Science vs. Psychoanalysis & Marxist Historicism

What characterizes science is the possibility of it being refuted.

This is in direct contrast to Psychoanalysis and Marxist historicism.

Science is susceptible of being contradicted by experience and this is the very point inductive logic CANNOT grasp!

For this very reason, inductive logic can not grasp an asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability. For these are never derivable from singular statements, but can be contradicted by singular statements.

(For example, Shri Talageri’s formulation of ‘theory of Omens’ claims that AV observation has to be a rare phenomena (or no phenomena) at the time to be considered an omen … and thus observation, according to him, eliminates the entire Epoch of Arundhati.. 11091 BCE – 4508 BCE.  Although illogical and non-testable, let’s us assume this to be valid for a second. The next one must do is look at other descriptions of omens from the list given by Vyasa.. and ask the question.. when a specific description would not take place!  One would realize that theory turns to a disaster—instantaneously.  Of course that does not mean it is clear to inductive logic.

Case of Prof. Achar’s  claim is 1000x times worse.  In fact the entire effort (good intentions in incapable hands) is so ridiculous, one reader wrote me asking why I bother showing  foolishness of such an attempt.  My response is that, I do so because, unfortunately, many good meaning (but ignorant) individuals (researchers and laypeople alike) have convinced themselves of 3067 BCE as the year of Mahabharata War… because a professor is saying so, or because someone has invested time and money making a documentary with 3067 BCE as the year of Mahabharata war.  Fortunately, many are realizing what a disaster claim of 3067 BCE poses, when analyzed against Mahabharata evidence.  Enough said.)

A system is to be admitted as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience.

(a system that has empirical data does not necessarily make it scientific.. but that is another subject. Good example is that of Astrology which is super rich in data, but non-scientific…at least in its current state, for obvious reasons)

All statements that are neither analytic, nor contradictory, nor empirically falsifiable, belong to metaphysics. This does not mean metaphysics is meaningless.


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