rebuilding of reality. As Mario Bunge concludes:“Hence, science cannot have an ultimate goal, such as building a complete and flawless cosmology. The goal of science is rather the ceaseless perfecting of its chief products (theories) and means (techniques), as well as the subjection of more and more territory to its sway.”Scientists dealing with studies on consciousness, origin of life, origin of matter (majority of scientist simply presume that matter is primitive), origin of biodiversity, origin of universe and so on, should first recognize the need to consider the content and scope of science. The goal (teleological conditioning) of science demands that scientists must test their hypotheses with the empirical source of information. Empirical science can only be applied to any theory that can be tested empirically. The study of origin (of life, matter, biodiversity and universe) and the subtle subjects like mind, consciousness, soul, God, fulfillment and so on, is beyond the scope of limited methodology that modern science has adopted.Moreover, being influenced by scientific tradition, in science the conception, formulation, and advancement of hypotheses take place a priori and then scientists try to prove/disprove hypotheses by empirical testing. Previous scientific teaching helps scientists construct their hypotheses and thus the work of scientists is not solely a product of facts produced by nature but is also influenced by human reason. If we carefully analyze this scientific method then it appears that science take place within an orthodox tradition and this tradition subsumes (hermeneutical conditioning) all that scientists bring to scientific method.Conditioned by this orthodox tradition scientists simply presume that things or events that can be observed in space and time exist and can be taken as evidence on which to build scientific knowledge. This orthodox tradition also bestows a primary revelatory status to natural phenomena and in this tradition historical phenomena only play an assisting role in the revelatory process. Thus, scientists use testing hypotheses as the ultimate ground of scientific truth and it renders the best results only when applied to the recurring cycles of nature.This orthodox tradition also does not allow scientists to build their views on the basis of any divine revelation (scriptures) and thus scientific studies do not include any topics on soul, God and the eternal constitutional relationship between souls and God (devotion). On the other hand, all bonafide religions are based on divine revelation (Scriptures) and Scriptures reveal that both material (things or events within material space and time) and spiritual (reality beyond material space and time) realms exist. We observe the greatest incongruity between the religion and modern science because being influenced by orthodox tradition scientists embrace empiricist foundationalism and thus in science the divine revelation (Scriptures) is plainly rejected as mere fantasy.Being conditioned by orthodox tradition, majority of scientists never seriously doubt the foundationalist role conferred in science to empirical testing. On the other hand, even an elementary education in religious tradition helps the individuals to clearly understand the limits of empiricist foundationalism. Thus, scientists have no rational justification to dismiss the wisdom of Scriptures because the methods of religion and modern science appear to be mutually exclusive of one another.
priyedarshi jetli
May 24, 2017, 3:13:58 AM5/24/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Shanta,
I am not a biologists so I will let the biologists respond. But if I understand you, you are saying that our heart, liver, etc. all evolved from the eye (Eve's eye). This seems quite implausible to me. My point however continuously is the same. Just because there are problems, even hard problems with the theory of evolution it does not call for abandoning it. It calls for revising it. Even if there is a call for abandoning it, it does not mean that any theory whatsoever can replace it. We need to check the plausibility, consistency and explanatory power of the theory. But you are just not getting this point I am afraid. How the theory of evolution should be taught in school is another matter. I believe that children should never be taught anything in a doctrinaire manner, including religion of course. They should be introduced to alternative theories and be able to debate them without being dogmatic. Even Vedanta that you keep appealing to is dynamic and open to many interpretations by the scholars of Vedanta itself. So just pushing the Bhaktivedanta perspective as the correct one would be dogmatic but it should be introduced of course to children for their introspection. A critical mind can never be dismissive of anything nor dogmatic. But you have already passed judgment on my poor education because I show sensitivity to the use of language in changing times.
Priyedarshi
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfD4FbXeUKt0h6TCLHJ9toGtb31%3D0FtutS%2BVY1YLYwuLVA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/534027181.476278.1495554074246%40mail.yahoo.com.
Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
May 25, 2017, 12:35:21 PM5/25/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Professor Priyadarshi Jetli ji
Namaskar.
You
have told “I am not a biologists so I will let
the biologists respond. But if I understand you, you are saying that our heart,
liver, etc. all evolved from the eye (Eve's eye). This seems quite implausible
to me.” On
contrary to what
you have claimed earlier, the first line of your reply indicates that you
accept the authority of biologists
and you feel that they indeed have some knowledge which they can give to others.
We have never told that all the organs evolved from eye and your this view is very close to the claims of evolutionists who claim that all the different organs
and all biological forms evolved from an inorganic simple matter. They invoke
superstition about the creative power of mutation to justify their claim. From
your words it seems that you think this claim of biologists is implausible and we
agree with you on this.
We are challenging the objective evolution and the superstitious
belief about the creative power of mutation. We are proposing that life
displays a mystical wholistic organic developmental process (the process that produces:
different complex biomolecules in a cell, a cell from another cell and the whole
body from a single cell zygote) which can indeed create all these inconceivable
organs and living forms. We have already stated in our previous reply that
the complex biomolecules that we find in cells are not an outcome of mutation
of simple inorganic matter and same is true for cells, different organs and
living forms. We are empirically witnessing that the complex biomolecules, living
cells, different organs and living forms all manifest by the mystical wholistic
organic developmental process. Why biologists or anybody should ignore this empirically
verifiable fact and invoke some superstitions about the creative power of
mutations?
You have further told “My
point however continuously is the same. Just because there are problems, even
hard problems with the theory of evolution it does not call for abandoning it.
It calls for revising it. Even if there is a call for abandoning it, it does
not mean that any theory whatsoever can replace it. We need to check the
plausibility, consistency and explanatory power of the theory. But you are just
not getting this point I am afraid.”
As we have mentioned in our last reply “In principle true science is meant to decide whether what we choose to
believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.” Anybody can claim
anything on the name of science but to call it a scientific faith one must also
provide the valid scientific justifications for that belief. The belief that “Life
came from Matter – Abiogenesis” is against the laws of nature “Life comes from
Life – Biogenesis”. The belief that mutations create complex biomolecules,
living cells, different organs and living form, is against the laws of nature “all
living forms and their bodily stuff appear from a mystical wholistic organic
developmental process.” Taking an unbiased stand one can easily apply proper scientific
reason to judge which among two explanations have the plausibility, consistency and explanatory power.
You have rightly said “How
the theory of evolution should be taught in school is another matter. I believe
that children should never be taught anything in a doctrinaire manner,
including religion of course. They should be introduced to alternative theories
and be able to debate them without being dogmatic. Even Vedanta that you keep
appealing to is dynamic and open to many interpretations by the scholars of
Vedanta itself. So just pushing the Bhaktivedanta perspective as the correct
one would be dogmatic but it should be introduced of course to children for
their introspection.”
We agree with you here. It is irrational to teach different things in
a doctrinaire manner to innocent students and such a practice damages individuals’
real spirit of inquiry. Unfortunately, modern education follows this irrational
path, where the materialistic views of reality is taught to the innocent
students in a doctrinaire manner. Modern education does not provide any scope to
introduce the spiritual concepts and theistic views of reality. Vedānta advocates that under the
guidance of a spiritually realized being, we must inquire into our true nature:
athāto brahma jijñāsā. A genuine spiritually
realized saint does not introduce anything in a doctrinaire manner. In Vedic
tradition sages only try to awaken the proper inquiry spirit (jijñāsā) in the students and there is a whole
system that they follow to help the individuals overcome the plane of ignorance.
