Shri Prabhakar Phadnis writes…
“Ref 26 – Exp.17. – This Ref is from GP only, not from BORI. Is it authentic? Assuming it is, the quotation with pre, post ref. needs to be looked into. As given in the book, रोहिणी पीडयत्येवं(पीडयति एवं) उभौ च शशिभास्करौ”
The link to his blog is here:
“Is something authentic’ is not the best formulation of a question one ought to ask in the field of science of History (and also in case of ‘history of science’..e.g. “is gravity real?’ or ‘bending of space due to inertial object real?’).
Rather the questions should be:
(1) Is this been corroborated for a specific theory?
(2) Does this evidence falsifies a specific theory?
(3) Which alternate theories corroborate this evidence?
(4) Which other theories ignore this evidence and/or ‘explain away’ such evidence. Also worth asking the question… Why did they ignore it or why did they explain it away?
Shri Phadnis might have questioned the authenticity of this reference because, as he mentions, the reference does not appear in BORI. In fact a situation such as this provides a great opportunity to test quality of ‘Critical edition’.
Again, any testing and corroboration/falsification of evidence (e.g. astronomy) or of an approach (BORI critical edition) is always (ALWAYS) in the context of a specific theory.
Specific theory has limitations on what it can test, however, it is capable of corroborating, falsifying or challenging inferences reached via other theories.
To know more of limitations of a given theory (what it can and can not test) see below:
And for another good example of corroboration of another non-BORI astronomy observation, see below:
(Many additional examples for corroboration of non-BORI observations exist in my book).