Talk:Vedic science

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grounds for dispute & "pseudoscience" rubric[edit]

Vedic science as pseudoscience[edit]

An essay (in two parts) by Meera Nanda regarding "The mixing up of the mythos of the Vedas with the logos of science must be of great concern not just to the scientific community, but also to the religious people, for it is a distortion of both science and spirituality."

Emyth 14:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that an Anonymous Vandal (22:20, May 29, 2005 68.159.23.40) simply deleted the NPOV Dispute notice and deleted the external links to Meera Nanda's critique of "Vedic Science". Such actions are contrary to our values in the Wikipedia project and will be reverted as soon as they are noticed. Emyth 13:42, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Response to Meera Nanda's article

For a more realistic picture of 'Hinduism studies' in the US, please see following - which reveal the opposite of what Meera Nanda attempts to portray.

U.S. Hinduism Studies: A Question of Shoddy Scholarship

Biases in Hinduism Studies

Further, she discredits notable Indian scientist Jagdish Chandra Bose's acheivements because of his interest in Vedanta. (He is known for his pioneering work in wireless communication and invention of the Crescograph. )

Many prominent scientists (Tesla, Schroedinger, Heisenberg) were influenced by Vedanta. Interest in vedic science is not meant to replace science with vedic study - it is only an attempt to reconcile/find the link between the two, which many suspect is more than meets the eye. It also attempts to delve into the science (see Science & technology in Ancient India), philosophy, logic contained within the Vedas. Creation science rejects portions of mainstream science where it does not correlate with the Genesis, while students of vedic science do not reject scientifically validated theories and evidence.

Ayurveda, for instance, is a system of medicine that has a 2000 yr old tradition of surgery & many practioners and patients around the world. Surely, it deserves more than ridicule by Meera? --Pranathi 00:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Ayurveda is itself a pseudoscience, and has a lot of saftey issues. You've fallen victim to the appeal to tradition. Just because it's 2000 years old, doesn't mean it's scientifically valid. I applaud Meera for having the courage to put the scientific perspective. 59.92.40.87 10:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
         Respectfully disagreed as there are TWO proven modern scientific notions within Ayurvedic traditions, namely, Immunology and Plastic Surgery (Rhinoplasty)invented by Maharishi Sushruta, translated into Arabic by al-Biruni and then Italian from the Arabic translations around 1300. If you're going to pretend to be the smartest person in the world by immediately discrediting something because of its tie to tradition then at least get your factual history right. "Indologists" like Meera Nanda and Romila Thapar do more to hinder the study of Indian History with their criticisms than they help. J. Raj Bali  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.203.143 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meera Nanda is right in asserting that science should not be distorted by introducing wrong ideas in the name of religion. But Meera Nanda is wrong if it means that a person having some religious belief must be preaching pseudoscience. Meera Nanda has made no contribution either in the field of science or in religion, but speaks as a saviour of both. I am myself alarmed by the flood of pseudoscientific works in the name of Vedic or other religions. One has a right to profess any religion, as many great scientists did, but one should follow the rules of scientific research if one wants to put forth Vedic or non-Vedic science. As for Ayurveda, there is much in it which lacks validation, but benefits of a large number of Ayurvedic drugs,esp herbal, are now finding their way into allopathy also. It is wrong to take a lopsided partisan attitude in this regard. - Vinay Jha.VinJha 09:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute header[edit]

Who is disputing what, and why? Please make the necessary changes, the dispute header needs to go. Sam Spade 16:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The text was pretty bad before I made some changes on monday. --goethean ॐ 16:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Sam Spade 02:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

quotations[edit]

