Misconception About Science

I came across a blog post by Justice Katju, titled  Sanskrit As A Language Of Science. It is a talk that he gave at the IISc, Bangalore.

In the post Justice Katju says:

“Epistemology is the study of the means of valid knowledge. For instance, how do I know that this object in front of me exists? The answer is that it is Pratyaksha? I can see it with my eyes Pratyaksha is the knowledge which we derive from the five senses, and pratyaksha pramana is regarded as the pradhan pramana or the most basic of all the means of valid knowledge.

However, there are other pramanas e.g. anuman (inference), shabda (statement of some expert or authoritative persons) etc.  Thus, much of scientific knowledge comes from anuman pramana.  For instance, Rutherford never saw an atom with his eyes, but by studying the scattering of alpha rays (which are positively charged helium ions) he used anuman praman (inference) to deduce that there was a positively charged nucleus around which negatively charged electrons were orbiting. Similarly, black holes can not be know by pratyaksha pramana (since light cannot escape from them), but we can infer their existence by the movement of some nearby heavenly bodies on which an invisible body (the black hole) is exercising a gravitational pull.

The third Pramana in the epistemology of the Nyaya system is Shabda Pramana, which is the statement of an expert or a person having great reputation in a particular field.  We often accept such statements to be correct, even though we may not understand the proof, because the person making it has a reputation of an expert.

For instance, we accept that e=mc2 as Shabda pramana since Einstein has a great reputation as a theoretical physicist, although we ourselves may be unable to understand how he reached that equation (as that will require a knowledge of higher mathematics and physics which we may not possess)”

“Pramana” is defined as “pramāṇa,  (Sanskrit: “measure”), in Indian philosophy, the means by which one obtains accurate and valid knowledge”. Pramana, as commonly used today, also means proof/evidence (as in “pramana-patra”). So phenomena that can be observed is knowledge gained by “Pratyaksha Pramana” –Direct Evidence. Knowledge that can be logically derived/inferred from the current body of knowledge is “Anuman Praman”. As used today anuman means estimate/guess, and hence – in my opinion, more appropriately – hypothesis.

Hypotheses, or anuman, is not where it should stop. Anuman must be tested by conducting rigorous experimentation. The scientific method is a cyclic process of observation->hypotheses construction->experimentation->observation-> …. And it is this observation of the results of an experiment which brings us back to “Pratyaksha Pramana”.

Justice Katju has missed this crucial step and hence does not see the never ending scientific cycle of improving knowledge. This reflects in his illustrations.

Rutherford setup an experiment to test the “plum pudding model” (the Anumana Pramana). The observed results of the experiment (the Pratyaksha Pramana) showed that the model was not valid. Rutherford then hypothesized about a new model (Anumana Pramana). Subsequent experiments showed that the Rutherford’s model did indeed explain observed phenomena (Pratyaksha Pramana).

Einstein’s General Theory Of Relativity (the Anumana Pramana) predicts the bending of space-time. Einstein calculated the bending that the Sun would cause. This was then confirmed by observation (Pratyaksha Pramana). The process of the evolution of stars till they become visible red-dwarfs and their gravitational pull, is observed phenomena (Pratykasha Pramana – both visible and gravitational). Further shrinkage results in their becoming gravitational singularities. Their Pratykasha Pramana is just their gravitational on other stars. The observation that they are no longer visible is confirmation (a negative Pratyksha Pramana) of the General Theory.

An illustration of the Pratyaksha Pramana, Anumana Pramana cycle that I would like to give is that of Maxwell’s Equations. Working from the basic laws of Electric and Magnetic fields that had been established by experimentations, Maxwell, in 1861, first formulated the equations that were subsequently reduced to four. The solution to these equations predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves – Anumana Pramana. It was almost thirty before Hertz proved their existence – the Pratyaksha Pramana.

Shabda Pramana, however, has no place in the scientific method. The logic for arriving at Anumana Pramana has to be subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the scientific community. And Anumana Pramana has to be subjected to experimental verification. “Expert witnesses” belong in a court room - not in science.

It is rigorous logical scrutiny by a scientific community and experimental verification that prevents science from descending into voodoo.

I found it strange that Justice Katju, for his illustrations, could not find any examples from ancient Indian Science. Why did he use examples from science that was done in Europe? Are Indian records available of observations made and used to prove/disprove theories? I suppose not. Once Shabda Pramana is admitted then where is the need for experiment?

Unfortunately, it is Shabda Pramana which dominates the teaching of science in our schools. TataSky has an advertisement where a child shows how to differentiate a bad egg from a good egg. He puts them in water. The one that floats, he says, is bad. The one that does not, he says, is good. That is Shabda Pramana. All that has happened is that one floats and one sinks. It is an observation – nothing more. The Pratyaksha Pramana here is: Some eggs float and some sink. That is all. Why does that happen? That calls for an Anuman Pramana. If the Anuman is that one is bad the other good, we need to conduct an experiment. (Incidentally, what is the criteria for classifying an egg as bad?) Separate the eggs that float and the eggs that sink. (There are going to be eggs that float partially. But let us assume we do not have any of those in the current sample.) Boil the eggs (for how long?). Crack the shells and record the difference between the two sets of eggs. Does the observation (Pratyksha Pramana) show that the lot that floated are bad? That would be teaching science.