However, you have shown a dismissive attitude for this practice and you have
told “As for needing help from those who have higher
knowledge, I do not like the authoritative tint you give it” in one
of your past replies. If you think that a biologist can have some specialized
(authority) knowledge (as you have said in your reply “I am not a biologists so I will let the biologists respond.”) that
he/she can give to others then what is the reason behind your dismissive attitude
towards the fact that different genuine religious saints can also have some
specialized realization which they can impart to the sincere seekers. Moreover,
we are not pushing Bhaktivedanta perspective, but on a rational basis we are
presenting the Bhaktivedanta perspective as a valid alternative. Vedānta also encourages the comparative
analysis of different materialistic and theistic views, and the gradation of
those views is based on the ultimate destiny that the practitioners of those
views attain.
You have also told “A critical
mind can never be dismissive of anything nor dogmatic. But you have already
passed judgment on my poor education because I show sensitivity to the use of
language in changing times.” I think you are referring to my past
comment “If you have
received the education that human are animals in all respects then there seem
to be something fundamentally wrong in the type of education that you have
received. We can agree that some humans may behave like animals but all humans
are not animals in all respect, otherwise why we are using two different words
humans and animals. Why there are two different movements on “human rights” and “animal rights”? Moreover, we cannot teach an animal the difference between
animal and human being but a sober human being with a proper education can
easily understand this clear distinction.”, which
was a response to your statement “I
remember from my school days that humans are animals. English may not be a
first language for either of us but we must use words correctly so that we can
communicate. When you use 'animal' you mean non-human animals. So you must say
that as that is how the use today is.” If you try to carefully understand what I
meant from my comment then you will realize that I was only trying to raise
objection to the attempt to superficially eliminate (in a doctrinaire manner) the
distinction between animal and human. If our education only indoctrinates the
students that there is no distinction between animals and human beings then
there seems to be something fundamentally wrong in that type of education. In
any case my intention was not to hurt you in any means and if you have felt inadvertently hurt somewhere I sincerely beg forgiveness.
Sincerely,
| |
| +91-( | |
| #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India | |
| |
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ CAG9qgfD4FbXeUKt0h6TCLHJ9toGtb 31%3D0FtutS%2BVY1YLYwuLVA% 40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ 534027181.476278. 1495554074246%40mail.yahoo.com .
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfDchyb9dzH342PTMYPvrwQZi8uvw9h-ZuqCJmxyYo2PLg%40mail.gmail.com.
priyedarshi jetli
May 25, 2017, 1:20:46 PM5/25/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Shanta,
I never said I accept the authority of biologists. But not being a biologist I am in no position to challenge their authority. Since you are very much involved in biology you are in the right position to challenge their authority. I do repeat though that challenging a theory does not necessarily lead to the rejection of the theory and replacing it with whatever one wants. It may actually lead to the revision of the theory. I stick by that though I may be terribly wrong about it. As for what you said in the past and the censoring of my email, let us just forget about it for now. I do feel though, not just from you but from some other Bhakti Vedanta scholars I have encountered that there is a confident finality, immune to criticism, that comes out in the way you speak and write. This is what I challenge as an argumentative Indian and the Indian tradition of debate. Vedanta has various interpretations. Each Upanisad is open to multiple interpretations. These mus be debated and worked out and one must not accept the authority of anyone including the Bhakti Vedanta proponents.
Priyedarshi
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfDchyb9dzH342PTMYPvrwQZi8uvw9h-ZuqCJmxyYo2PLg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2019671010.2791605.1495727974188%40mail.yahoo.com.
Serge Patlavskiy
May 26, 2017, 8:25:45 AM5/26/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Adam Kun <kun...@ludens.elte.hu> on May 21, 2017 wrote:
>So you want me to make a list of anatomical features that makes it
>clear that pigs are not our closes relatives while apes are?
[S.P.] When I say that our (human) biology tells us that, anatomically, we are the closest relatives with pigs, I mean, first of all, the structure and functioning of viscera. But let us return to analytics.