The out-of context and poorly formatted quotations that litter this article should be moved to wikiquote or deleted. In addition, I ask User:Holy Ganga to observe civility in edit summaries. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It takes time to update article. If you don't like or agree with something, it's better to discuss rather than deleting whole article. Vedic science article should include related Vedic Verses and different types of Vedic science. -Holy Ganga 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But you need to explain to the reader what the significance of these verses are, and your sources must be cited. Otherwise, it should go to Wikiquote. — goethean ॐ 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These vesrses are simplest translations from original Sanskrit Vedic verses ..so self explanatry. Also, Vedic verse number is already provided. Views on Vedic science is already linked with wikiquote.--Holy Ganga 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. You claim that pages of out-of-context quotations from a religious scripture unaccompanied by explanatory text constitute an encyclopedia article? — goethean ॐ 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are your views on verses in this article - Islamic science and other articles like these.-Holy Ganga 09:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See here — goethean ॐ 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me[edit]

but could there be some discussion before an article is turned into something about an entirely different topic? This used to be about the Maharishi thing termed "Vedic science". It seems to be about a vague concept of "anything that is claimed by anybody to be Vedic and scientific". Vedic science proper is Vedanga, which has its own article. The Maharishi thing and Vedanga needs to be clearly disambiguated. Ayurveda is again different, and again already has its article. Vedic mathematics is again different, and again already has its article. Maybe this should be just a disambiguation page. It is supreme bullshit to claim that "Critics dencounce these theories as pseudoscience" when this article is about everything and nothing in particular. Nobody denounces the six Vedanga, they are proper Iron Age scholarship. Critics certainly denounce the modern Maharishi and Tirthaji stuff, which have their own articles. There is no connection whatsoever between actual science of Vedic times (known as Vedanga) and the various modern schools termed Vedic. I will for this reason revert this to the stage where it was clearly about Maharishi. If you want to make it a dab page, that's fine, the Maharishi stuff can then reside at Vedic science (Maharishi) or something. dab (ᛏ) 10:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me...No Hindu organization or sect can claim "vedic science" or any thing Hindu for there own promotion. This is a common term related to science in Vedas. -Holy Ganga 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appears that there are Hindutva claims that the Vedas contain science in the modern sense of the word, independent of the Maharishi story. Both is pseudoscience, of course, but these things need to be clearly disambiguated. I might add that I am making this point out of respect for the spectacular actual Vedic sciences, Vedanga, which are far beyond anything achieved at the time (1st millennium BC) anywhere else in the world. New Age or cranky claims of nuclear physics in the Vedas and what not are a denigration obscuring the actual beauty of ancient thought. For this reason I suggest this page becomes a mere disambiguation page. Nobody claims vyakarana is pseudoscience. Even jyotisha is an exact science within a ritual framework, and ayurveda is as good as any traditional medicine. These should not be lumped together with recent pseudoscientific claims. dab (ᛏ) 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. dab is right. I was unaware of the Maharishi thing, but yes, Holy Ganga's article is a recitation of Hindutva ideas which unfortunately exaggerate the achievements of ancient Vedic science. I agree with making this a disambiguation page, moving Holy Ganga's stuff to an article on Hindutva and moving the maharishi stuff to its own article. — goethean ॐ 16:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like You are unaware of too many things. Vedic science or science in Vedas is a subject of research by many world famous intellectuals. Maharishi's views are just one little part of overall Views. http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Advanced_Concepts.htm#Advanced%20Scientific%20Concepts%20in%20Hindu%20Literature - Holy Ganga 08:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not so much "exaggerate" as "misrepresent". Actual Iron Age Indian science is simply astounding. It is only right to present it as uniquely advanced. It is still founded in an Iron Age mindset unrelated to "western" enlightenment and modern physics. It is an incredible mental achievement in a ritual/priestly context. The content of the ancient corpus is to be cleanly disambiguated to recent, non mainstream / New Age claims about said corpus. dab (ᛏ) 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's this article, too: Indian science and technology — goethean ॐ 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To represent only Maharishi's views on Vedic science and medicine there is a separate article Maharishi Vedic Science and Maharishi Vedic Medicine -Holy Ganga 08:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of Maharishi Vedic Science or Indian science and technology. All the more reason to make this a dab page. dab (ᛏ) 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, If you are not aware of anything related to this Topic , then learn about it before diverting it according your personal ignorant views. -Holy Ganga 10:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying I was not aware of these articles, since they were not properly linked. I still don't get what you want to do with this article. Make it a dumping ground for random snippets of translations from the Vedas? Translating anything from the Atharvaveda as "atomic fission" is a bad joke. You may want to remain civil, and look for consensus. I am not against including reference to your views, no matter how fringy, but you need to make clear whose views on what you are reporting. Indian science and technology seems to be beyond redemption, so if you go and talk about Atharvavedic nuclear fission over there you'll get no trouble from me. dab (ᛏ) 12:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DAB and others should help in rectifying Indian science and technology,which is not beyond redemption .There are serious lapses in it which can be corrected. One can be allowed to talk about Atharvavedic nuclear fission over there only if verifiable proofs are provided. If such Vedic scientists get no trouble from DAB, they may get trouble from me. I have great respect for the Vedas, but I believe there in no hidden scientific or tantric or any other meaning in the Vedas. Vedic sages were open hearted monks, and they did not hide layers of meanings like an onion. But there are a lot of things in ancient texts of India and elsewhere which need fuller and better interpretations, which posterity may provide. - Vinay Jha.VinJha 10:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why are the above critical articles supposing that Vedic Science in anyway "threatens" conventional science?...of all ther Great religons Hinduism is one of the few that does not baulk against modern science. Hinduism does not belive it's right in religon why should it propose a science that is inclusive to itself?? Its goes against everything that Hinduism is. Science and Hinduism can live together...(unlike the Abrahamic religons) Please refrain from tarring all religon with the yoke of Creationism. Hindutva may have their own agenda, but this is plainly an a blackening of a ancient world culture....I like the fact that (apart from a few mild comments from one contributer on this section) the Islamic Science section has very little comment, whilst this section seems to be full of Hindu haters.For instance Meera Nanda states..

They justify developing a science in accord with the Vedic cosmology as an attempt to decolonise the ‘Hindu mind’ of western, Semitic–monotheistic influences. Indeed, scholar–activists sympathetic to the Hindu worldview, including Rajiv Malhotra and Koenard Elst routinely cite the writings of Ashis Nandy, Ronald Inden and even Gayatri Spivak as allies in a shared project of understanding India through Hindu categories.

Since when has Hinduism EVER claimed the non monotheistic nature of God? This is from the Maitriyani Upanishad (V.1) of the Sâmaveda.

Thou art Brahmâ, Thou art Vishnu, Thou art Rudra, Thou Prajâpati, Thou Agni, Varuna, Vâyu, Indra, Soma, Manu, Yama, and Bhumi (Earth). Thou art All, Thou art the Imperishable. In Thee all things exist in many forms, whether for their natural or for their own (higher) ends. Lord of the Universe, glory unto Thee! Thou art the Self of All, Thou art the Maker of All, the Enjoyer of All; Thou art all life, and the Lord of all pleasure and joy. Glory to Thee, O tranquil One, the deeply-hidden One, the Incomprehensible, the Immeasurable; O Thou without beginning and without end

Also what exactly is "The Hindu World View"?? She tars all Hindus as extreme, if I stated that ALL Muslims are fundamental...what would you think of me? Exactly, Ms Nanda has a hidden agenda, by all means attack extreme views but do not tar all with the same brush. TP GMT 1.30pm 9th May 2006

Pseudoscience[edit]

I think it's important to mention that some aspects of vedic science is pseudoscience as per WP:NPOV, to prevent misunderstanding, especially since it's called Vedic science. We can have this in both this article, and the individual articles. Since wikipedia is not a paper dictionary, this isn't an issue. Naroays 12:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't about aspects, it is about completely unrelated meanings of the term. For which reason this is a disambiguation term. Of course some of these are pseudoscience, mention that in their own articles, or if you must next to their entry in the disambiguation link. "pseudoscience" by definition is modern (otherwise Aristotle would be pseudoscience!); as such, Jyotisha etc. are not pseudoscience, just historical systems. Modern stuff derived from these are, of course, blooming-nonsense pseudoscience and I have nothing against so labelling them: them, not the term itself, and as a dab page, it is about the term and its various meanings. dab (ᛏ) 13:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is debatable, and perphaps your point of view. You say, Jyotisha etc. are not pseudoscience, just historical systems. I, along with the scientific community, entirely disagree. I think it violates WP:NPOV when you call Vedic science, as allegedly scientific. Why don't you call it allegedly pseudo-scientific? Remember, this is the only page where we describe vedic "science". While defining the subject, it's essential include that some parts are thought of as a pseudoscience, cause that's what the scientific community says. "allegedly scientific" is very very misleading, as the scientific community (ie, the majortiy community) says that "vedic science", has nothing whatsoever to do with modern science (which is where this page is linked to) and does not conform to the scientific method. To maintain a neutral point of view, we should call this as being defined as a allegedly scientific by it's proponents and pseudoscientific by it's critics. As a compromise edit, would you settle for,
"Vedic science may refer to a number of ancient and modern, Hindu, occultist or New Age claims, thought of as scientific systems by its proponents, and pseudoscientfic by it's critics, found in or based on the Vedas."?Naroays 14:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, instead, would you settle on deleting "Vedic science may refer to a number of claims, ancient and modern, Hindu, occultist or New Age, some of which are thought of as scientific systems by it's proponents, and pseudoscientific by it's critics, found in or based on the Vedas." as this is only a disambig page. What really irks me, is the double standard being shown, when you can define it as a scientific system of thought, but not allowed it to be called as pseudo scientific, which is what the scientists say!Naroays 14:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you are preaching to the choir, mate, I do not object to the term "pseudoscience" appearing as a description of some of the stuff listed, along with "ancient, modern, etc."; I object to your use of "its critics" (sic! please try to avoid the "it's" mistakes, it looks so amateurish) when "it" has no referent: there are a number of completely unrelated things, and a number of unrelated things cannot be "criticised" as "it". I wouldn't dream of calling jyhotisha "scientific", it's a historical system of astronomy, if you like proto-scientific. Any "proponent" of jyotisha as "science" is of course guilty of pseudoscience, but jyotisha can and should of course be discussed as a historical topic, not as some controversial scientific proposal (sheesh). dab (ᛏ) 14:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm fine with how it stands now. ThanksNaroays 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Vedic Science"[edit]

There are a number of conflicting views being propounded in the name of vedic science. The term 'Vedic Science' is a modern invention, and its meaning is debatable. Some adherents of vedic science seem to oppose modern science, but they are few. The majority of such people are saying that many ideas of modern science were present in vedic and related literature in explicit or implicit form. Most of these claims seem to be extravagant, but a few less-known claims deserve attention, provided these views are based on verifiable documentary and logical grounds. Most of hindutva-related web pages fail to provide concrete evidence in favour of the claims that many ideas of modern science were known to Vedic or other ancient peoples. Only propaganda will not do, these people should provide evidence or shut up. A wrong interpretation of Vedic and related texts must be opposed. - Vinay Jha.VinJha 03:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that the word "science" means "knowledge", but in modern times we distinguish between knowledge in a general sense and science as a modern discipline which uses the scientific method and research. They are often different things and to call Veda "science" is misleading. Yes, it's "knowledge", but most often not scientific, and often pseudoscientific or just plain a religious or metaphysical belief system.
Some effort should be made to define this in the article, otherwise the solution would be to rename the article to Vedic knowledge, or some other term not using the word "science" in the title. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, 'science' in its loose sense, means a rationalized system for for examining knowledge about the world. In this loose sense, many ancient cultures practiced science, and practiced it well (within their epistemological limitations). science in its restricted sense refers to modern western scientific paradigms (cutting-edge methodology, as it were), which couldn't apply to anything older than a couple of hundred years. The question is whether this 'Vedic science' is trying to pass itself off as science in the restricted sense (which would be pseudoscience), or whether it's using science in the loose sense (which wouldn't be). I don't know the answer to that question, but whatever the answer is the article should reflect it. --Ludwigs2 16:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a related matter, the High Court of India has declared that astrology is a science.[1]   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vedic_science&oldid=1190698058"