Krishna Consciousness - the Pseudo Science

A. Scientific: Here is a process. If you follow it and become Krishna conscious then Krishna Consciousness is valid. If you follow it and you don't, then it's not valid.

B. Unscientific: Here is a process. If you follow it and become Krishna conscious then Krishna Consciousness is valid. If you follow it and you don't, then we'll say that you didn't follow it properly (for a nicely-worded example of this see this comment)

Now, B is unscientific. It's not scientific.

That's because it fails the falsifiability criteria needed for the scientific method.

In the mid-20th Century Karl Popper suggested the criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from non-science. Statements such as "God created the universe" may be true or false, but no tests can be devised that could prove them false, so they are not scientific; they lie outside the scope of science. Popper subdivided non-science into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious and/or metaphysical formulations on the one hand, and pseudoscientific formulations on the other...

- Wikipedia entry on Pseudo-science

So it's not scientific, but that's because it's a metaphysical system that deals with things beyond the scope of science. However, when you combine it with "Krishna Consciousness is a science" it becomes pseudo-science.

Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. The term comes from the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and "science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge").

- Wikipedia entry on Pseudo-science

My wife explained this morning: "It's not science in the modern sense of the word".

OK, like I could say: "Turn right. No, not right in the modern sense of the word. I mean right in the other sense of the word that means left."

It's disingenuous, and that's why pseudo-science gets called out.

The purpose of calling Krishna Consciousness "a science" is nicely summarized by H.H. Hrdayananda Goswami: "Science has a certain prestige in modern society, and because we want what we do to be associated with that prestige we call it a science."

That's the dictionary definition of pseudo-science folks.

Imagine yourself in a public debate with a disciple of Richard Dawkins, where you assert that Krishna Consciousness is scientific, in an attempt to protect its prestige in the minds of the onlookers.

You are wrong, you will be defeated, and you richly deserve it.

I know, because it happened to me a year ago.

Now for many cult members, the normal response would be to go back to headquarters and reinforce your conditioning with other indoctrinated cult members - throwing in a few ad hominem attacks for good measure ("rascal scientists" for example).

However, throwing kicks and punches at shadows back in the karate school just doesn't do it for me. So after being defeated I surrendered to these disciples of Dawkins to learn their kung-fu. Over the last year I have mastered their devastating preying mantis form.

I have also developed counter strategies. Yesterday I successfully deployed one. That's the subject of another post.