I want again to draw your attention to the seventh question I have formulated in my previous post, and which you have ignored. Namely, I mean my idea that we have to consider simultaneously three theories --1) the theory of the origin of life and consciousness; 2) the theory of consciousness; and 3) the theory of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems -- for these theories to possess necessary explanatory and predictive power. My idea is that whatever theory of evolution we construct, it will not be a theory until we construct another two theories as well.
So, let us start from the problem of the origin of life. Suppose, a first living organism appears somehow from dead matter. The word "somehow" includes also a certain solution to the problem of irreducible complexity which we will not touch here.
Now then, the first way of appearance of a living organism is to appear directly from dead matter. Two questions here. First question: was the act of appearing of the living organism directly from dead matter a solitary act? I mean, was it the ONLY ONE living organism that has appeared in such a way? Or, maybe, the way of appearance of living organisms directly from dead matter was a routine procedure which lasted for a long time, and maybe it lasts even up to nowadays?
Second question: were the living organisms (that appeared directly from dead matter) quasi-identical organisms, or they were different organisms? For me, they had to be different organisms since the material (chemical, etc.) conditions under which the acts of appearance of living organisms have taken place were permanently changing. Here, I put aside the question of which material conditions are required for the living organism to appear from dead matter.
The biologists seems to adopt the idea that the act of appearing of the living organism directly from dead matter was a solitary act, and all the other organisms started to appear in the second way -- they somehow started to appear from other living organisms, say, through scissiparity. As one can see, we need to use the word "somehow" for the second time already.
The word "somehow" presumes there to be some mechanism. But, what mechanism it could be? If we suggest that the ability for scissiparity appeared due to evolution (through natural selection and survival of the fittest) then we come to contradiction in our reasoning. I mean that the living organism would first have to evolve the very ability to evolve, and only then its ability to evolve would cause its ability for scissiparity. So, it would be nonsensical to argue that after having appeared directly from dead matter, the living organism, due to evolution, has evolved the very ability to evolve.
So, how the very ability to evolve came into existence? This ability could not be in a dormant (or potential) state at the moment when the first living organism has appeared directly from dead matter. And here the traditional evolutionists' argument that there is always a plenty of time in Nature does not work. If a pot is empty and is covered with hermetic lid, it will stay empty for the forthcoming billions of years. Nothing appears from nothing.
I mean that there is no necessity in a second way of appearance in case the first way of appearance works fine and is the only one known for Nature and for the living organism. Indeed, why the living organism should bother itself with questions of how to give birth to offsprings if it itself has successfully appeared directly from dead matter?
Therefore, there is no necessity in scissiparity and evolution in case the living organisms continuously appear directly from dead matter. In such a case, the observed biodiversity is caused by permanently changing material conditions under which the concrete living organism appears directly from dead matter.
But, if the mechanism of transition from the first way to the second way was not based on evolution, then what caused such a transition? Where the ability of scissiparity came from? Without answering this question we cannot precede to considering evolution as such, because the mechanisms which stand beyond the transition from the first way to the second way may turn to be much more powerful and important than the mechanisms of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin. We have to apply the Occam's razor principle here: if there are some powerful mechanisms at work, then the other conjectured mechanisms of doubtful effectiveness have to be rejected.
Now then, I have elaborated the methods and models which are able to deal with complex systems. I consider some special mechanisms -- the laws which govern the development of complex systems. I demonstrate that these same special mechanisms stand as beyond the origin of living organisms, so beyond the activity of consciousness, and these same special mechanisms also are responsible for observed biodiversity.
So, I apply these special methods and models when explaining:
1) the origin of life and consciousness,
2) the role of consciousness in sustaining life (here, by "consciousness" I mean a natural ability of the living organism to reduce own entropy by transforming the physical sensory signals into the elements of this organism's subjective experience), and
3) the evolution of the complex self-organizing systems (such as a living organism and biocenosis).
