3 ms·

/Just like most other religious texts, the Vedas don't stand up to modern science and rigor/ -- There is no such thing as modern science. Its the same universe

by droid5 13y ago

/Just like most other religious texts, the Vedas don't stand up to modern science and rigor/ -- There is no such thing as modern science. Its the same universe that existed billions of years ago and with our "thought process" we are able to understand it better (compared to what was written in the past) and are calling it modern now. Go forward 100 years and look back at current science. What is it called as now ? /dividing india into castes by religion/ -- This is completely humans fault. What Bhagavadgita explained were the variety of things people do to get tired/frustrated in this place and get enlightened. Look at the meaning of division without the caste mirror. You see the same set of things happening everywhere in the world. a) People who are good at protecting others b) People who are good at taking care of the mess created by others c) people who are good at providing things to others c) People who are good at understanding things and sharing the knowledge with society. At some point, this whole thing got misunderstood, misinterpreted and exploited for ones selfishness. We are paying the price now. But, the same things explained still holds true everywhere in the world.

MichaelGG 13y ago
> our "thought process" Yes, that's what modern science refers to, the thought processes we use to determine what's true. Going back a while, Aristotle "reasoned" that women had less teeth than men. Such reasoning isn't accepted these days. The same science is what rejects most other religious texts - it does not stand up to current requirements of reason.
- droid5 13y ago
  "thought process" is what distinguishes humans from others in terms of deciding whats right/wrong, (finding the truth) its not just science. Here is a difference i have observed between science/religion. In religion, we try to reject things rather than try to find true meaning (via thought process or practice). Which is really difficult in this time as "i can go buy pizza in 5 mins" kinda mindset. One more way we use reasoning is "if i didn't experience (via the senses) it doesn't exist". It takes time, really long time for the people (in tech terminology scientists, in religion terminology saints) to understand the universe and give us peace. Both religion/science are true. Religion talks about things which can't be experienced by our senses, but gain peace. While Science talks about the other, where the gain seem to be human advancement (to where ?). This may sound confusing at beginning, as it was to me. But, if we go through the same struggle of finding the truth, we will get it.
ibuildthings 13y ago
> There is no such thing as modern science. The way we approach and do science has evolved drastically ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method ). For example empirical falsifiability which is one of the primary tenant of modern science is less than 100 years old, but forms an essential part on how we do science now a days. Parent comment's point being; while we may be trying to understand the same principle/phenomena, not only the data available to thinkers that time was very sparse compared to the present; but also the level of rigour applied was of significantly lower standards. While there might be scattered scientific truth in the vedas ( or any other religious document) ; it is insolent to believe that it is good reference manual for scientific knowledge.
- droid5 13y ago
  As i see, the current science is more rigorous because people are producing lot of crap. So, we made it to be like "if it can't be verified/repeatable its not science". But do we really know for sure ? How many discoveries are being overridden by new discoveries coming from future ? The amount of data accessible to the people in the past is a lot more when compared to current. Thats why there able to explain things that can't be experienced by our senses. To share such things in the current time, the "can be verified by our senses by a independent vendor ?" rule rejects. So, very few people experience them and bring it down to such a level that every human gets benefited from it. The division between religion/science is very small, when both are approached using similar thought-process. Its just that some rules reject others. As human we need to approach and find truth for oneself without being biased.
  - ibuildthings 13y ago
    > As i see, the current science is more rigorous because people are producing lot of crap Good, grief. No!!! It is a way of managing uncertainty and saying something with a precision that is available at a given point of time. > How many discoveries are being overridden by new discoveries coming from future ? This is beauty/and USP of science. Every scientific proof is always open for scrutiny and revision in light of new data or discovery ( tenants of falsifiability kick in here). That is, it tries hard NOT to be dogmatic by being provisional. For example, science says that we are confident Higgs Boson exists "accounting for one-in-a-million chance on the contrary" ( 5-sigma). Let me flip your argument on the converse; success rate at which we could make ground breaking theories [ like evolution, theory of relativity , uncertainty principle ] ( which is standing the test of time for extended period of time) using the scientific method is sheer staggering and amazing. The methodology has accelerated our progress and understanding by leaps and bounds which no alternate system has managed to do so, so far! > The amount of data accessible to the people in the past is a lot more when compared to current. I lost you completely here. Can you please elaborate and the rest of the paragraph. ( My belief: If you take 20 random guesses; one of them turned out to be true; it is more likely to be a coincidence than a mystical insight. If on the contrary, the Monte Carlo filter I routinely simulate might just be the most insightfully entity I have encountered ). > The division between religion/science is very small Epistemologically they are apples and oranges! Falsifiability is not applicable to religion nor is it is provisional and routinely advocates absolute (and imho dogmatic) reasoning!

