Re: Avinash Jha
- Well, if quantum physics generates an explanation for why what we
perceive is an 'illusion', then that explanation (assuming it bears
out) would *correct* our experience, not *deny* it.
That is a scientific explanation like the one you refer to would not
be expected to simply negate whatever our sensory apparatus
perceives. It would have to say why our sensory apparatus perceives
what it perceives, as well as why that perception is an 'illusion'.
I think I see now a bit better what Avinash-ji might be trying to
say. He is perhaps trying to make the point that the Indologists'
explanations of Indian culture distort/deny the experience of
Indians of their own culture precisely because they are scientific.
If this is indeed his point, I would challenge it. A scientific
explanation (theory) of Indian culture could not merely say what
Indian culture is - it would have to say why Indians experience it
the way they do. It could not simply negate/deny/ignore some
people's experience. As such, the current social "sciences" could
not be said to be scientific - neither do they constitute knowledge,
according to me. Because knowledge cannot be divorced (as far as I
can see) from experience in that manner.
BTW - if we were talking about alien encounters instead of Indian
culture - the same would hold true. A scientific explanation of
alien encounters would have to explain the experience of
the 'kidnappees' too.
--- In TheHeathenInHisBlindness@yahoogroups.com, "macgupta123"
> Satya asks:
> > The other thing I don't fully understand is the description of
> > science. I guess we haven't really ever fully discussed just
> > constitutes science or what it does not constitute. How doesit
> > differ from the pursuit of knowledge in general?currently
> > But I still don't quite see how science could be described as
> > something that separates one from one's perception or experience
> > really. After all we can't (scientifically or otherwise what
> > otherwise would be I don't know-) study that which we don't
> > experience can we??
> Physics, at least, starting with the rotation of the earth, and
> culminating in the relativity of time and space, and thespookiness of
> quantum mechanics, informs us that the way the universe appears tothan the
> us in our perceptions is mostly an illusion.
> Here is a minor example - did you know that the Moon is brighter
> Sun in one band of the electromagnetic spectrum - in gamma rays?her-pale-
> fire-she-snatches-from-the-sun/selection for
> Similarly, evolution in biology substitutes chance and natural
> the intuition of design, purpose that most people have regardingthe living
> How does science differ from pursuit of knowledge in general?
> Science is a very specific way of interrogating Nature.
> e.g., Mathematics does not involve that.
- What Avinash is criticizing is laws (his "universal propositions")
that are used in explanations. These laws don't have any experiential
content, whatever the latter is.
If our experience is not veridical, our experience is different from
the structure of the world. But laws are claims about the structure
of the world.
Hardly is it called criticism, still less a scathing one.
Even in his critique of science, he appeals to some
sociological 'laws', even though the latter are not defended,
pertaining to how 'science' gains authority, etc. He is committing
the same mistake which he is criticizing.
The talk of the subjective and the objective makes sense only when
there exists such a thing as objective experience. What is being
experienced by some culture is experienced differently by another
culture. Both are non-veridical experiences: at the best, we can make
comparative claims like some experience is more (less) illusory than