Hence follows my idea that we have to consider simultaneously three theories for each of them to possess a sufficient explanatory and predictive power. For example, if we aim to construct only a theory of consciousness, and, in so doing, we ignore the other two theories, then our theory of consciousness will not be a theory as such, in sense that it will not be the framework which is able to explain something and predict something.
The mechanisms of biodiversity through natural selection and survival of the fittest are good, maybe, for children at school, but, in fact, the actual mechanisms are much more complex. At any rate, the mechanisms based on the laws governing complex systems make it possible for me to solve the problem of irreducible complexity, to explain why there are such species but not the other species, and to explain the fact of total absence of transitional forms between the species.
So, my approach is naturalistic, and I speak equally as against creationistic religious approaches so against Darwinian and neo-Darwinian dogmatic approaches. In so doing, I do not reject the possible role of external factors such as genetic engineering performed by third parties on the concrete planet.
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
Serge Patlavskiy
May 30, 2017, 4:14:18 PM5/30/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org> on May 20, 2017 wrote:
>... theories are nothing but stories concocted by different individual
>subjects (scientists) that can be falsified by observation.
[S.P.] By "theory" I mean an intellectual product which explains something and predicts something. In total, I consider four levels of intellectual products. As usual, they constitute a completed group of intellectual products (see the example below):
1) the D-level assertion: if we rub the ebonite stick with wool, the stick starts to attract small pieces of paper -- such is an empirical fact or a result of simple observation;
2) the GS-level assertion: all charged things attract or repulse each other; maybe, there is a universal quantitative description of this phenomenon (the word "maybe" means that some hypothesis is being formulated here) -- we generalize and systematize the research data obtained from numerous observations and/or experiments conducted in laboratories under strict conditions;
3) the AT-level assertion: whichever two electrically charged material bodies we take, the force between them is proportional to the product of the charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of these bodies -- this assertion is an element of some theory which explains something and predicts something;
4) the MT-level assertion: Reality is purely materialistic (which means that no "supernatural forces" are required to be involved to explain the observed phenomena) -- this assertion is an element of a certain meta-theory, like the Modern Materialistic Picture of the World.
So, a theory -- it is the AT-level intellectual product. It explains something and predicts something.
[Bhakti Niskama Shanta] wrote:
> Scientists also cannot explain what constitutes sense data...
[S.P.] And I know why. The case is that when constructing a theory, the traditional approach presumes that we start from D-level (from collecting empirical facts and research data), then go through GS-level (we generalize and systematize the research data and formulate the hypotheses), and arrive at AT-level (we construct an applied theory). Such an approach works fine in Physics where we apply the third-person approach and where the problem of intersubjectivity is solved.
But, in case of studying consciousness, it turns out to be an extremely complex (and even insoluble) task to generalize and systematize data which originate as from private researchers who study their own exemplars of consciousness, so from third-person neurophysiologic fMRI studies on mapping brain states and mental states.
That is why I have taken up another approach, namely, I start from constructing a special meta-theory (or, the MT-level intellectual product), and only then, within the limits of this new meta-theory, I construct the required applied theory of consciousness.
And only then I become able to generalize and systematize private research data on studying the consciousness-related phenomena, and to assess the results of experiments and simple observations. I have even formulated the Principle of Theory Predominance which holds that any experiment in the field of consciousness studies should be aimed at proving or disproving such or other ALREADY CONSTRUCTED version of the theory of consciousness.
A theory of consciousness can never be constructed starting from accumulating research data. Therefore, to construct a theory in the field of Physics is not the same as to construct a theory in the field of consciousness studies. That is why the physicists and neurophysiologists fail to construct an effective theory of consciousness.
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy
PS. As I can judge from Ram Vimal's posts, Vinod Sehgal continues submitting his posts to this group. But, I have not received any his post since May 3. So, Vinod, if you have submitted any post which requires my attention, then please email it to me directly. I would also like to know Adam Kun's opinion concerning my latest post on the origin of life and evolution.
