Translation Please

OK, I get it. I've read the Capra book back in my middle / high-school years!

 

Fritjof Capra's a fun read, but try and keep the mysticism separate from the hard science.
Here is the latest version of this debate!
Happy reading!

 

Isnt it amazing to know that our old time writers meditate and come up with Bhagavatgita, Mahabharatha,,,,and seeing things (like atoms) which we need microscope,,,,and explaining everything ont he basis of time? Those are precious gurus.

 

It is important to distinguish between mystical insights and scientific insights, even when they may sound similar - both are valuable, but in different ways. One useful idea is to think about them in terms of 'expressive equivalence' and 'procedural equivalence'*.

Roman numerals and arabic numerals are expressively equivalent. You can represent a number in both systems. However, try multiplying MDCLXXIV with LXXIX. Not easy right? In this case, a mathematical 'operation' is facilitated by the arabic notation. In a similar fashion, a mystical insight may appear to say the same thing as a scientific insight. We can discuss them as if they are expressively equivalent, even if they are really not (as Fritjof Capra does) and perhaps even profit from that discussion. However a mystical insight is not procedurally equivalent to a scientific theory. It is difficult to reliably manipulate mystical ideas to yield new truths. This is true even for rigorous, though purely philosophical or even mathematical ideas. That was the import of the article I linked earlier.

As that article shows, the demarcation between science and non-science is a difficult and ongoing investigation in the philosophy of science. One of the more useful ideas that scientists like is the notion of 'falsifiability'. This means that any time we come up with a theory, we are obligated to come with an approach that would say 'if you can show x and y, I will abandon this theory'. That is, we seek not to prove our theory, but to disprove it!

The classic example is that of the black swan. If we posit a theory that 'all swans are white', then the moment we see our first black swan, the theory is disproved, no matter how many millions of white swan we may have seen in the meantime. So falsifiability is an important criterion, more powerful than proof. As might be expected, there are many other ideas on the demarcation problem as well.

Of course when you bring a report of the first black swan, the theorist will argue that it was not a swan at all, but some other bird. Then you have to go capture one and bring it back to the lab to compare and so on and so on - now we have science!

You can learn from the mystics without equating their insights with science.

Be mindful when you read!

Sorry for the lecture. :hide:

*Adapted (with abandon) from: Paul Thagard - 'Computational Philosophy of Science' (MIT Press, 1988)

 

And from mythologists(none other than the acclaimed Subramaniam Swamy) as well.

Bob Marley or Baba Murali? Ten mind blowing revelations by Subramaniam Swamy - IBNLive

 

(a) Is this the same chap who was in politics or are there other Swamys floating about?
(b) Is the web-post real? Is he really a flake? Or is this some sort of a parody?