11

Scientists claim that the underlying notion of a theory is falsifiability i.e. the ability to disprove a statement by performing an experiment laid out by the scientist.

Rishis claim that the underlying notion of a shastra is falsifiability i.e. the ability to disprove a statement by performing an experiment laid out by the rishi.

E.g.
SCIENCE:
Theory - Sky is blue
How to disprove it ? - Open your eyes. If sky is green, theory is disproved.
If I am blind, or I refuse to open my eyes, or I look at the earth instead of looking up - all those are my faults. If I am faulty, and still claim that the scientists are fake, no scientist will change his claim because of some faulty experimenter.

RELIGION:
Theory - Yagna produces rain
How to disprove it ? - Perform yagna. If rain doesn't pour, theory is disproved.
If I am sinful, or I refuse to perform yagna, or don't follow the thousands of rules/regulations required - all those are my faults. If I am faulty, and still claim that rishis are fake, no rishi will change his claim because of some faulty experimenter.

Is there any difference between these two claims?

The Flying-Teapot or Flying-Spaghetti-Monster argument is commonly presented as an example of a 'non-falsifiable' claim - something whose existence is very hard or impossible to verify. It is often used to deride the religious believers.

However, it is very simple to deride scientific rationalists using the same argument. I can call any scientific statement ('Atoms exist' or 'Vaccines save lives') as 'non-falsifiable' because it is very hard or impossible for me to verify (doing Physics PhD/postdoc for 10 years or doing pharmaceutical double blind trials for 20 years).

Can anyone, especially the scientific/rational/atheists, give a single example of a non-falsifiable claim in Vedas, or Vedanga like Jyotisha (Astrology) ?

73
  • 5
    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. Apr 12 '19 at 22:57
  • 2
    @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.
    – mar
    Apr 13 '19 at 17:39
  • 2
    "Is religion different from science?" well yes. Since religion in general has no scientific background. If it wasn't hinduism would be a fact and not a religion. Easy-peasy.
    – Wikash_
    Apr 14 '19 at 16:42
  • 2
    @ram "religion has a scientific background." If you can show that god exists you do not need me or this exchange. You'll have enough money to do everything in the world. So go ahead.
    – Wikash_
    Apr 14 '19 at 19:11
  • 2
    This site has become more of a circle-jerk where people push their own ideas about religion than a place for canonical debate. Dec 7 '20 at 6:12
4
+500

Scientists claim that the underlying notion of a theory is falsifiability i.e. the ability to disprove a statement by performing an experiment laid out by the scientist.

The criterion of falsifiability does not come from science itself or from any scientist, but from the so-called philosophy of science. It was first propounded by Karl Popper, who was not a scientist, but a philosopher. Let us examine falsifiability in detail, by taking into account some well-known scientific theories.

Closely related to the idea of falsifiability is the ability of a scientific theory to make predictions. For example, the General Theory of Relaitivity of Einstein makes a prediction that time is affected due to gravity and it involves gravitational red shift. When Einstein propounded this theory, there was no experiment that was conducted before, that actually showed this. Therefore, this is an example of a prediction from General Relativity. (For simplicity, let us assume this was the only prediction from Einstein’s General Relativity). This prediction, of course, was confirmed by later experiments.

However, what would have happened if a particular experiment had contradicted the prediction? Because the theory was new and completely non-intuitive, perhaps it would have immediately fallen into disrepute? May be. More likely, the experiment would have been repeated by another independent set of researchers, and if this repeated experiment fails to confirm the theory, the theory would seriously start losing steam. At this point, the theory would be just a few more repeated experiments away from being completely discarded. This, is an example of falsifiability.

Yes, the experiments need to be done properly. That is the reason why one single experiment alone cannot be used to completely discard a theory.

The above is a very simplistic example though.

A better example would be classical physics vs moden physics. Both are paradigms. Both paradigms have good experimental evidence and modern physics is closer to the truth. But that does not mean that classical physics is wrong. It is still a good approximation at low velocites and macroscopic levels. Modern Physics, as the more correct understanding of nature, did not replace classical physics overnight, or due to a single experiment supposedly “falsifying” classical physics. It was a slow and gradual process, which started from the realization that there is something about black body radiation that was not properly explained by classical physics. This realization came about probably by the end of 19th century. However, it is not as if classical physics was immediately disproved due to this realization. (Classical physics is still considered a valid approximation even today). The discoveries in quantum mechanics were gradual and took upto the late 1920s to become a coherent theory.

