Counter Strategy 1: Don't use the term "Science"
As a counter-strategy to the Smackdown on the Science of Self-Realization, just don't use the term "science" to describe Krishna Consciousness.
Krishna Consciousness is not scientific.
Two types of "not scientific" systems are described in the wikipedia entry on pseudo-science.
One type is "pseudo-scientific" - not scientific systems that try to pass themselves off as science to gain credibility.
The other are metaphysical systems that are outside the scope of science. This is in fact what Krishna Consciousness is.
So rather than describe it as "a science", it's safer and more accurate to describe it as "a comprehensive, consistent, systematic, and fully documented metaphysical system".
I think most devotees would say: "That's what I mean when I say that it's a science".
The difference is that when you spell it out like that, you do not open yourself up to the "Dawkins Pseudo-science Smack down".
- sitapati's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Prabhupada's strategy
Pamho, agtSP!
Dear Sitapati Prabhu! I think what you are doing here (presenting Krishna Consciousness as unscientific) is undermining both Prabhupada's teachings and his strategy.
To make my point simple...
1. Prabhupada stressed the importance of presenting KC as a science
and to back it up with science.
2. Prabhupada was not affraid of challenging materialistic science
and labeling it unscientific.
3. Prabhupada claimed that KC was the only real science.
4. Prabhupada instructed us to fight the atheistic understanding of
science - and not to accept their view.
What you are doing is undermining that strategy by telling
us that KC is not science, that we should not present is as such and
that we should not challenge the materialistic view of science.
In addition I think you claim things that are wrong. You say our
process is not falsifiable which is obviously false. Lots of statements in our writing are falsifiable. By stressing falsification you're bying into aheistic
definitions of science which even they do not agree on. There's a lot of debate about falsification in the philosophy of science. I think you are totally wrong on this one, prabhu. I don't think Prabhupada is happy about this all.
I'm also discussing these points in my Defeating Atheism conference on Pamho.
You servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa
OK, I suggest you re-read
OK, I suggest you re-read this article in its context. It's about communicating with the public in 2009.
I say not to use the term "science" and that KC is not "scientific". I've already explained what I mean by that - when you use those words you invoke a certain meaning in the mind of the audience. Srila Prabhupada may have said what he said, but it's up to you to say what you are going to say given the kala-desa-patra.
I have given you the opportunity to use the terms you want to, to communicate the value proposition of KC, and then I am going to show you how those terms open you up to a counter-attack that neutralises what you have to say.
The point in doing this is to share my own personal experience of running into this, and how I have developed strategies for avoiding this.
It's called adaptation. What did Srila Prabhupada mean when he said that "Krishna Consciousness is a science?". Please explain without using the word science (otherwise it's a tautology).
Now, is that explanation equivalent in significance to saying "KC is a science"?
If so, then what is the harm is using that explanation in place of the phrase "KC is a science"?
Especially if using the word "science" causes misunderstanding and needless "redefinition of terms" discussion while you are trying to explain KC to an audience...
That's my point here. Do you understand that?
Prabhu, I just lots two
Prabhu, I just lots two posts due to some technical problems. Maybe I'll write them again later, but I can't guarantee that. It's too depressing to loose texts like that.
Prabhu - you make the
Prabhu - you make the argument that it is scientific, and then I will argue against that. Then we can see how effective each strategy is. So you go first.
Let's keep it short, say 500 word limit per turn.
KC is scientific
Fair enough prabhu :)
---
Even though there is somewhat of a consensus about scientific method in academia there is no one standard definition of science which everyone accepts. Scientia means knowledge. I would claim that any systematic process that leads to knowledge is a science. Krishna Consciousness is such a science since it is a systematic process that leads to knowledge of God and spiritual matters.
AKD
Prabhu, I'll be away for
Prabhu, I'll be away for around a week from today. Enjoy this auspicious day :)
OK, thanks for the heads-up
OK, thanks for the heads-up and the b'day wishes. I'll start off anyway, while it's still in my mind.
You've not defined any specific area, so I get to choose the first field of battle.
Room Conversation, Sydney 04/01/1972
Science means to make a hypothesis, observe, analyze results, if observations <> hypothesis then change hypothesis and start again.
Non-science means to have a belief, make observations, deny any observations that don't fit that belief, repeat ad infinitum.
The method that Srila Prabhupada describes here is non-scientific. You start with your belief, and then argue to make the observations fit it. It is *exactly* the same logic and method that was used by the Church to deny Galileo's findings. It is also the "knowledge filter" that Cremo and Thompson describe in Forbidden Archaeology.
Now I am not saying that the moon landings were real or not. What I am saying is that this approach is non-scientific.
Induction and deduction
My dear friend and truth-seeker Sita Pati Prabhu and anyone reading this blog...
There are two approaches to knowledge. One starts with observation (sense perception) and through logic, reaches generalizations about reality. We usually think of "science" as operating this way. This is called induction. One starts with instances, and then generalizes.
The other way is deduction. One starts with general truths, and then understands specific instances in light of that truth.
Induction goes from specifics to general, and deduction goes from general to specifics.
Scientists in the modern age like to claim that only induction leads to truth, and only induction is "science."
However, if we think for just a short time, we find that there is no such thing as pure induction. Everyone starts with axiomatic truths which they do not question, and cannot test. So while knowledge may be relatively coming through an induction process, all knowledge is ultimately deduction.
Descartes decided that the most basic unquestioned truth he had to start from was his own existence evidenced by the fact of his consciousness of himself. Can one prove this?
In modern science, for example, one starts from truth such as "two parallel lines will never meet." Such cannot be proven.
If all knowledge and all science ultimately rests on deduction, then the source for those axiomatic truths becomes very important.
I suggest you read Kuhn's book, Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It's a tough read, and there are some good study guides and outlines on the Internet. But don't rely on those guides--read them along with the book. It's the classic to help understand what science is and is not, and should really assist you in your preaching mission.
My love to Param Satya and Prahlad, Your servant, Urmila devi dasi
Thank you Urmila devi for
Thank you Urmila devi for taking the time to write these very nice points, and for the good wishes.
I think an important issue (is a sociological one?) is revealed by this statement:
Scientists in the modern age like to claim that only induction leads to truth, and only induction is "science."
The very fact that those who assert this viewpoint are called "scientists" demonstrates that they have, if not a monopoly, a very strong claim to defining the meaning of the term "science".
The word scientia in Latin means knowledge, but in a contemporary context the English word science refers to the modern process of inductive knowledge through the "scientific method".
In another comment you gave a definition of science:
knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.
As Krishna Consciousness does not use the scientific method (the inductive process of experimentation and observation), and is largely concerned with metaphysical realities (as indicated by the term "consciousness"), it doesn't seem to fit that definition so well.
So I understand your point that science itself is based on something else (after all what is making the observations?), but rather than argue that scientists don't know what "science" is, I prefer to let them have the term and present Krishna Consciousness as something else. Science is not the only way.
I respect those who choose the path of presenting Krishna Consciousness as science and work on redefining the term science in public perception. I think the dialog is beneficial - except in circumstances where you end up arguing about the meaning of the word science and lose sight of the actual underlying points, which is where I've ended up sometimes at work.
There, people are left wondering: "Why are you so eager to redefine science away from induction and scientific method to include this thing that you're into? Why not argue it on its own merits?" They then think that it's the desire to grab the credibility of the term "science" in the public mind, garnered through the production of pragmatic technologies. This then leads to the classification of Krishna Consciousness as a "pseudo-science" - a non-scientific (as in inductive, "scientific method") process that tries to present itself as science for the sake of credibility.
Haribol Prabhu! I'm back!
Haribol Prabhu! I'm back! Been busy!
Actually, before we get into a debate like the above I want to make it clear that you are contradicting Prabhupada. Prabhupada challenged materialistic science to the extent of saying that it was actually not science at all, but that Krishna Consciousness is the only real science. I've never seen Prabhupada instruct us to call KC non-scientific. On the contrary - he instructed us to call it scientific. Is seems to me that it is correct to say that you disagree with Prabhupada's views on KC being a science and that you think your strategy for preaching KC in regard to this point is better than his.
I will respond to your comment later!
Ys, AKD
Ajita prabu, welcome back. I
Ajita prabu, welcome back.
I think you wish to make it clear that you "currently think that I am contradicting Prabhupada, but you are open to being proved wrong if that should turn out to be the case."
That's a scientific attitude to take. :-)
Prabhu, We don't need
Prabhu,
We don't need science here. We just need logic. Prabhupada says A. You say -A. Prabhupada is right. Therefore you can't be.
"Good against remotes is one
"Good against remotes is one thing - good against the living is another" - Han Solo.
Thus you prove my point. To begin with "Prabhupada said it, therefore it is axiomatically true" is not science. I don't say that it isn't true (as you imply) - I simply say that this is not science.
A scientific approach would be to use Prabhupada's statement as an initial hypothesis, then investiigate. What you've done is turn it into a belief system - Prabhupadism". Not something that Prabhupada wanted.
You didn't even provide any citations to support your statement, nor any consideration of objection (purvapaksa).
Madhyama adhikari preaching means providing supporting evidence, Have a look at Baladeva Vidyabhusana's Govinda Bhasya for an example of proper Vedanta logic.
Here's an example:
Is Krishna Consciousness scientific?
