[Samurai]

Originally Posted by navin

Now back to the regular programming. For the record I believe Astrology, Tarot, and Numerology is good entertainment, but hey if people have faith in it then why not let them be.

Yes, I agree. What's the problem in that?

Looks like you are not familiar with the crux of the debate here. Some are insisting that astrology is not a faith, but a science. I am resisting that notion.

[400notout]

Originally Posted by am1m

It's because 'modern' science is 'western/them'. So, somehow by proving that 'ancient Indian' science preceded the 'firang' discoveries of 'modern' science, makes it easier to accept things like astrology too because that too is 'ours' and 'ancient'! QED, hence proved!

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

Maybe it's because everything has to come out from a white man's mouth to seem believable. I'm sorry too, but this argument swings both ways.

Samurai San is asking for proof of astrology being a science from people who believe or favour it but cannot explain it or prove it in math. It's out in the open that there is no proof, so it's not an argument he will lose. Traditional Indian methods are mostly unproven and usually considered alternate methods. Case in point Ayurveda.

Indian history is replete with individual geniuses, Aryabhatta, Shushrusha, Bhaskara to name a few, that they don't conform to Western standards (which is not completely unnecessary) is another story.

A glimpse of the life of 32 years of Srinivas Ramanujan is pretty insightful of how Indian matheticians though geniuses, failed in developing/complying/following a universal process which would make it answerable to all questions/criticisms/inquiries. The Hollywood film "The man who knew infinity" does some justice to the story.

Astrology is the same. There are few who actually understand it, I doubt there is anyone who can prove it a science. Personally, I don't want to see it proven as a science as it is not really a "dying need" . There are better things to discover/develop. But I feel, we should try to understand these things better than plainly dismissing it.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by 400notout

Maybe it's because everything has to come out from a white man's mouth to seem believable. I'm sorry too, but this argument swings both ways.

Sigh! No, not at all, certainly not what I meant.

Does not matter if it's a white, brown, green, blue, yellow, purple-with-pink-spots-and-glitter man's or woman's mouth. Can something be proved? Can it be repeated with the same set of initial conditions? Things like that. That's all.

Originally Posted by 400notout

Indian history is replete with individual geniuses, Aryabhatta, Shushrusha, Bhaskara to name a few, that they don't conform to Western standards (which is not completely unnecessary) is another story.

Agreed. And all of their discoveries can be explained rationally. Rationally, not 'western-scientifically'; rational thinking is not the preserve of any one nationality, but it has to be rational at least no?.

Originally Posted by 400notout

But I feel, we should try to understand these things better than plainly dismissing it.

Then where does it end? Where do we go if we have to give credence to every belief that 'can't really be proved'? Do you see where this goes?

Do we set up ministries and departments for each of these...oh wait.

[SmartCat]

Not sure how, but some lawyers convinced a High Court Judge that Astrology is Science. If interested, somebody should look up the transcript of entire case.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ow/7418795.cms

Originally Posted by Samurai

Looks like you are not familiar with the crux of the debate here. Some are insisting that astrology is not a faith, but a science. I am resisting that notion.

Questions:

1) Why is there such a debate (here and outside between rationalists/ general public)? Are there only 2 baskets that we can put a subject into - SCIENCE or FAITH, and nothing else?

2) What is HISTORY? Is it science or faith? Or is it the study of past?

3) If History is study of past, can't we accept that Astrology is study of future? And not science or faith?

4) Like how there are hundreds of universities offering courses in History, there are hundreds of universities offering courses in Astrology. Banaras Hindu University seems to be the most prominent institution offering the astrology course:
http://www.bhu.ac.in/svdv/

<Added>

I have not voted yet in this poll - not until I completely figure out how exactly Indian astrologists make predictions. Based on what I hear from my wife, it does sound like mumbo jumbo. But it definitely is fun, entertaining and an interesting topic - like History!

[AltoLXI]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Dear fellow, what is the purpose of telling me all this? I am agnostic about where science/math comes from. The topic on hand is whether astrology is science or faith. What is your opinion on that?

That is the reason for quoting you.

Newton did not invent calculus. The point of my posts was to clarify, that Eastern world was far more matured in terms of understanding of Maths and Astronomy. Europeans were still barbarians in those dark ages.

Eastern philosophy, and thought process, is also different from the Western. Hence the last paragraph.

I do have a neutral stance on the astrology .

Originally Posted by am1m

It's because 'modern' science is 'western/them'. So, somehow by proving that 'ancient Indian' science preceded the 'firang' discoveries of 'modern' science, makes it easier to accept things like astrology too because that too is 'ours' and 'ancient'! QED, hence proved!

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

Wanted to say hats off to you Samurai, you have a lot of patience! Your logical explanations are truly well put together in the face of the increasingly absurd.

So anything western is sacrosanct ? This is the result of 200 years of firang domination Tell me - now that yoga is embraced by west, will it be science to you or faith?

Originally Posted by 400notout

Maybe it's because everything has to come out from a white man's mouth to seem believable. I'm sorry too, but this argument swings both ways.

Samurai San is asking for proof of astrology being a science from people who believe or favour it but cannot explain it or prove it in math. It's out in the open that there is no proof, so it's not an argument he will lose. Traditional Indian methods are mostly unproven and usually considered alternate methods. Case in point Ayurveda.
.

Right. That is the reason for my post.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by AltoLXI

So anything western is sacrosanct ?

Already answered with a sigh. No, not at all. Anything RATIONAL is, or should be. Sadly, it's usually the other way around, the irrational is often made sacrosanct. Wonder why. Perhaps it's because believers know it won't stand up to any real scrutiny.

Please read subsequent posts too instead of quoting selectively to prove a point you assume someone was making.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by 400notout

Maybe it's because everything has to come out from a white man's mouth to seem believable.

I have no such requirement. I am ready to accept proof from white/brown/black/green mouths too.

Originally Posted by 400notout

Traditional Indian methods are mostly unproven and usually considered alternate methods. Case in point Ayurveda.

Are you kidding? Ayurveda is extremely effective for many aliments. For example, few months ago I was diagnosed with multiple disk bulges. It was diagnosed by an Ayurvedic doctor, and was entirely treated by him. I didn't even approach an allopathic doctor first.

Why are you trying to paint me with an anti-indian bias? I accept Ayurveda for any aliment where the effectiveness is proven. Do notice that all scientists in that study are Indians. Indian scientist will do as long as they are following the rules of science, which has no race or nationality. So I had no issues in approaching an Ayurvedic doctor first, when I had a disk problem.

Originally Posted by 400notout

Indian history is replete with individual geniuses, Aryabhatta, Shushrusha, Bhaskara to name a few, that they don't conform to Western standards (which is not completely unnecessary) is another story.

What western standards? You have named some legit ancient Indian scientists. Who is denying them their due?

Originally Posted by 400notout

A glimpse of the life of 32 years of Srinivas Ramanujan is pretty insightful of how Indian matheticians though geniuses, failed in developing/complying/following a universal process which would make it answerable to all questions/criticisms/inquiries. The Hollywood film "The man who knew infinity" does some justice to the story.

Srinivas Ramanujan was indeed great. As Indians we would love to think he got everything right. But he didn't. The man who knew him best was none other than G. H. Hardy, the fellow who discovered Ramanujan and worked with him.

To quote Hardy:

Ramanujan’s theory of primes was vitiated by his ignorance of the theory of
functions of a complex variable. It was (so to say) what the theory might be if the zeta function had no complex zeroes. His method depended on the wholesale use of divergent series…that his proofs should be invalid was only to be expected. But the mistakes went deeper than that, and many of the actual results were false. He had obtained the dominant terms of the classical formulae, although by invalid methods; but none of them are such close approximations as he supposed.

Unlike us mortals, Hardy didn't think Ramanujan as some mystic from the east. To quote him again:

There is quite enough about Ramanujan that is difficult to understand, and we have no need to go out of our way to manufacture mystery. For myself, I liked and admired him enough to wish to be a rationalist about him; and I want to make it quite clear to you that Ramanujan, when he was living in Cambridge in good health and comfortable surroundings, was, in spite of his oddities, as reasonable, as sane, and in his way as shrewd a person as anyone here. The last thing which I want you to do is to throw up your hands and exclaim “here is something unintelligible, some mysterious manifestation of the immemorial wisdom of the East!” I do not believe in the immemorial wisdom of the East, and the picture I want to present to you is that of a man who had his peculiarities like other distinguished men, but a man in whose society one could take pleasure, with whom one could take tea and discuss politics or mathematics; the picture in short, not of a wonder from the East, or an inspired idiot, or a psychological freak, but of a rational human being who happened to be a great mathematician.

Basically, according to the man who knew him best, Ramanujan was just a great mathematician, who still had the burden to prove his theorems. And he was human enough to get some things wrong.

Now, I still don't get connection between having great Indians scientists, and astrology being a science. Did one of them give proof for astrology? I am not aware of such a thing.

Originally Posted by AltoLXI

Newton did not invent calculus...

Yes, I am aware of the controversy. Newton generally gets the bigger share of the credit. But it is not important for this discussion. That's just history and they can be controversial.

Originally Posted by AltoLXI

So anything western is sacrosanct ?

Is it? That notion was introduced by the side arguing for astrology as science. For me, who rejected western life and moved to back to India back in 2004, west is not at all sacred.

Science has no national boundary or race. It imposes the burden of proof, whether a theory is proposed by a white/black/brown man or woman.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by am1m

Anything RATIONAL is, or should be. Sadly, it's usually the other way around, the irrational is often made sacrosanct. Wonder why. Perhaps it's because believers know it won't stand up to any real scrutiny.

Here, when you are saying something is irrational, you are basically passing a judgement. To pass such a judgement, have you actually studied astrology the traditional way (at a Mutt) or modern way (University course, books)? It is basically your opinion and nothing else right?

Because you probably feel future cannot be predicted? Do a Google search for "technical analysis" - it is basically short term prediction of future stock prices.



When you casually read about technical analysis, you will probably feel it is irrational too - especially when you come across phrases like "Hanging Man" pattern.



But you feeling that some concept is irrational (because predictions are involved) doesn't automatically make you right. If you feel something is irrational, fine - but that is just another opinion.

[gthang]

Originally Posted by Samurai

In other words, there is no litmus test. Whatever you claim should be accepted. Fine, that is classic faith. Why are you dragging science into this? Do you believe science should be a matter of faith?

Science has no western or eastern facts. It is universal. Math/Science works the same in every country. If that was not the case, our IT outsourcing industry would have never started, let alone thrive.

Sorry, I am not deriding. I am merely seeking evidence since you claim astrology is a science.

No, they used some engineering techniques, but mostly empirical knowledge.


What has this got to do with astrology?

Listen, you can't randomly point to some real scientific concept, without explaining the connection to the topic. I won't bother guessing the connection, my imagination is not so rich.

Can you quote where I said that Astrology is a science? But I am not arrogant to dismiss what I don't understand enough as "not science".

You asked for evidence, I quoted planetary charts created before Galileo. Now if you cannot explain it, that's fine. I never asked you to accept it as fact.

Why so binary? Why the need to dismiss as not science?

Empirical knowledge was enough for the creation of the pyramids and some great temples of India? Okay, whatever.

I mentioned Universal vibration, which is what Einstein hinted with gravitational waves, and the LIGO detector was made, and they just started "listening" to the universe. What was so ambiguous about that?

Your imagination didn't seem to have any issues when you assumed that I was talking about "sounds of sun". Just like you are assuming that I am advocating that Astrology is a science. Lots of assumptions for a scientific temper.

But I don't think that you know enough about Astrology or Vedic sciences to categorically say that it's not a science. If you haven't studied the humongous volumes of texts involved, please don't take the easier and more fashionable route of dismissing them.

Cheers

[AltoLXI]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Why is there such a debate (here and outside between rationalists/ general public)? Are there only 2 baskets that we can put a subject into - SCIENCE or FAITH, and nothing else?

Precisely my question.

The yardstick used to prove / disprove something as rational / irrational or scientific / faith is based on western thinking. My point of argument is why this yardstick alone be used to come to a conclusion? For me, the western way of thinking is simplistic based on binary logic - either yes / no and in some instances based on their self interests. Nothing wrong about that but not good enough.

Every now and then, scientific community in the west, deliberately or otherwise, comes with contradictory claims - be it the right cholesterol levels, the optimum BP range, oil or sugar as the culprit for lifestyle diseases. My Homeopathy doctor just laughed at me when I told my cholesterol numbers and dismissed them as "just" numbers cooked up by western entities to sell medicines. Another day and another theory emerges.

So it does not really inspire confidence to completely rely on the western way of thinking to come to a conclusion. And the search for truth continues...

[400notout]

Originally Posted by am1m

Sigh! No, not at all, certainly not what I meant.

Does not matter if it's a white, brown, green, blue, yellow, purple-with-pink-spots-and-glitter man's or woman's mouth. Can something be proved? Can it be repeated with the same set of initial conditions? Things like that. That's all.

Very sure you didn't mean that. But you get the drift.

Originally Posted by am1m

Can something be proved? Can it be repeated with the same set of initial conditions? Things like that. That's all.

Well I have mentioned time and again that there is no proof. What's wrong in trying to understand whether/how/what is the basis of Astrology. To dismiss it without studying how this practice survived for centuries is unfair.

Originally Posted by am1m

Agreed. And all of their discoveries can be explained rationally. Rationally, not 'western-scientifically'; rational thinking is not the preserve of any one nationality, but it has to be rational at least no?.

Astrology borrows a lot from astronomy. And from what I have understood, Astrology is usually used to determine time periods and classify them as favourable / unfavorable. It's not "predicting the future" like what dress I'll have on when I'll die. There's some part rationality in astrology to discover if your intention is that.

I feel it is not something to be dismissed on face value.

Originally Posted by am1m

Then where does it end? Where do we go if we have to give credence to every belief that 'can't really be proved'? Do you see where this goes?

Do we set up ministries and departments for each of these...oh wait.

Let me put it like this. My grandparents hand me over a book which they say is being kept in the family since ages. It has some prose written in some presently undecipherable language. I will preserve the book, try to study it and if I fail, pass it on to the next generation. Now it doesn't matter if the prose is the secrets to the universe or a secretly coded version of baa baa black sheep. I feel it's an obligation to try understand it than burn the book. After all it's my book.

Disclaimer: I'm no right wing activist. It's just that the arguments aren't satisfying enough.

Originally Posted by Samurai

I have no such requirement. I am ready to accept proof from white/brown/black/green mouths too.

I'm sure you do.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Are you kidding? Ayurveda is extremely effective for many aliments.---SNIP--- I didn't even approach an allopathic doctor first.

I'm not belittling Ayurveda. I'm saying it's widely considered an alternate medicine. But there might be people who discredit it completely too, won't there? Then there's Homeopathy. I don't know much about it so I won't go there.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Why are you trying to paint me with an anti-indian bias?

Apart from your Japanese handle, your love for your country is well known in this forum. Never implied that.

Originally Posted by Samurai

What western standards? You have named some legit ancient Indian scientists. Who is denying them their due?

Srinivas Ramanujan was indeed great. ---SNIP---

To quote Hardy:

Unlike us mortals, Hardy didn't think Ramanujan as some mystic from the east.

Now, I still don't get connection between having great Indians scientists, and astrology being a science. Did one of them give proof for astrology? I am not aware of such a thing.

Western "methods" is what I meant. I mentioned the scientists and Ramanujans episode to show how Indian methods or lack of it stopped them from providing proofs to their work. Like how prof. Hardy saw the genius sorry great mathematician in Ramanujan, invited him, told him to work on his proofs so that it could be published.

I consider Astrology to be one such methods without the proof as actual know-how is scarce and is usually dismissed as superstition.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Science has no national boundary or race. It imposes the burden of proof, whether a theory is proposed by a white/black/brown man or woman.

Repeating myself here. There is no proof. It is not a science. However it should be studied to understand it's course over centuries, but of course, not at the cost of reducing cancer research or anything important as such.

I would call it a culture or a language if you don't like the term science. I would also look at it as an art form if not anything else.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by gthang

Can you quote where I said that Astrology is a science?

Huh! Then why did you start arguing with me. I have nothing against Astrology as a faith. I am merely stating it has not met the criteria to be called science. All the while, I am getting labeled as anti-indian, agent of west, arrogant, etc.

Originally Posted by gthang

But I am not arrogant to dismiss what I don't understand enough as "not science".

That's a quadruple negative statement, no wonder there is so much confusion. I am a simple man, so I keep it simple. A phenomena must meet the burden of proof to be called science. A very straight forward statement. It is not a matter of my opinion or your opinion. So there is no room for arrogance at all. My statements can't be considered sacrosanct, because it came from me. I am a fool in the eyes of scientific inquiry, if I have no verifiable proof.

Originally Posted by gthang

You asked for evidence, I quoted planetary charts created before Galileo. Now if you cannot explain it, that's fine.

What was there to explain there.... Ah! Now I get it. Are you asking me how did people (say Ancient Indians) draw planetary charts before calculus? Simple, they watched it meticulously and kept records for years and years. That's how it was done. You don't need calculus to draw planetary charts.

Remember this?

1) A phenomena is visually observed. (physical evidence)
2) An attempt is made to discover the law for it using mathematics.

The first part was done before calculus, by many civilizations. But they didn't know why the planets moved that way. But the second part required calculus and theory of gravity. Then they put gravity and calculus together, and figured out why planets move that way.

Then this happened:

1) A mathematical calculation shows an unexplained anomaly. (mathematical evidence)
2) A theory is proposed for an imaginary thing that fits in mathematically. Then they try to prove it physically.

Once scientists knew why planets moved that way, they started to predict the future path of the planets. But they found an anomaly with how Uranus moved. So they proposed a theory that they must be another planet of certain size, whose gravity is pulling Uranus and making it move so strangely. Now the mathematics was satisfied. They calculated where that new planet could be found and focused their telescope to that exact position, and found it around there. That's Neptune.

Similarly calculus+gravity couldn't explain the movement of mercury. One more anomaly, and they figured they knew the trick now. There must be another planet between sun and Mercury, and they named it Vulcan. They thought it couldn't be seen due to sun's brightness. After many false claims, it was never found. Finally it took Einstein to propose that gravity can bend light, he explained it by the theory of general relativity and satisfied the math. Turned out that mercury was indeed following the path described by gravity+calculus. But the reflected light that is traveling from mercury to earth was being bent by sun's gravity. So when you look at Mercury, remember it is not where you see it.

But Einstein only made a mind-bending (pun intended) proposal and gave mathematical proof. Nobody believed some mad scientist from Germany during WWI. Instead a British astronomer called Arthur Eddington was tasked by Royal Society to disprove it experimentally. There is a wonderful movie called Einstein and Eddington, watch it if this stuff fascinates anybody.