So the understanding that theory X is falsified overnight and/or replaced by theory Y is not realistic. To reiterate this point, there have been recent claims, later proved false, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly) about discovery of faster than light travel. It is not as if Physicists dumped special theory of relativity overnight due to this claim.

So, is falsifiability really a yard stick for scientific theories? May be yes, to some extent in the past. But in the present day, where experimental science is probably lagging behind theory, this may not deter researchers from pursuing their favorite candidate for a theory-of-everything. The best example of this today is the String theory, which currently has no significant predictions, but is an active research topic for about 40 years. What researchers in String theory are more likely to be concerned, at least currently, is mathematical aspects of the theory. Even when the theory of General Relativity was proposed, it was “made” to have certain mathematical characteristics before it came out.

However, there are other cases, where theories have been modified, either based on new observations or in order to explain some problems. An example is the big bang cosmological model, which did have predictions that were confirmed (microwave background raditation), but which also have undergone subsequent modifications (addition of inflation) later.

So long story short, even though scientific theories tend to be falsifiable in general, science rarely works by over-night dumping of a theory due to contradicting experimental evidence. Theories build up their reputation over time, as reliable predictors of nature, due to experimental evidence, which can be repeated independently. Of course, in the history of science, there have been theories that have been discarded due to contradicting evidence from experiments. One thing to note is that scientific understanding of nature is constantly evolving. There are many things currently which are not yet explainable by any scientific theory. Science acknowledges its current boundaries. However, there is no assumption that these boundaries are permanent and cannot be stretched with the passage of time. So there is no assumption that a phenomenon XYZ is completely and forever beyond science, even if science does not explain it currently.

This, then is the science side of things. What about religion?

Rishis claim that the underlying notion of a shastra is falsifiability i.e. the ability to disprove a statement by performing an experiment laid out by the rishi.

Actually, religion does make and has made many falsifiable claims. And many claims of religion have been falsified (similar situation as for many scientific theories, which have been falsified). Specific to the Hindu religion, I can think of geographical claims about the earth that are present in some puranas that have been falisified. Claims about Rahu or Ketu swallowing the sun or moon during the eclipses have also been falsified. (The reader can similarly note that many Abrahamic religious claims about creation happening about 4000 or 6000 years ago, or flat earth or earth being center of the universe, have similarly been falsified).

Ignoring other religions, and sticking to Hindu religion, a few thoughts will be shared here. It is often difficult to understand what exactly a particular religious claim is. For exmaple, when pointed out that Rahu or Ketu swallowing the sun or moon has been shown to be false, the response from defenders of religion might be of this sort- “These claims should be interpreted differently. Rahu and Ketu represent ignorance and sun or moon represent knowledge or mind and eclipse represents the overcoming of mind by ignorance etc.”

Where as, if science makes a claim that is later falsified, scientists in general do not have a problem acknowledging that the claim was false, the same amount of honesty is not seen in religion. Seldom do religions acknowledge that their claims are false, even if proved outrightly false. It is always a problem of interpretation and never a problem of the religious claim.

Which brings us to the most important difference between science and religion – scientists do not make claims of infallibility, while religious personalities are generally considered infallible by their followers.

Again, there is no necessity for applying science to doubt religious claims, nor is doubting religious claims a monopoly of atheists, agnostics or scientists. Some claims can be doubted by mere application of the most basic skepticism. The Ramayana has Rama, a human being (he is a human incarnation), living for thousands of years. Meanwhile, Ashwatthama, Parashurama etc – all human beings - are immortal. Even an average person will doubt such claims. Whether there was any time when humans lived for thousands of years? Is it possible for a human to be immortal? (Or is all this just a matter of interpretation? How would you interpret these claims away?) How do you verify/falsify such claims? You do meditation and realize that Ashwatthama is still alive? How does that work out? You will be able to see him? How would you verify that he is really Drona’s son and not an imposter? Perhaps this claim of Ashwatthama’s immortality is indeed falsifiable, but I think it is upto the religious people making this claim to show how this is falsifiable. In fact, believing such claims is more taxing on the average mind than questioning them.

