Shri Phadnis writes…
“In my e-mail exchange with Shri. Achar, he had reluctantly agreed that your observation of AV positions cannot be denied!”
Shri Phadnis was writing in the context of his critique of Prof. Achar’s claim for his validation of 3067 BCE (originally proposed by Prof. Srinivas Raghavan) as the year of Mahbharata war.
The year 3067 BCE falls outside the Epoch of Arundhati (11091 BCE – 4508 BCE) and thus anyone comprehending the deductive/empirical force (Shabda Pramana/Pratyaksha pramana) of AV observation accepts falsification of any proposed year of Mahabharata war that falls after 4508 BCE.
This emotionally driven reluctance of Prof. Achar can be understood, since in agreeing to inference due to observation of AV also means giving up his claim for 3067 BCE as the year of Mahabharata War.
Of course, I would have hoped that Prof. Achar (or others) had explored/argued/defended his position as opposed to maintaining ‘complete silence’ since 2011 (the year my book was published. I had sent him copy of my book immediately after its publication).
However, this ‘reluctance’ also has scientific value.
The ‘reluctance’ in immediate acceptance of a new breakthrough (in any given field) comes from the fact that individuals (i.e. individual researchers) or society has emotionally adjusted to the existing and latest theory/proposal that has claimed to solve a specific problem.
Unless new breakthrough/theory/proposal faces resistance from existing theory/proposal, advances and improvements of new breakthrough are not appreciated. Only in its standing up against fierce and repeated attacks by preservers of (now) old theory/proposal, and ultimately emerging victorious; the worth of new breakthrough/theory/proposal is understood and accepted.
I congratulate Prof. Achar for recognizing the force of AV observation and resultant inference for the year of Mahabharata war and, thus, also for the ancient history of India (world). I thank Shri Prabhakar Phadnis for his efforts in communicating (and articulating) critical importance of AV observation, to Prof. Achar, for timing of Mahabharata war.
The beauty of deductive/empirical proof is that the acceptance of a certain outcome (of a test, scientific validation of an experiment, etc.) is not left to whim or opinion of experts or authorities since what is claimed is ‘subject independent’, i.e. anyone can check the veracity of the claim for oneself.
Even then, it is not unusual for people in power, or some perceived authority, to deny the claim or remain mute even when a revolutionary discovery is made.
As British geneticist and evolutionary biologists, J. B. S. Haldane, puts it…
“I suppose the process of acceptance will pass through the usual four stages:
(i) this is worthless nonsense;
(ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view;
(iii) this is true, but quite unimportant;
(iv) I always said so.”
A word of caution
It is not unusual for inferior and unenlightened minds to think of a failure of a specific theory as a failure of the researcher who proposed it (or defended it).
The truth is far from this.
All revolutionary theories generate new problems of higher complexities. In fact, a worth of a new theory is to be judged by not only the problem(s) is solves, but interesting new problems it generates.
Failed theories/proposals provide numerous insights to researchers in comprehending new problems while testing solutions of problems already solved. All new theories owe their debt to all previous researchers and their theories and their experiments.
In words of Albrecht Durer:
“But I shall let the little I have learnt go forth into the day in order that someone better than I may guess the truth, and in his work may prove and rebuke my error. At this I shall rejoice that I was yet a cause whereby such truth has come to light.”