by droid5 13y ago

MichaelGG 13y ago

> our "thought process" Yes, that's what modern science refers to, the thought processes we use to determine what's true. Going back a while, Aristotle "reasoned" that women had less teeth than men. Such reasoning isn't accepted these days. The same science is what rejects most other religious texts - it does not stand up to current requirements of reason.

droid5 13y ago
"thought process" is what distinguishes humans from others in terms of deciding whats right/wrong, (finding the truth) its not just science. Here is a difference i have observed between science/religion. In religion, we try to reject things rather than try to find true meaning (via thought process or practice). Which is really difficult in this time as "i can go buy pizza in 5 mins" kinda mindset. One more way we use reasoning is "if i didn't experience (via the senses) it doesn't exist". It takes time, really long time for the people (in tech terminology scientists, in religion terminology saints) to understand the universe and give us peace. Both religion/science are true. Religion talks about things which can't be experienced by our senses, but gain peace. While Science talks about the other, where the gain seem to be human advancement (to where ?). This may sound confusing at beginning, as it was to me. But, if we go through the same struggle of finding the truth, we will get it.

ibuildthings 13y ago

> There is no such thing as modern science. The way we approach and do science has evolved drastically ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method ). For example empirical falsifiability which is one of the primary tenant of modern science is less than 100 years old, but forms an essential part on how we do science now a days. Parent comment's point being; while we may be trying to understand the same principle/phenomena, not only the data available to thinkers that time was very sparse compared to the present; but also the level of rigour applied was of significantly lower standards. While there might be scattered scientific truth in the vedas ( or any other religious document) ; it is insolent to believe that it is good reference manual for scientific knowledge.

droid5 13y ago
As i see, the current science is more rigorous because people are producing lot of crap. So, we made it to be like "if it can't be verified/repeatable its not science". But do we really know for sure ? How many discoveries are being overridden by new discoveries coming from future ? The amount of data accessible to the people in the past is a lot more when compared to current. Thats why there able to explain things that can't be experienced by our senses. To share such things in the current time, the "can be verified by our senses by a independent vendor ?" rule rejects. So, very few people experience them and bring it down to such a level that every human gets benefited from it. The division between religion/science is very small, when both are approached using similar thought-process. Its just that some rules reject others. As human we need to approach and find truth for oneself without being biased.
- ibuildthings 13y ago
  > As i see, the current science is more rigorous because people are producing lot of crap Good, grief. No!!! It is a way of managing uncertainty and saying something with a precision that is available at a given point of time. > How many discoveries are being overridden by new discoveries coming from future ? This is beauty/and USP of science. Every scientific proof is always open for scrutiny and revision in light of new data or discovery ( tenants of falsifiability kick in here). That is, it tries hard NOT to be dogmatic by being provisional. For example, science says that we are confident Higgs Boson exists "accounting for one-in-a-million chance on the contrary" ( 5-sigma). Let me flip your argument on the converse; success rate at which we could make ground breaking theories [ like evolution, theory of relativity , uncertainty principle ] ( which is standing the test of time for extended period of time) using the scientific method is sheer staggering and amazing. The methodology has accelerated our progress and understanding by leaps and bounds which no alternate system has managed to do so, so far! > The amount of data accessible to the people in the past is a lot more when compared to current. I lost you completely here. Can you please elaborate and the rest of the paragraph. ( My belief: If you take 20 random guesses; one of them turned out to be true; it is more likely to be a coincidence than a mystical insight. If on the contrary, the Monte Carlo filter I routinely simulate might just be the most insightfully entity I have encountered ). > The division between religion/science is very small Epistemologically they are apples and oranges! Falsifiability is not applicable to religion nor is it is provisional and routinely advocates absolute (and imho dogmatic) reasoning!