Another religious claim is about references in Mahabharata of Arjuna shooting many arrows within a short span of time, without missing the target. Mind you, these are not supernatural claims. Implicit in Mahabharata is the assumption that Arjuna, by practice has achieved mastery over archery and never misses his target. An average human would marvel at this ability of Arjuna. There is no statistical randomness in Arjuna’s aim. Even a fair coin, when tossed a 1000 times, is very unlikely to give exactly 500 heads and 500 tails. But the arrows of Arjuna know no such statistical laws. They always hit the target with 100% certainty, no matter even if the target is small and at a large distance away (though within visible range). It is not even the case that the arrows land very close to the target. They are right on target. And it is not as if this mastery has been achieved due to any mantra-s. It is pure practice, which is why Ekalavya was also able to achieve it. The presence of such claims definitely raises eye-brows. Now how does anyone falsify the claim that it is possible for a human being to achieve this degree of perfection in archery? Mind you, as mentioned before, we are not even in the realm of the supernatural here.

RELIGION: Theory - Yagna produces rain How to disprove it ? - Perform yagna. If rain doesn't pour, theory is disproved. If I am sinful, or I refuse to perform yagna, or don't follow the thousands of rules/regulations required - all those are my faults. If I am faulty, and still claim that rishis are fake, no rishi will change his claim because of some faulty experimenter.

The question answers itself, or at least hints at the answer. Is the claim – Yagna produces rain, falsifiable? If I am sinful, my Yagna does not produce rain. Who is to verify whether or not I am sinful? Who is the person qualified to give certificate of sinfulness or otherwise? If such a person exists, he or she must be all-knowing or at least know everything about everyone, including the ability to read minds. And who will certify that this all-knowing person is all-knowing? Another all-knowing person who would further require a certification from some one else? It is not clear how exactly the claim – Yagna produces rain – is falsifiable. Again, as with most religious claims, this claim is very fluid and needs more clarity.

I can call any scientific statement ('Atoms exist' or 'Vaccines save lives') as 'non-falsifiable' because it is very hard or impossible for me to verify (doing Physics PhD/postdoc for 10 years or doing pharmaceutical double blind trials for 20 years).

Pharma companies don’t try to falsify vaccines. They try to find evidence that a vaccine works. The statistical null-hypothesis, in fact assumes that the vaccine has no effect. So the default position is that the vaccine is useless. It is upto the evidence to show that the vaccine has an effect. This is like many scientific theories. These theories need to build their credibility in the eyes of scientists and this process happens by many experimental confirmations.

--------------‐‐**********----------------

A point was raised by OP about Arjuna's skill in archery being similar to Shakuntala Devi's skill of being a human computer. Response to this -

  1. Compare apples to apples, not oranges. These two skills require different abilities.

  2. There are examples of other human computers like Alexis Lemaire, Willem Klein.

  3. Comparable to human computers in the field of archery are Olympic archery gold medalists. There exists no such archer with 100% accuracy of hitting a (fixed) target, leave alone hitting a moving arrow coming at you.

2
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Pandya
    Dec 25 '20 at 1:22
  • An answer well deserving of +1000. Whoever the deleted user is, Kudos for the excellent answer!!
    – peace
    Mar 14 at 11:33
2

The notation of 'falsifying' lies in finding or showing a contradiction in a certain statement. As per OP:

SCIENCE: Theory - Sky is blue How to disprove it ? - Open your eyes. If sky is green, theory is disproved.

This small example is a fraction of the entire process of science. Science not always begins by a claim, it usually starts with a observation and then finding the underlying reason for the observed. If a certain theory is falsified we search a new to explain the observed. (As what happened during the discovering the structure of atom, the plum pudding model was falsified by Rutherford's scattring experiments, and with the help of the experimental results he purposed his own, science needs experiment to deduce and even to assume) what you are suggesting is logic having two outcomes true or false.

Coming to next part. As per OP:

Theory - Yagna produces rain How to disprove it ? - Perform yagna. If rain doesn't pour, theory is disproved.