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
Serge Patlavskiy
Jun 1, 2017, 9:10:21 AM6/1/17
to Online Sadhu Sanga
-
Vinod Sehgal <vinodse...@gmail.com> on May 31, 2017 wrote:
>You have been asserting quite frequently that your AT of consciousness
> is unique in the sense that it is built upon some MT unlike ATs of
>physical sciences which are built upon D and GS only, I appreciate this
>unique feature of your AT of consciousness.
[S.P.] There is nothing like "AT for consciousness". Let us start from accurate formulations. First, I hold that whatever intellectual product our consciousness constructs, it will necessarily be of one of the four possible levels: the D-level, the GS-level, the AT-level, or the MT-level.
The D-level intellectual products are: simple empirical facts (like "Now it is raining outdoor.", etc.), any result of description (like "The grass in my yard is green.", etc.), and even raw research data gained due to performing laboratory experiments (for example, "When, in this concrete experiment, we mix substance X with substance Y we receive substance Z.", etc.). The abbreviation "D" is for "description".
The GS-level is for assertions like "The grass in the yards of my neighbors is also green; maybe, the grass in the yards of all other citizens of my village is green as well". Here, the word "maybe" means that we formulate a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a result of generalization and systematization of a vast amount of empirical facts. The abbreviation "GS" is for "generalization and systematization".
The AT-level intellectual products have one important and distinctive peculiarity -- they are the assertions which explain something and predict something. For example, "The grass in the yards is green because it is spring outdoor." -- here, the word "because" indicates that this assertion explains why the grass is green. The assertion "Every time in spring the grass will become green." predicts some fact -- here, we use the words "every time" and "will". The abbreviation "AT" is for "applied theory".
The MT-level intellectual products are for postulates which we accept without proofs, for our belief systems, for our personal world-views, and for general assertions (laws, principles) pertaining Reality we live in. For example, "Reality is alive and conscious.", or "All the phenomena and processes belong to Reality we live in", "There are no parallel realities.", and so on. The abbreviation "MT" is for "meta-theory".
Then I point out that there are two ways in which we can reach the AT-level:
1) we start from D-level, then go through GS-level;
2) we start from MT-level.
The first way I call "traditional" and indicate that it works fine when constructing the theories of Physics and other natural disciplines where we use the third-person approach and where the problem of intersubjectivity is solved.
The second way is a specific one. Why? Because when studying own consciousness the researcher uses the first-person approach and, as result, the problem of intersubjectivity is not solved. So, my own way is, first, to construct the appropriate meta-theory (the MT-level intellectual product), and some applied theories (the AT-level intellectual products such as the applied ADC theory and the applied theory of sense and relation), and only then I come to trinity of the applied theories which includes the applied theory of consciousness, namely:
1) the applied theory of the origin of life and consciousness;
2) the applied theory of consciousness; and
3) the applied theory of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems.
In fact, the true explanatory and predictive power pertains to this trinity of applied theories. I mean that being considered apart, non of these theories will possess the required explanatory and predictive power.
And then, after the applied theory of consciousness is constructed, I formulate the Principle of Theory Predominance (which is the MT-level intellectual product), and start assessing the simple facts about consciousness-related phenomena (which are the D and GS-level intellectual products): I explain the numerous facts of intuition, premonition, reincarnation, and so on.
Eventually, I make a conclusion that the mere accumulation of empirical facts about consciousness-related phenomena (including the results of neurophysiologic brain studies) will never bring us to the theory of consciousness able to account for these phenomena.
[Vinod Sehgal] wrote:
> i) In the context of your AT of consciousness, how can there be
>any true predictive mechanism when we can't even parameterize,
>quantify, measure and control all the intellectual products say
>some emotion of "fear', love, surprise.
[S.P.] My applied theory of consciousness (as an element of the above mentioned trinity of theories) is a theory -- the AT-level intellectual product, from which follows that is does possess the required explanatory and predictive power. Otherwise it would not be called "a theory".
[Vinod Sehgal] wrote:
> ii) True predictive mechanism implies a framework incorporating
>a cause-effect relational system ...
[S.P.] Apart from the cause-effect "relational system" I consider also the "inverse relational system", so to say. This is because I use the system of AS-DIS-DEC models instead of the DEC-models alone as it is accepted in Physics. I was explaining this idea many times on this forum earlier. The abbreviations "AS", "DIS", and "DEC" are for associational, dissociational, and decompositional models correspondingly.
[Vinod Sehgal] wrote:
> Now let me extend the above analogy to your AT of consciousness.
>In the Ist place, we can't parameterize, quantify, measure and control
>different intellectual products say emotions ...
[S.P.] It is bad that you (or those whom you bear in mind) cannot do this or that, but my applied theory of consciousness does its job very fine. It can explain how the physical (sensory) signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience.
[Vinod Sehgal] wrote:
> For example, at a moment a set of circumstances X generate an
>emotion having value Y in an individual.
[S.P.] You are missing one very important moment here. The case is that "circumstances", or, better say, the physical (sensory) signals (as the elements of Noumenal Reality) do not "generate" what you call "emotions", or, better say, the elements of experience. Here, you miss a mediational role of consciousness. The case is that it is consciousness which can process the physical (sensory) signal and then it may (or may not) transform it into new element of experience. Consider the following example.
When we hear a loud bang near our ear for the first time, we may become scared and even topple from a chair. But, on hearing this same (i.e., which has the same physical characteristics) bang next time we will react calmly: "Hey, kids, don't make such a noise! Go shooting at each other outdoor!"
[Vinod Sehgal] wrote:
> In view of above, how do you assert that your AT of consciousness
> is a true theory having the predictive mechanism?
[S.P.] The problem is that your "above" premises are incorrect in sense that they are not applicable to my case. Also, please, instead of "AT for consciousness" use the phrase: "the applied theory of consciousness -- the AT-level intellectual product". The correct wording will much facilitate understanding.
Thanks for your questions,
Serge Patlavskiy
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.pa...@rocketmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
Dear Serge,
You have been asserting quite frequently that your AT of consciousness is unique in the sense that it is built upon some MT unlike ATs of physical sciences which are built upon D and GS only, I appreciate this unique feature of your AT of consciousness. However, you have also been conceding that any AT should have the requisite explanatory and predictive mechanism.
i) In the context of your AT of consciousness, how can there be any true predictive mechanism when we can't even parameterize, quantify, measure and control all the intellectual products say some emotion of "fear', love, surprise.
ii) True predictive mechanism implies a framework incorporating a cause-effect relational system between at least two parameters wherein by a changing the value of Ist parameter by some specified values, the value of the 2nd parameter could be predicted accurately without actually measuring it and it should conform to the experimental measurements. For example, in
Newton's Law of gravitation, the force of gravitation F between two masses m1 and m2 and separated by distance d can be accurately predicted if we change either of the parameter m1 or m2 or d. So we can say that Newton's theory of gravitation is a true AT theory having complete predictive powers.
Now let me extend the above analogy to your AT of consciousness. In the Ist place, we can't parameterize, quantify, measure and control different intellectual products say emotions. Secondly, we can't establish a precise cause-effect relation between emotions and other parameters which could cause emotions. Thirdly, suppose even if are able to establish a dual or multi parametred relational cause-effect system between emotions and other factors ( which could cause emotions), we can't predict the value ( or at least state of emotions+ when we change any of the parameters which constitute cause in the cause-effect relational system of emotions.
For example, at a moment a set of circumstances X generate an emotion having value Y in an individual. Suppose next moment we alter X by delta X, we can't predict the new value Y1. There is all the possibility that no emotion may be generated i.e Y1=0 or Y1>y or Y1<Y.
