8

Scientists claim that the underlying notion of a science is falsifiability i.e. the ability to disprove a statement via performing an experiment.

Rishis claim that the underlying notion of religion is falsifiability i.e. the ability to disprove a statement via performing an experiment.

E.g.
SCIENCE:
Statement - 'Sky is blue'
Condition for falsifiability - open your eyes

RELIGION:
Statement - 'Yagna produces rain'
Condition for falsifiability - perform yagna

Is there a difference ?

If my eyes are faulty, or if I look down instead of looking up, the scientists will tell me to try again i.e. ascribe the fault to the experimenter. They will not change their stance and say that 'Sky is blue' is non-falsifiable. They may edit their stance to say 'Sky is blue' is falsifiable provided you follow our instructions exactly.

If my morality is faulty, or if I use buffalo ghee instead of cow ghee, the rishis will tell me to try again i.e ascribe the fault to the experimenter. They will not change their stance and say that 'Yagna produces rain' is non-falsifiable. They may edit their stance to say 'Yagna produces rain' is falsifiable provided you follow our instructions exactly.

If I don't trust scientists, and my eye is faulty, I will not waste my time trying again.

If I don't trust rishis, and my yagna performance is faulty, I will not waste my time trying again.

Can anyone give a single example of a non-falsifiable claim in Vedas, or Vedanga like Jyotisha ?

  • 3
    It seems like you’re not really asking a question, instead you’re making an argument for something, which is not really what questions are for. So I’m closing your question for the time being. If you want to revise your post into an actual question, edit it and flag me to reopen it. – Keshav Srinivasan Apr 12 at 22:57
  • 1
    @LazyLubber, it does not even matter whether they call it falsifiable or not. the fact remains that they have given a hypothesis, and experiment, and a verification method. does every scientist say 'this claim is falsifiable' before making a claim. it is implied. same way with anything mentioned in vedas. – ram Apr 13 at 17:39
  • 1
    @Wikash_hindu, you're wrong. religion has a scientific background. you've just been brainwashed into thinking otherwise. just the name 'religion' does not make it unscientific. just like the name 'science' does not make it irreligious. even science requires some faith, and even religion requires some verification. – ram Apr 14 at 17:25
  • 1
    I feel the question is not science vs religion but "believer of science" vs "believer of religion". A true scientist experiments and verifies. The same way a true Rishi does his own experiments, like yoga, yagna, dyana or so. You can believe sky is blue, or it looks blue due to air or go to outer space to verify. Same way you can believe Yagna can bring rain, or do it and succeed/fail or try to understand and all complexities and reasons for the rules of a yagna. Also can one believe with one success/failure, or two, be it science/religion? – Sreekumar R Apr 14 at 17:58
  • 1
    @Wikash_hindu, yes God exists. do you want proof ? all you need to do is the thing I said earlier - do penance for 12 years. if you're not interested in it, don't waste my time. just like the person who refuses to open his eyes and keeps on asking scientists to prove that the sky is blue. – ram Apr 14 at 20:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .