Debating evidence, method & Inferences: Oak vs Koch – Part 3

Continued from part 2

Links to previous parts are here:

And thus, Dieter Koch began with wrong argumentation, followed by not comprehending my scientific argument (that how big a separation does not matter. Period), followed by superfluous and unnecessary speculation, he comes a full circle, when he repeats his arguments (which was never stated clearly and/or with the evidence and required logic in the first place),

Since historical and archaeological clues stand against such a high chronology (and even against 5561 BCE), we have to conclude that Oak’s interpretation of the verse is most probably wrong and that the mystery of the verse remains unsolved.

Of course, AV observation stands in its glory and remains one of the best ‘Shabda’ pramana that is corroborated by ‘Pratyaksha’ pramana and fortunately this fact is not lost on Dieter Koch.

Thus, he admits,

Or maybe we have to modify Oak’s idea and think of a different scenario: In a far later time, e.g. after 400 BCE, when the Mahabharata found its final form, the Vedic astronomical tradition could have remembered that in very old times (i.e. around 4508 BCE) the order of the two stars had changed. The phenomenon could have been wrongly associated with the Mahabharata War and therefore been inserted in the text.



The verse could of course also be interpreted as the description of a miraculous apparition, just like the drums that sounded without being beaten or the chariots that moved without animals yoked to them or the images of the gods that were laughing, trembling, vomiting blood, etc. All these phenomena appear in the same text passage. If these things could happen, then why should the stars not have appeared in reversed position?

And finally,

I am afraid I have no better explanation for this verse. Oak’s idea that it could refer to the meridian transits of the two stars seems to make sense at first glance, but the conclusions he draws are absurd. [emphasis mine]

I will get back to my continued response to Shri Koch in the next part…

To be continued…

It is truly amazing how  these researchers reach such juvenile interpretations!

This is the result of misunderstood notion of how science works…

The glory of AV observation can be understood, only if, one understands the value of ‘unique and rare’ confirmations such as that of AV observation, discovered in 2009 CE, as stated by Sir Karl Popper,

“Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory – an event which would have refuted the theory.”


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