Although the first one is a perfect example of 'falsifiablity', I dont think the second example is. Its always: ' perform this yagna so the rain will come'. The first is the process and the next is its result. It has been never said to experiment with yagna to see if rain comes or not. This thing is a result of forcefully applying 'logic'. In fact the whole aspect of 'shastra' is non-falsiable. Secondly the performing yagna and then it rains is not a claim, insted a methodology, a practice.

If I was to compare vedas to something in science it would never be the underlying theory but insted the application.

Science wants underlying mechanism, which happens through some mediators which are not detectable in case of the practices given by vedas, tantras etc. The largest range of experiments directly done are on astrology. Why? The reason is its closeness with astronomy. While there is a contradiction in first place itself. (See: https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/43515/21353 As in the answer Rahu and ketu are not bodies to produce any 'force' or effect on someone). Practices in tantras or even astrological remedies are not verifiable, as such the effect directly are over the person's fate. As far as its concerned a certain degree of secracy is necessary for the things to really take place. The 'falsifiablity' is not always applicable.

2

However, it is very simple to deride scientific rationalists using the same argument. I can call any scientific statement ('Atoms exist' or 'Vaccines save lives') as 'non-falsifiable' because it is very hard or impossible for me to verify

Let’s start by your statement -- leaving aside for a moment the polemics -- Can you proof that Atoms exists?

difference in cosmic radiation intensity at ground level at Paris, Palais de La Découverte and in altitude at 2777 m, Pic du Midi in a Phywe PJ45 cloud chamber.

Yes you can. But if I tell you, this stone is very special , I feel that it's different from all others:

enter image description here

you will touch it, you will use all your tools and you will not feel anything.

BUT IF I GIVE YOU THE RIGHT INSTRUMENTS YOU CAN SEE THAT IT HAS A DIFFERENCE:

Thorite in the cloud chamber

Quoting Russel about the flying teapot:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

Here you have the big paradox between a dogma and a philosophy like Hinduism or Buddhism. How I can proof that the Gods, or Shiva Himself exist? Because I feel it. And because others felt my same feelings before me. This already is a suggestion of an empirical proof.So when You read in Shiva Gita:

enter image description here

The cause of the action produce the effect, the only proof You can have is within yourself and others. sages are the teachers, but Only with the heart and personal effort united with the right instrument, this goal can be achieved. Without it, anything or everything can be falsified.

Also, I would like to point out that the logic expressed in the question is too much limited for any argument, resenting stupidity. Logic is essential to distinguish any object , but it has attributes that can only be conceived through comparisons and relative details.

For example if I don't know what are the colors and I ask You to describe the color "Yellow", how can You describe the Yellow color without making a comparison to something that i can easily attribute to that color? Yellow without a visual representation means nothing. But it has an intrinsic value connected to my sight.

Another would be to describe the love for your parents or your mother. Can you really describe it without any comparison or logical details?

So if I say : Due to atoms interaction can be formed an energetic Trident? Yes It is possible , but you cannot be aware of it without an instrument.

enter image description here

When an electron of great energy produce a photon by bremsstrahlung, the angular divergence in the direction of motion of the two products may be very small. If by chance, the photon pair may originate at a point which is apparently coincident with the track of the primary electron , it will originate at points separated from the parent electron track by distances less than can be resolved under the microscope, and will thus give rise to 'tridents’.

So the same is for Shiva : If by chance (call it Karma or whatever You want) the Devotion born for Mahadev inside a man or a woman, this can be only related to previous causes of previous births and You cannot be aware of it without the right instrument.

3
  • 1
    nice. Brahma sutras and shiva sutras( one of the kashmiri saivite books) talk about ~300 such energy beams that run the entire universe. the sutras quote actually around 230 or so. they have names for specific important ones. once you research if you could post the names that'd be good :-) Dec 8 '20 at 20:51
  • 1
    this was not in the Brahma sutra but in Rig veda will have to ferret out the verse numbers Dec 9 '20 at 3:14
  • @GopalAnantharaman i would like to know them too! :D Dec 9 '20 at 14:59
1

There are two kinds of 'religions', Abrahamic faiths and Dharmas. The Abrahamic faiths are based on blind belief. These systems are far from science.

Hindu and Bouddha Dharma is of the second kind which privileges direct perception over blind belief.

Religion is not about belief but about direct perception.