In view of above, how do you assert that your AT of consciousness is a true theory having the predictive mechanism? ( Regarding explanatory part, I shall speak in some other email).
Regards.
Vinod Sehgal
Thanks
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:32 AM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegrou ps.com> wrote:
-
Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org> on May 20, 2017 wrote:>... theories are nothing but stories concocted by different individual>subjects (scientists) that can be falsified by observation.[S.P.] By "theory" I mean an intellectual product which explains something and predicts something. In total, I consider four levels of intellectual products. As usual, they constitute a completed group of intellectual products (see the example below):1) the D-level assertion: if we rub the ebonite stick with wool, the stick starts to attract small pieces of paper -- such is an empirical fact or a result of simple observation;2) the GS-level assertion: all charged things attract or repulse each other; maybe, there is a universal quantitative description of this phenomenon (the word "maybe" means that some hypothesis is being formulated here) -- we generalize and systematize the research data obtained from numerous observations and/or experiments conducted in laboratories under strict conditions;3) the AT-level assertion: whichever two electrically charged material bodies we take, the force between them is proportional to the product of the charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of these bodies -- this assertion is an element of some theory which explains something and predicts something;4) the MT-level assertion: Reality is purely materialistic (which means that no "supernatural forces" are required to be involved to explain the observed phenomena) -- this assertion is an element of a certain meta-theory, like the Modern Materialistic Picture of the World.So, a theory -- it is the AT-level intellectual product. It explains something and predicts something.[Bhakti Niskama Shanta] wrote:> Scientists also cannot explain what constitutes sense data...[S.P.] And I know why. The case is that when constructing a theory, the traditional approach presumes that we start from D-level (from collecting empirical facts and research data), then go through GS-level (we generalize and systematize the research data and formulate the hypotheses), and arrive at AT-level (we construct an applied theory). Such an approach works fine in Physics where we apply the third-person approach and where the problem of intersubjectivity is solved.But, in case of studying consciousness, it turns out to be an extremely complex (and even insoluble) task to generalize and systematize data which originate as from private researchers who study their own exemplars of consciousness, so from third-person neurophysiologic fMRI studies on mapping brain states and mental states.That is why I have taken up another approach, namely, I start from constructing a special meta-theory (or, the MT-level intellectual product), and only then, within the limits of this new meta-theory, I construct the required applied theory of consciousness.And only then I become able to generalize and systematize private research data on studying the consciousness-related phenomena, and to assess the results of experiments and simple observations. I have even formulated the Principle of Theory Predominance which holds that any experiment in the field of consciousness studies should be aimed at proving or disproving such or other ALREADY CONSTRUCTED version of the theory of consciousness.A theory of consciousness can never be constructed starting from accumulating research data. Therefore, to construct a theory in the field of Physics is not the same as to construct a theory in the field of consciousness studies. That is why the physicists and neurophysiologists fail to construct an effective theory of consciousness.With respect,Serge PatlavskiyPS. As I can judge from Ram Vimal's posts, Vinod Sehgal continues submitting his posts to this group. But, I have not received any his post since May 3. So, Vinod, if you have submitted any post which requires my attention, then please email it to me directly. I would also like to know Adam Kun's opinion concerning my latest post on the origin of life and evolution.
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:05 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition
In one of the past postings on this group Dr. Dr. Ádám Kun asked a question “I kept on asking what is your problem with evolution, and you keep on not answering that question. How does evolution interfere with your faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?” and we have also sent reply for the same from one perspective. Serge Patlavskiy also said on the same thread “Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution may continue to be studied at schools and universities, however not as a theory, but as a hypothesis and together with other valid scientific hypotheses UNTILL a true theory of evolution is adopted by scientific community.” Here we want to emphasize that science is not sacrosanct and scientists should also answer the question: “Are scientific theories merely the collective opinions of scientists, or do such theories give us genuine knowledge of the real world?”<abridged>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages