Response to Shri Shrikant Talageri – Part 1 of 8

First of all, my sincere thanks to Shri Shrikant Talageri (and Dr. Koenraad Elst, and also Shri Virendra ji) for his comments, which were in turn based on comments of Dr. Elst on AV observation. Thanks to Shri Virendra ji for pointing out the FAQ nature of this argument.

This question or similar argument(s) has been raised multiple times about AV observation. And while I will certainly search for my previous responses from the public domain, I thought many of my readers will benefit from the exercise of their own in explaining AV observation in the context of ‘Theory of Omen’.

In this first part I want to summarize argument of Shri Shrikant Talageri and make it clear that I DONOT MISS THE POINT, made by either Shri Shrikant Talageri or Dr. Koenraad Elst. Rather I do understand their point well and that their point is WRONG. I will elaborate in future parts of this thread why their argument is wrong, at least, scientifically speaking.

Shri Shrikant Talageri appears to be more precise (and clear) in explaining his own (or that of Dr. Elst’s argument) against AV observation.

I will summarize their argument as follows:

(1) Omens refer to (should refer to) something that happens rarely and/or distinctly different from a daily observable (expected) phenomena
(2) AV observation (specifically Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha) was a daily phenomenon for some 6500 years (11091 BCE – 4508 BCE)
(3) Since Vyasa (author of Mahabharata) mentions AV observation among the list of other observations and descriptions, in the context of ‘OMENS’ he (Vyasa) is describing – Any explanation for AV observation should include both ‘ASTRONOMY’ and ‘OMEN’ components and that one can not simply explain AV observation as ONLY astronomy or ONLY omen phenomena.

This is what I consider is the gist of their arguments.

If I have summarized them correctly, then I want to state that this is what I understood from their arguments. If Shri Shrikant Talageri (and Dr. Elst) agree with my summary of their argument(s)…..

then I want to make it clear that I did not ‘miss the central point of their argument’.

Rather my point is that their emphasis and insistence on both astronomy and omen components as part of explanation for AV observation is misplaced and thus Wrong.

Their confusion is due to misunderstood role of a theory, scientific demarcation based on testable vs. non-testable consequences of a given theory, logic of a scientific discovery, corroboration and falsification (vs. proving and disproving) and finally ‘Growth of Knowledge’.

I will begin with ‘Role of a theory’ in the context of AV observation (and criticism of Shri Shrikant Talageri) in my next post. These will be few posts (no specific number in my mind right now).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s