Hello sreenivas, Well, speaking of rocket science and technology, I think you are a better expert. Of course, we need not split out hair over he obvious fact that rocket science is also science per se. But what I understand from the reports is that the launch of Chandrayaan is posed as achievement of Indian science establishment. Since I don't know much abt this science, may I ask you: *1. What is so ground-breaking invention in Chandrayaan launch? * *2. What incremental innovation except the cost-effectiveness has the chadrayaan lauch added to science, let alone the issue of new discovery?* *3. How has Chandrayaan added new values to the body of knowledge called Science?* * * On astrology and science , this is an oft repeated analogy to prove the "rationality" of scientifc knowledge? My argument was on the "incommensurability" of belief in God and being rational in everyday business of life. My posting was not on scientific knowledge.
Hope you know the significance of the term, "incommensurable" since you have used "falsifiability". On the questions of science and pseudo-science, I request you to start another thread bcoz for me the issue is very different what we were/are discussing. And pls. bear in mind that falsibiality is corrolarly of inductive method. So we may have to see our arguments in the light of scientific method or methods? But I will leave with a question for you may to start a thread or think: 1. *Is falsifiable - falsifiable ;-) ? * *2. Has g.madhavan nair, in any occassion preached/ put on record that astrology is superior knowledge compared to space science? I have not seen. Pls. report. Then the issue needs a different look.* (Going to place of worship and claiming a status for knowledge, for me, are two different things*)* and on your last question, I was talking abt my limitation?Very critical limitation!! pls.bear with my limitations. *finally, for fun, let me add a few things on what I felt since yrday evening*: There must be a cognitive explanation for many things. It can overwhelm over cultural denotations of a problem/issue. Like for example, cognitive science must one day be able to explain why one is ardent believr of God, another an athiest? Why two are differently wired? What impulses gets activated when a believer feels about God? Like wise... However, cultural explanation do matter when we have to describe the "quality" of belief. One is believer of a ideology and another one of God etc etc... This came to me thinking of political brains. We need actually close-look at politcal brain and how they are wired. How they "time" things from other persons. Actually they are not so hghly "qualified" people, but somethings work. We need a lot exposure to cognitive appartus of political leaders. well.. don't ask me anything on human 'wiring"...I will never know about such GOD's handiwork!! d.Prasad. * * On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:40 PM, sreenivas v.p <[email protected]>wrote: > "It is exactly not a victory of science since there is nothing > innovative in the endeavor except the fact the space exploration has been > made more cheaper": *i did not understand what u mean by this . can u > please clarify ?* > ** > "It may also have happened that the scientist in the concerned project have > decided the launch time according to Hindu astrology concerning rahukalam": > *This is exactly why they are being criticised . There is something called > 'falsifiability " to refer to a charecteristic any theory must have if it is > to be considered truly scientific .Basically , to be truly scientific , a > theory must be falsifiable .That is to say that it must be so formulated > that it must be possible to predict under what circumstances it could be > proven false .Taking the case of astrology , it is obviously not possible to > prove or disprove the influence of heavenly bodies on the fates of human > beings . this is the reason why astrology is considered to be a pseudo > -science . and including G Madavan nair , nobody can be a preacher of > science and pseudo science simultaneously . So we average people expect > some some sort of morality from them in this regard. * > "this unclarity is that God is not graspable at least in my words and > terms. I don't about yours." ; *Did you mean to say that god exists but it > is incomprehensible to human mind .?**when i say god is incomprehensible , > it is incomprehensible to others , but not my mind . * > ** > *sreenivas* > > ** > ** > > ** > * * > > > --- On *Mon, 2/2/09, damodar prasad <[email protected]>* wrote: > > From: damodar prasad <[email protected]> > Subject: [GreenYouth] Oh my GOD > To: "Greenyouth" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, 2 February, 2009, 6:56 PM > > I put my comments in this thread only bcoz I find the discussion on God > somewhat uneasy in a thread on 3 establishments as I have mentioned before. > Nonetheless, my response is shaped by that discussion. > > After the successful launch of Chadrayaan, a scientific victory of > Nation-State and Scientific establishment. ( It is exactly not a victory of > science since there is nothing innovative in the endeavor except the fact > the space exploration has been made more cheaper), G.Madhavan Nair, the ISRO > Chief, went to Guruvayur for offering a Tulabaram ( don't know whether > there is an English word for it). Those scientific temper enthusiasts would > have frowned at it as they saw the picture of G.Madhavan Nair "weighing" > himself to God. > > It may also have happened that the scientist in the concerned project have > decided the launch time according to Hindu astrology concerning rahukalam > etc. Anyway that is classified information, which we may not have access to. > > > While working on the project they must have appealed to the GOD for the > success of launch. However, the science- the actual process, the rational > calculations, technological design- behind the whole enterprise was not > based on a theological text or a scripture. God actually did not have a role > in the process. > > They very well-know these two are incommensurable logics. But these does > not annihilate each other as the distance between both are never closed. > > But there are others who would like to "reconcile each other". Here the God > is absent but it is material tradition that is called forth. > > The problem with this new enthusiasts of India's scientific tradition and > hardened traditionalist like the Gopalakrishnan type people are that they > want to depict the scientific endeavors in terms of tradition. And in turn > the static tradition is legitimized in terms of science. The vedic > mathematics are all part of this grand scheme, as I understand. ( > Goapalakrishnan's "Valluvadan" Malayalam oration is also specifically > designed to communicate the purity of Hindu scientific tradition) > > Its a political act. > > when an average ( in the sense of "sadarana") human goes to places of > worship, no one actually cares. This is bcoz we do not endow the average > with 'scientific" intelligence. > > It is when Madhavan Nair or P.Govinda Pillai goes to places of worship, we > have a problem. For that matter, the media concerns itself with religion in > public life when Abdulla Kutty stress the significance of religion or when > the church authorities say that late Mathai Cahcko has baptized his son at > church. > > Here there is a moral expectation of how the public personalities should > behave. The society imposes certain moral codes on them. And some times, > interestingly. the same public persons are criticized for their firmness of > commitment to the ideology they profess. > > Why should we impose such moral codes on public persons as long it does not > hamper civil life? > > This is perhaps bcoz the so-called public always doubted about science and > rationalism or bcoz publci persons are considered as automatons to behave > one-dimensionally. The media deny them alternatives for explorations, > possibilities of new inquiries. > > We can also see that media tends to highlights that some hardcore > Hindutvadi is an atheist or inon- spiritual etc. I have seen reports > communicating that in Advani's home there are no photos of any gods. > > Again, the religious politics little concerns itself with spiritual or the > GOD. > > As a believer I have failed to "understand" what God is. And that's bcoz > the very notions of "understanding" is premised on different theories of > ontology. God fails me in that. Its better to unthink GOD. > > I don't know whether am making clear. One reason, apart from others, for > this unclarity is that God is not graspable at least in my words and terms. > I don't about yours. > > Oh!My god. what a blashpemy!! > > ------------------------------ > Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now. > > > > <http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_messenger_6/*http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/> > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