Here is the scene of how the proof was given. Poor Eddington ended up proving it, rather than disapproving and pissed off his superiors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTvfmis63NU

Originally Posted by gthang

Why so binary? Why the need to dismiss as not science?

The above examples show that scientific inquiry is seldom binary. It is constantly exploring 100 different ways to understand both visible phenomena and mathematical anomalies. Every idea gets attacked by 1000s of scientists in the pursuit of new laws of nature. When an idea survives so much scrutiny, it deserves to be called a science.

Originally Posted by gthang

I mentioned Universal vibration, which is what Einstein hinted with gravitational waves, and the LIGO detector was made, and they just started "listening" to the universe. What was so ambiguous about that?

Your imagination didn't seem to have any issues when you assumed that I was talking about "sounds of sun".

You said AUM and universal vibration. So sound of sun is what google brought up. Now that you say it was LIGO, let me ask again. What is the connection between AUM and LIGO?

Originally Posted by gthang

But I don't think that you know enough about Astrology or Vedic sciences to categorically say that it's not a science. If you haven't studied the humongous volumes of texts involved, please don't take the easier and more fashionable route of dismissing them.

I don't need to know personally. I don't understand quantum physics or general relativity either, because I am not a physicist. But I know it is verified and accepted by scientists all around the world as a valid science. That is enough for me.

As I have already mentioned, I am a nobody. My opinions don't matter. If majority of the scientists accept astrology as a valid science, I will humbly accept their verdict.

Originally Posted by 400notout

Repeating myself here. There is no proof. It is not a science.

Then we have no quarrel at all.

[AMG Power]

Forget Astrology and Numerolgy, scientists have now proven even reality does not exist:

https://consciouslifenews.com/new-mi...oking/1190900/

[gthang]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I don't need to know personally.

As I have already mentioned, I am a nobody. My opinions don't matter. If majority of the scientists accept astrology as a valid science, I will humbly accept their verdict.

So, even though you don't know anything about it, irrespective of the knowledge level or opinion of someone you are discussing Astrology with, you will insist that it's not a science? Until the recognized "scientific community" tells you otherwise? Just to be clear.

It's funny how eager "educated" Indians are ready to dismiss and accept the standards set, but at the same time, research of ancient sciences and remedies are actively pursued in the West.

Wake up and smell the sambar, buddy.

Cheers

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by gthang

So, even though you don't know anything about it, irrespective of the knowledge level or opinion of someone you are discussing Astrology with, you will insist that it's not a science? Until the recognized "scientific community" tells you otherwise? Just to be clear.

Yes, because I know the rules of science, I share that common attribute with the scientific community. And you are clearly not ready/willing to understand those rules of science.

It doesn't matter if you are a walking talking encyclopedia of astrology, if you can't provide physical or mathematical evidence, you can't call it science.

Originally Posted by gthang

It's funny how eager "educated" Indians are ready to dismiss and accept the standards set, but at the same time, research of ancient sciences and remedies are actively pursued in the West.

Oh, so we are back to nationalism now? See, this is the conceptual problem with the your side. You think it is a conspiracy. All the scientists in the world have conspired to suppress wonderful ancient Indian knowledge.

Guess what, somebody mentioned Homeopathy, a German idea. Then there is Chiropractic, an American idea. The scientific community and I dismiss them too, for the same reason. Those ideas don't follow the rules of science. Why are they rejecting western ideas? And why am I (Indian) rejecting these western ideas? No evidence. Imagine me rejecting an American idea. Yup, mind blowing.

Mod Note: Let's not start any offtopic discussion on Homeopathy/Chiropractic here. We are sticking to Astrology.

Originally Posted by gthang

Wake up and smell the sambar, buddy.

Ah, the insults have started, that means you have nothing else to throw at me. Yes, I am very familiar with this stage of the debate. But I am not following you into that rabbit hole. Just like science, this forum also has rules. Don't break them.