"There are certain religious facts which, as in external science, have to be perceived and upon them religion will be built. Of course, the extreme claim that you must believe every dogma of a religion is degrading to the human mind. The man who asks you to believe everything, degrades himself, and, if you believe, degrades you too. The sages of the world have only the right to tell us that they have analyzed their minds and have found these facts, and if we do the same we shall also believe, and not before. That is all there is in religion."

The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, 2:163

"The proof, therefore, of the Vedas is just the same as the proof of this table before me, pratyaksa, direct perception. This I see with the senses, and the truths of spirituality we also see in a superconscious state of the human soul."

The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, 3:253

Gautama Buddha said, "This I have said to you O Kalamas, but you may accept it, not because it is a report, not because it is a tradition, not because it is so said in the past, not because it is given from the scriptures, not for the sake of discussion, not for the sake of particular method, not for the sake of careful consideration, not for the sake of forbearing with wrong views, not because it appears to be suitable, not because your preceptor is a recluse, but if you yourselves understand this is so, meritorious and blameless, and, when accepted, is for benefit and happiness, then you may accept it."

Angutarra iii.653

The Upanishads also say that direct knowledge of God and not just belief is necessary for moksha. The Upanishadic claims can be challenged.

When men shall roll up space as if it were a piece of leather, then will there be an end of sorrow, apart from Knowing God.

Svetasvatara Upanishad VI.20

So what is the answer to this question?

Science is different from the Abrahamic faiths since one can challenge scientific claims and one cannot challenge claims of Abrahamic faiths.

Science is similar to Hindu and Bouddha Dharma since both systems accept that the claims made by them need to be verified. If a person finds after long spiritual effort no proof of the claims made by the Vedas then he is free to reject the spiritual claims of the scripture. However, there is a difference between Science and Dharmas. Science is a third person empirical search for truth while Dharmas are first person empirical searches for truth.

17
  • so, a person accepting the tenet of Vedas that varna is determined by birth, because he has either personally (first-person) understood the law of karma & rebirth through tapas, or even recalled his past life like Vivekananda did, or because he trusts other expert rishis who did the same through tapas - that would be no different from a scientist doing the same ?
    – mar
    Nov 30 '20 at 18:24
  • 1
    ‘When men shall roll up space as if it were a piece of leather, then will there be an end of sorrow, apart from Knowing God. Svetasvatara Upanishad VI.20’ . This is a true statement 😀 Dec 1 '20 at 2:57
  • Varna is not determined by birth in an endogamous group according to the Vedas. Vedas are saying that Varna is determined by conduct in previous birth which creates the Karma and guna necessary for varna in the present birth. Your question is can one accept a scriptural concept through first person experience or because of trust in the claims of other experts. One's own experience of course removes all doubts. If one has no personal experience then one can provisionally accept the claims made by the others subject to one's personal verification. [To Be Continued] Dec 1 '20 at 5:24
  • A scientist will also trust one's own experiment or provisionally accept the claims of other experts in the absence of his own experiment. A scientific theory always has a provisional status and might have to be changed in the light of new anomalous data. There is no absolute certainty in science. In that respect there is some similarity between the Dharmas and science. A scriptural claim in Dharma is accepted provisionally subject to personal verification. There is no dogma in Dharma unlike the dogmatic Abraham faiths. Dec 1 '20 at 5:29
  • 1
    @GopalAnantharaman - can you post the original Sanskrit text ? I don't take English translations of eternal Vedas too seriously.
    – mar
    Dec 2 '20 at 3:51
0

There are certain scriptures in Hinduism which directly support Science - I will mention few of them for the sake of it.

  • Earth is a Globe : This globe of earth, the seat of all the Suras and Asuras, and surrounded by the luminous sphere (of time) in the manner of a walnut covered by its hard crust, subsists under His command.(Yoga Vasista 1.26.34)

  • Evolution of Life : I remember that once upon a time there was nothing on this earth, neither trees and plants, nor even mountains. For a period of eleven thousand [great] years the earth was covered by lava. In those days there was neither day nor night below the polar region: for in the rest of the earth neither the sun nor the moon shone. Only one half of the polar region was illumined. [Later] apart from the polar region the rest of the earth was covered with water. And then for a very long time the whole earth was covered with forests, except the polar region. Then there arose great mountains, but without any human inhabitants. For a period of ten thousand years the earth was covered with the corpses of the asuras.”(Yoga Vasista 6.1.21)

