Tuesday, October 24, 2006

scientific fraud, big time

oct 24th, 2006

as i have said repeatedly, i repose little faith in 'science' being rational and logical. it is also a matter of faith and belief, just as religion is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/magazine/22sciencefraud.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=640f5517261c0a07&ex=1161835200&pagewanted=all

5 comments:

san said...

Science is independently verifiable against the Laws of Nature themselves. This can in fact help to distinguish between fraudulent and factual claims. But you're right that anybody can be a fraud, whether it's someone claiming to be a scientist or someone claiming to be a godman.

drisyadrisya said...

http://www.geocities.com/vsc_iitm/nvcInaugural.html

Talk by Former Director of IIT Madras

excerpts:

Vedanta talks of 3 kinds of proofs (pramanas) - the first one is prathyaksha-direct proof, second one is anumaana Pramaana - inference and third aagama Pramaana (or Saastra / Sabda). I asked them, which is the Proof normally produced by science. Without exception, all of them said Prathyaksha Pramaana. This is what I call SUPERSTITION OF SCIENCE.

------------

So, Swami Vivekananda poses a question. This is the paradigm of science. Investigate everything to your satisfaction and only then accept it. Now Swami Vivekananda's question is "Can you subject religion to the same analysis?". And you know his revolutionary statement - "IF YOU SUBJECT A PARTICULAR RELIGION TO THE SAME METHODOLOGY AS SCIENCE ADOPTS - REASONING - AND IF THAT DOESN'T STAND THE TEST OF REASONING, IT SHOULD BE THROWN OUT OF THE WINDOW". Every religion he says, must satisfy the paradigm of scientific investigation. It is from this particular point of view, that he as a student approached vedanta.

-----------

virat0 said...

Without exception, all of them said Prathyaksha Pramaana
So far my 'inference' which is not contradictory to possibly tainted observation, is that waves(leave the water waves), light, atom etc all are usuall valid in science by inference ( we see the effect of electron in cathode ray tube).. There could be still simpler cases in newton's laws that makes one wonder about inference. All inference doesn;t have to be inference under all situations, they could be direct observations too. Some inference, like most by the secularists is for their acceptance in west, or that is what we observe when Thapper mata after fighting against 'saffronization' quite valiantly landed a job in washington and implied it is only her post modern perspective( The latter is from her rediff interview).


I would say generally science is rational and logical, but the latter two are not equivalent to speed of light in vaccum. There are of course big frauds, the attack on india through fraudulent political ideas often portrayed as scintific. Some of the big frauds like marxist slaves are often rational ! Amartya Sen is not rational in the traditional sense as per himself in his subject, however hardly any of his cronies/NDTV mentioned his deparature from whatever form of rationalism when they touted themselves as rational. It is bit of confusion here.
---
-----
-----
Some people who might have known the details of observation etc devoted themselves to say govindam, govindam.

virat0 said...

Correction:
that is what we observe
that is what we infer

virat0 said...

Thanks for posting the intresting article. The events indeed are frustrating.