1. Krishna Consciousness is scientific
(Give some quotes from Srila Prabhupada and other sources)
2. Samsaya (introduction of doubt)
Someone may counter that Krishna Consciousness is not scientific
3. Purvapaksa (presentation of counter argument)
Krishna consciousness is not scientific
(Here you present my argument - not a strawman robot, programmed to lose, but the full-blooded argument in all its strength, which you've taken the time to master, to a level where I would read the book and not have anything further to offer to defend my position. When you do that, whoever reads the book will be convinced - what happened in Jaipur with Govinda Bhasya is one example of this, Brahmana and Vaisnava by BSST is another.)
4. Refutation
Here you refute the purvapaksa
5. Conclusion
And you state the conclusion.
*That's* logic, and defense of the tradition. Not what you've done, which is more like school yard logic. You haven't even been able to engage with the argument I'm making. It's like you feel it threatens your faith personally...
Prabhu, If you had read what
Prabhu,
If you had read what I wrote you would have seen that I want to defend two contentions:
1) You are contradicting Prabhupada
2) Krishna Consciousness is a science
I started by agreeing to defend my second contention, but I changed my mind and wrote you that I'll start by defending my first contention. So you can't criticize me for not trying to defend my second contention which is what you're doing now. I'll stick to my defense of my first contention, and then later we can see if we want to get into the second.
Among us I shouldn't have to argue "scientifically" for the truthvalue of Prabhupada's statements. I would try to convince and atheist about that.
The fact is that Prabhupada said KC was a science, that the Bhagavatam was presenting a science and that we should present KC as the only real science. Since you are an initiated ISKCON devotee you ought to accept Prabhupadas words and repeat them when you preach (after you have realized them - at least to some degree). You shouldn't preach that KC is not science and that Bhagavatam is not science. That's my point.
If you admit that you don't accept Prabhupada's words, then I can start trying to convince you that KC is indeed a science. But since you claim to be an ISKCON devotee and follower of Prabhupada that shouldn't be necessary.
But I must admit that I'm so shocked to see how much you differ from Prabhupada that I'm starting to rethink if I want to debate you here. Like I said I have too much experience with such debating and it might not be beneficial for any one of us to start debating about this. I think such issues should be dealt with in other forums (not internet forums).
Your servant,
Ajit Krishna Dasa
Rather than actually
Rather than actually speaking to the issue, you spend a lot of time acting as a doctrinal policeman.
I'm more interested in considering ideas on their merits than on their conformity with someone's idea of orthodoxy.
The question is about using the term "Science" to describe Krishna Consciousness. The term Science is overloaded. It already has a meaning and definition for the general public. Using it can get us into unnecessary misunderstandings with people, and can also misrepresent the relationship between KC and Science.
I'm not advocating annotating Srila Prabhupada's book, however I am stating for the record that my understanding of what Srila Prabhupada wanted to say with that is that KC is consistent, comprehensive, coherent, systematic and fully documented.
It is not a doctrinal crime to understand what someone is trying to say and to represent that to people. Communication is about making sure that your message is heard, not simply parroting the same thing even after people don't get it.
Opening another comment
Opening another comment thread, because this one is getting crunched.
Dear Prabhu, Where is that
Dear Prabhu,
Where is that thread?
Dear Prabhu, Where is that
Dear Prabhu,
Where is that thread?
My Views
you know our iskcon moment has a branch of knowledge called Bhaktivedanta Institute (HH Swarup Damodar Maharaj started it on request of Srila Prabhupada) which hold conferences with all this Scientists and noble laureates. All those guys i hope they accept Science of KC because they come year after year... and all such ppl are scientists. As you said that "we" like to associate with the prestige of being called scientific whereas we are not scientific/scientists but those guys are actually scientific.. i haven't read enough of those kinds of books by Bhakti vedanta institute "Synthesis of Thoughts"
so a Scientist, Krsna Consciousness scientist still can prove that KC is a scientific process however in general a devotee or i would say a practicing devotee wouldn't be able to do so effectively in front of a real student of Science because he doesn't know the tips and tricks of the trade... it's just like you are going to fight with enemy with pulsar guns, laser beams, RPG with stick and sling shots. anyways
Krsna Consciousness is indeed scientific but it lies beyond the scope of modern scientific methodology so both these sciences are different not the same as sometimes Srila Prabhupada would often say it's the science of soul... where is the dept in the univ so study that.... of course if you ask a scientist what is the difference b.w. a dead and living you will never get an answer that oh ! the soul is not there.
since the modern science doesn't accept anything which can't fit in their head or scope of their understanding and knowledge they call it pseudo science
But we know it's scientific because if you follow the process as it is the results have got to be there. There is no question of valid or not... the same goes with science you do an experiment following the process you get result ... you don't follow the procedure correctly you won't get valid results. so we don't say well it's not scientific we say my dear sir/student u didn't follow the process accurately so you are not getting valid result... or we say psuedo science
you might want to give these books a try
http://www.bvinst.edu/