  • Spherical Earth, Space & Spatial directions: These different motions appeared to them with respect to their own situations, as they saw them in their different sides. Here there were no ups and downs and no upside or below, nor any going forward or backward. Here there are no such directions as men take to be by the position of their bodies.There is but one indefinite space in nature, as there is but one consciousness in all beings; yet everything moves in its own way, as wayward boys take their own course.There is but one space enveloping all things, and the worlds which are seen in the infinite and indiscernible womb of vacuity, are as worms moving on the surface of water. All these bodies that move about in the world by their want of freedom (i. e. by the power of attraction), are thought to be up and down by our position on earth.So when there is a number of ants on an earthen ball, all its sides are reckoned below which are under their feet, and those as above which are over their backs.Such is this ball of the earth in one of these worlds, covered by vegetables and animals moving on it,and by devas, daityas and men walking upon it.(Yoga Vasista 3.30.6-13)

  • Sun never Sets/Rises : Whilst the Sun, who is the discriminator of all hours, shines in one continent in midday, in the opposite Dwípas, Maitreya, it will be midnight: rising and setting are at all seasons, and are always (relatively) opposed in the different cardinal and intermediate points of the horizon. When the sun becomes visible to any people, to them he is said to rise; when he disappears from their view that is called his setting. There is in truth neither rising nor setting of the sun, for he is always; and these terms merely imply his presence and his disappearance.(Vishnu Purana Book 2, Ch 8, p 218-219 by HH Wilson)

  • Everything is made of Matter and All Matter Decays : Things that are called mountains are made of rocks, those that are called trees are made of wood, and those that are made of flesh are called animals, and man is the best of them. But they are all made of matter, and doomed to death and decay.(Yoga Vasistha 1.27.33)

  • 10 Planetary spheres : They passed in a moment beyond the regions of the earth, air, fire, water, and vacuum, and the tracks of the ten planetary spheres.They reached the boundless space, whence the universe appeared as an egg(Yoga Vasista 3.30.1-2)

We can also find geological erosions, gravitational law of attraction, paralles to Newton's laws(In Kannada Sutras) etc. Scholars like Carl Sagan say " It is the only religion in which the timescales correspond, no doubt by accident, to those of modern scientific cosmology. It’s cycles run from an ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma-8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang and there’re much longer timescales still." However the purpose of reading Hindu texts is to understand Nature of reality of Self, God and Status of Universe. This is the core of Hinduism . It is called Metaphysics and not “science”. Metaphysics is defined as the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality. Purpose of metaphysics is to ensure that an individual orients in the practice of Dharma ie that which leads to the highest common good. That which supports, that which holds together the people of the universe is Dharma. If there is contradiction between scientific evidence and any statement in the Hindu scriptures, then the scriptural statement must be rejected.

  1. Scriptures are no scriptures if they cannot stand the test of reason.(MB Santi CXLII)
  2. The remark of a child is to be accepted, if it is in accordance with reason; but the remark of even Brahma Himself, the creator of the world is to be rejected like a piece of straw if it does not accord with reason(Yoga Vasistha 2.18)
  3. Even a hundred statements of Sruti to the effect that fire is cold and non-luminous won't prove valid. If it does make such a statement, its import will have to be interpreted differently. Otherwise, validity won't attach to it. Nothing in conflict with the means of valid cognition or with its own statements may be imputed to Sruti(Shankaracharya on BG 18.66)
  4. Sense perception is its own standard of truth. It cannot be negated by inference or Scripture. The moon’s small size and other such erroneous perceptions are accountable as being due to distance and other conditions. There is no reason to reject the evidence of sense-perception regarding the existence of a world external to our minds.(Tattvodyota of Madhavacharya )
1
  • Of course there are many scriptures across all religions that might agree with science or more better, science might agree with them. And similarly, there are certain scriptures across all religions with claims of stupendously exaggerated flabbergasted kind of nonsense which can only be a work of primitive beliefs rather than some divine entities. Because, if the words in any religious books are to be considered infallible from all perspectives, they must be really be infallible across all perspectives. And more or less, all religious works, are definitely fallible via scientific reason.
    – peace
    Mar 14 at 11:30

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .