I am glad to know that more and more people are finally catching up on the fascination of AV (Arundhati-Vasistha) observation of Mahabharata text.
This increased interest, however, not surprisingly, comes with increased confusion as people from all backgrounds (educational or otherwise) are trying to understand the implications of AV observation.
One reader found it intriguing that some 60+ researchers who have proposed a timing for the Mahabharata War, based on astronomy observations, ignored AV observation and she wanted to know why did they (these researchers) ignore it?
We can speculate what might have led them to either miss or deliberately ignore AV observation, however, we will never know for certain.
Besides the fact that these researchers (knowingly or unknowingly) missed analyzed AV observation is not necessarily a bad thing.
The fact that these researchers could come up with a date (day, year, etc.) for the Mahabharata war means we can easily test their proposal using AV observation to see if AV observation either FALSIFIES their proposal or CORRBORATES it.
BTW, this I have done, without specifically looking at each of these 60+ dates for the Mahabharata war, based on astronomy observations. The criteria based on AV observation is very straightforward.
If a proposed date for the year of Mahabharata War falls ANYTIME after 4508 BCE, then AV observation FALSIFIES such proposal.
I did respond to this reader who in turn responded with her confusion of the very scientific method. Her confusion is understandable.
She stated (I am paraphrasing it) her confusion as follows:
“Since scientific method begins with an observation and experiment, why did I start with a problem(problem of AV observation) and then went on to propose a theory of ‘visual observations of the sky’ before attempting multiple ways to study the relative motion of Arundhati and Vaistha.”
Here is my response:
The traditional view of scientific method (after Francis Bacon, however, refined further by others) is as follows:
(1) Observation and experiment
(2) Inductive generalization (Those who have studied science through their college years may recall science lab experiments, where one performed a given set of experiment(s), made observations and reached a generic (generalized) inference.
(4) Attempted verification of Hypothesis
(5) Proof or disproof (note the language…. ‘Prove’ or ‘disprove’. Our brainwashing began long time ago)
Evolution (rather revolution) of the scientific method came via Karl Popper.
Popper replaced the above schema with the following:
(1) Problem (usually due to an observation or experiment not agreeing with the consequences/predictions of an existing theory or expectation)
(2) Proposed solution (Guess, conjecture..in other words a new theory)
(3) Deduction of a TESTABLE propositions from the new theory
(4) Tests . Each test is an attempt at refutation of this new theory. This is done via multiple approaches , e.g. consistency, logic, error of tautology, contradictions, conflicts, etc. However one of the key approach is that of observation and experiment (note down step 1 of traditional method described above)
(5) Preference established between competing theories (or proposals). Thus it is to recognize that no theory (and proposal) would be perfect and it should indeed lead to new problems of higher complexity. In fact, ability to generate problems of higher complexity is a trademark of a revolutionary and better theory. This step also asserts that it is possible to define a better theory from the pool of available theories (or propsoals).
AV observation will continue to play a significant role in evaluating and critiquing proposals for the Mahabharata War, either based on astronomy evidence or otherwise.