Mariyam Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 As Christopher Hitchens so effectively put it' date=' Science and Religion/faith are two separate non-overlapping majesteria.[/quote'] But wasn't it Einstein who said everything is relative. :P We cant have our kids learn about the solar system, stars, planets, satellites, milky, galaxies etc. at school, and then come home listen to some fabriacted beliefs about how their day tomorrow is going to be bad because Raahu is not aligned with Ketu I don’t care who reads what, but I do have a big problem when the taxpay money of MY family goes into subsidizing these blatantly charlatan universities that peddle first-rate nonsense in the name of pseudo science. Dude if astrology has a science behind it, then all the physicists in the world might as well give up their research and try some alternate professions. :hysterical: It is very shameful and disgusting that the high court would lend legitimacy to it. :(( PK & Morris. Just a few quick point here, without going into what exactly is 'science' and what subjects constitute 'arts'. When the HC was talking about Astrology here, it is basically the practice of horoscope making and kundli matching based on the sky ( star position) above the place you ( and your spouse) are born. Whether or not, this practice makes logical sense is not the argument. It is deemed a scientific practice because it is based on certain rules which are followed and certain mathematics/ astronomical observations ( that they may not matter much is a different question) are its starting point. What I'm trying to say here is that, if you go to 2 different Indian astrologers in two different Indian cities, they will require the same inputs ( the night sky over the place and time you were born) and do the same set of calculations, and come out with similar outputs. That is why astrology is a science. In a nutshell, there is a standardized procedure which is consistently followed. The error that it may give out is also consistent. Don't fault the high court here. That is just the way that science is defined. The other practices, like parrot picking a card that predicts your future or whatever are not sciences. The second important point here is that accuracy has nothing to do with science. Let me give you an example. Weather forecasts are just about as accurate as horoscopes, though the government launches 100 crore Rs satellites and uses some of the smartest brains in the nation to predict weather. Should we classify that as a science? Accuracy is a non issue. In November, Mumbai witnessed flash rains. One of the days my car was being serviced, and I had to take the train. I read the horoscope (zodiac) in the morning that said that there is the possibility of material loss. The weather forecast said that it would be a sunny day. On the way to the station, it rained and my i-pod was rendered useless. :(( Just a small example, but you get the gist. LOL! Courts are now deciding what is science and what is not. Appeasement of delusional Hindu sentiments! I don't think there is any appeasement here at all. Shame on those people who filed this PIL. The courts in India have many more urgent and relevant cases to attend to.
varun Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Whether or not, this practice makes logical sense is not the argument. It is deemed a scientific practice because it is based on certain rules which are followed and certain mathematics/ astronomical observations ( that they may not matter much is a different question) are its starting point In a nutshell, there is a standardized procedure which is consistently followed. The error that it may give out is also consistent. Don't fault the high court here. That is just the way that science is defined. Definition of sci·ence 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Not sure if the observation part fits in with the whole "astrological sciences" argument, but there is no way to experiment and validate any of the "outputs" that the astrologers come up with. So we cannot claim that any of what they say is a fact, or a truth. Hence it isn't science as it is defined. What I'm trying to say here is that, if you go to 2 different Indian astrologers in two different Indian cities, they will require the same inputs ( the night sky over the place and time you were born) and do the same set of calculations, and come out with similar outputs. That is why astrology is a science. If i start creating formulas (which take certain inputs) to calculate how happy or annoyed a person is, would that be classified as science ?
Mariyam Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Varun, The astrologers are dealing with facts and truths. They map the night sky over the place of your birth at the time of your birth is a fact and a truth. The whole practice does fall very well within that definition of 'science'. And this fact/truth is then seemingly arranged according to the 12 houses or whatever. I don't know anymore about it. But there is a law behind the arrangement. That I know. What is debatable here is the correlation of the final result with the initial facts/truths. But that doesn't change that facts are employed to reach some output.
punjabi_khota Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Mariyam you couldn't be more wrong. The point is , there is no well reasoned argument about why astrology SHOULD work at the first place. No one has ever come up with even a slightly plausible argument why the positions of planets would affect anything on the human scale. Comparing it with weather prediction is laughable, since there is a reason why the weather models work (or don't work exactly), and millions of dollars of research is conducted every year to improve prediction of these models, and they are improving.
punjabi_khota Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 So I can come up with a arbitrary set of rules that decide your future depending on say the output of 10 coins you toss every morning. It wouldn't work of course, but can I call it science ?
The Outsider Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I don't think there is any appeasement here at all. Shame on those people who filed this PIL. The courts in India have many more urgent and relevant cases to attend to. Tongue in cheek. :P
Mariyam Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 If i start creating formulas (which take certain inputs) to calculate how happy or annoyed a person is, would that be classified as science ? Glad you asked. First of all, let me clear the air. This is not my definition. This is what the courts say. And they have been saying this for ages. Lets take an example. Suppose you were to make a formula, that takes the following inputs to predict how happy/annoyed you ( or any person) are a amount of alcohol you consumed in the last 2 hours b how happy/annoyed your spouse currently is (on some happiness scale) c the position of the moon when you were born d how much money you have in your bank account e is your leg itching? Note that the answer to all these five conditions are hard facts. If your formula is based on these hard facts and in some extrapolation/ observation by varying levels of the 5 conditions, then yes, by law you are practicing a science.
