TRIZ, Conflict resolution & Science of History

Our quest to understand the mystery of our universe is stifled by fundamental contradictions or conflicts between theory of Quantum Mechanics and theory of relativity and thus scientists work overtime to resolve such conflicts and/or attempt proposing new theories to resolve them.

Conflicts and contradictions between dogmatic systems such as two religions are obvious and their consequences very painful, unbelievable but real.

Similar conflicts and contradictions also affect historical research. There is a huge need to set out a road map to resolve such conflicts and contradictions. At a minimum, a road map to determine a better theory from the pool of multiple theories/proposals claiming solutions to the same problem (e.g. Year of Mahabharata War)

The problem presented due to ‘Krishna’s statement (Krishna-Karna dialogue)that conflicts with Bhishma resting on bed of arrows for >92 days’ is not unlike the problem presented by ‘multiple statements’ of Mahabharata text related to when did the war take place (Dwapara, Kali, sandhi of Dwapar-Kali, etc.) or the problem of Balarama Tirthayatra (combining statement of Balarama -Pushya/Shravana nakshatras – with that of the last day of Mahabharata War)

Dr. Vartak have suggested innovative approach (Scoring employed in Tennis match is a good analogy) in solving problems of these kinds. I have alluded to this approach in the context of Bhishma Nirvana (e.g. 21:2), but so far it has lost on the readership.

I have also alluded to alternate approach such as that of ‘stepwise regression’ in the context of many small and big problems (e.g. Balarama Tirthyatra, Bhishma’s duration on the bed of arrows, Mahabharata and beginning of Kaliyuga, Late moon rise on the 14th day of the Mahabharata War, etc.). Again the approach is lost on the readership. So, I have to do better in elaborating this approach and thus my decision to wait, until background (prerequisite) is established.

I suggest approach similar to ‘TRIZ’ ( in resolving these issues. Again, readers require good comprehension of (1) Corroboration, (2) Degree of corroboration, (3) Testability, (4) Degree of Testability, (5) Simplicity (in theory and testing) (6) Concept of alternate explanations, (7) Falsifiability (8) Prior improbability and such.

I have not had time to establish these concepts through my writing and specifically for the context of historical research. This is the reason I have not indulged into these explanations yet. However, this very much remains on my mind.

All in good time.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s