The post , a quote from Marvin Harris’s book, entitled Science, provoked a few comments that require responding to. Karthik Rao Cavale objected to the appa [...]

Plagues and Peoples – William H. McNeill.

“Before fully human populations evolved, we must suppose that like other animals our ancestors fitted into an elaborate, self-regulating ecological balance…”

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385121229/002-6224517-5237632?v=glance&n=283155

to doubt their own premises and to systematically expose their own conclusions

The quoted paragraph itself stop short of introducing the concept of falsifiability of proposed hypotheses. I haven’t read this book but perhaps the author goes on to introduce this concept?

Falsifiability is one of the key concepts that sets apart the activities of understanding the natural world in the rest of history from the specific development of the scientific method.

And guess how they would do it – using science, of course.

My qualm usually is not with science observation or experimentation, but it is with liberals (they are usually non-scientists themselves) bashing people who believe in God using apparent science as the basis. Any serious scientist knows we don’t understand most of the nature (although there is tremendous progress, especially in the west – imagine the rate of progression of science if Indian and Chinese universities join in full force), but that doesn’t stop the so-called atheists from swinging the bat.

Agree with Raghuveer on reasons why there was a need for continuity. I think it has mainly to do with the system of education, reading and writing, so that the smart ones could stand on shoulders of previous generations (instability and other factors were in Europe too) – without continuity the wheel has to be reinvented every few generations. Scientific temper probably exists in all society and in all generations – but it has to be allowed to blossom (I know it exists in India – but we don’t invent much).

I think we could benefit by distinguishing the use of terms ‘Scientific temper’ and ‘Scientific thinking” from the study of Physical and Life Sciences.

Sure, Social science differs in major ways from study of natural phenomena. However, social science can, an dhas benefited greately from adopting the techniques of “Science”.

If you were to ask me the top few principles that make up the structure of Science, these would be as under-

1. Observation
2. Divorce of the observed from the observer- (critical for a dispassionate study)
3. Experiment

The tecniques that were codified in Western Europe that we now universaly embrace as Science is what Marvin Harris is referring to. It is quite possible that these very same principles were in play during the time that the great discoveries were made in ancient India. It is sad that we could not build on it- reasons are many and Raghuveer has pointed out some of them most appropriately.

I’ve just finished the fantastic ‘Guns, germs and steel’ by Jared Diamond and was looking for a good follow-up. Thanks for the reco about Marvis Harris.

Karthik,

Due to the abscence of enough data/evidence , we can only speculate as to how ancient Indian discoveries were achieved. I think the focus of the essay was more on how science can be transmitted better when it is codified in verifiable formulae and such. Regardless of how Sushruta did plastic surgery, had he codified it AND if it were followed/built-on by his successors, we would have achieved a lot. For this to happen, lot of things should have been in place – good sample size of students who are competent enough to understand what Sushruta did, easy access to Sushruta’s knowledge base and several favorable extraneous factors (like a stable empire, absence of invasions etc) and a lot more.

so you think that when Indians discovered what is called the pythogoras theorem, or when Sushruta did plastic surgery, they were just achieving things by some kind of hit-and-trial method?

Yes, as long as we are studying nature, science is universal. On the other hand, something social science is extremely context-sensitive.