varun Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 What is debatable here is the correlation of the final result with the initial facts/truths. But that doesn't change that facts are employed to reach some output. That is what makes it "pseudo" science. As i said earlier, there is no way to experiment and validate any of the "final results" that the astrologers come up with. So we cannot claim that any of what they say is a fact, or a truth. Hence it isn't science as it is defined.
varun Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Note that the answer to all these five conditions are hard facts. If your formula is based on these hard facts and in some extrapolation/ observation by varying levels of the 5 conditions' date=' then yes, by law you are practicing a science.[/quote'] Incorrect. Refer to my statement above. Experimentation, and validation are essential parts of science. And even if you want classify it as a theoretical science, which cannot be proven, you have to start with some basic theoretical lemmas or axioms that any logical person can draw from. Even philosophy starts off with some basic truths, which aren't present here (as far as I know) End of the day, if you are gonna come up with any result from your scientific method, then you better be prepared to validate it, or it isn't going to hold up to any scrutiny.
Mariyam Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Mariyam you couldn't be more wrong. The point is ' date=' there is no well reasoned argument about why astrology SHOULD work at the first place. No one has ever come up with even a slightly plausible argument why the positions of planets would affect anything on the human scale.[/quote'] I'm no fan of astrology. Not a believer either. My response to you is the same as my response to Varun. ( My post above before this one). According to the courts, there doesn't have to be a well reasoned ( however that is defined) connect as to why the position of the stars/comets can predict human life or behaviour. Personally, I think even if I were born an hour later in a different city, I would still be an irritant. :P The practices followed in gathering the data have to be scientific however. And they are. For the courts that is enough. Comparing it with weather prediction is laughable, since there is a reason why the weather models work (or don't work exactly), and millions of dollars of research is conducted every year to improve prediction of these models, and they are improving. That was just an example. Because a few posters were bringing in accuracy as an issue. I'm not comparing the two. Are the weather prediction patterns improving? I don't know. But thats another story. I'm also still upset over the I-pod. Lost 5 GB+ of songs and videos :((
punjabi_khota Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 The courts are bull*****ing then. For a country like India intending to play a major role at the world stage, passing judgements like these is a slap in the face. May the image of 'land of snake charmers' persist for a long time :clap:
varun Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 According to the courts' date=' there doesn't have to be a well reasoned connect as to why the position of the stars/comets can predict human life or behaviour.[/quote'] Hmm, didn't know about that. I'm gonna file an affidavit for "Jinxology", about how Varun's movements on his couch affect the outcome of cricket matches. Now that we have a precedent, I can't lose :cantstop:
Mariyam Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 That is what makes it "pseudo" science. As i said earlier, there is no way to experiment and validate any of the "final results" that the astrologers come up with. So we cannot claim that any of what they say is a fact, or a truth. Hence it isn't science as it is defined. I get your point Varun ( and PK). My response to you here would be that 'pseudo' science is still a sub set of the broader science family. And hence the courts are not wrong. Apparently, this validation of results exercise is not very important according to Indian law, otherwise astrology would not be a science. Let me do one thing. I am not an authority on this case. I'm relaying what I understand on the issue, which can be wrong. Come this Monday, I will ask some of my seniors at work what exactly science is, and how astrology ( according to their interpretation of the law) is a science, What is the difference between science and pseudo science etc. That should clarify things better. Happy weekend
asterix Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Where is Nirvanam, when you need him? :giggle:
The Outsider Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Apparently, this validation of results exercise is not very important according to Indian law, otherwise astrology would not be a science. Then Indian law is an ass.
punjabi_khota Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I get your point Varun ( and PK). My response to you here would be that 'pseudo' science is still a sub set of the broader science family. And hence the courts are not wrong. Apparently, this validation of results exercise is not very important according to Indian law, otherwise astrology would not be a science.
asterix Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Hmm' date=' didn't know about that. I'm gonna file an affidavit for "Jinxology", about how Varun's movements on his couch affect the outcome of cricket matches. Now that we have a precedent, I can't lose :cantstop:[/quote'] Actually Jinxing and Reverse Jinxing on forums work..Experienced Match Thead openers are always in demand. There's definitely some science behind it. I would request PK, Professor and yourself to make a formal thesis on it...:icflove:
Ram Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Apparently, the courts' definition of what consitututes 'Science' does not seem consistent with the common-sense definition of what can be called 'Science'. Just because you cannot disprove the efficacy/existence of something, does not mean it makes it true/valid. You cannot disprove i didnt fight with a 10-headed dragon last night. That doesnt mean the fight actually happened.
Mariyam Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 The courts are bull*****ing then. For a country like India intending to play a major role at the world stage' date=' passing judgements like these is a slap in the face. May the image of 'land of snake charmers' persist for a long time :clap:[/quote'] Valid point. I wouldn't be too surprised if the initial judgment classifying astrology as a science was passed during the British era. Who on ICF is familiar with British laws or American laws? Can you tell us how astrology is classified there (if at all)? PK don't be harsh on the courts. :(( A country intending to be a major world player shouldn't be even obsessed about a trivial issue like astrology being a science or an art in the first place.
varun Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 My response to you here would be that 'pseudo' science is still a sub set of the broader science family. And hence the courts are not wrong. Apparently' date=' this validation of results exercise is not very important according to Indian law, otherwise astrology would not be a science.[/quote'] Firstly, pseudo means "fake". So pseudo science cannot be a subset of the broader science family as you put it. Secondly, there is more truth to what Outy said than you think (regarding appeasement). There is a lot of faith in the hindu community regarding astrology, and they take it very seriously.
Recommended Posts