Theories of Science - Observations vs Experiements? Axioms vs Theorums?

Indian Science vs Western Science


I have thought about it quite a few times. There are two scientific approach to understanding nature : Theoretical and Practical. This world has practiced two practical approaches to it since long time : Indian and Western(modern science).

Modern science has simple theory : reason why, what, how! try to know the logic of all operation, if possible. If not possible, try for it again. Experiments are done. Theories and Thoughts are made. They are tried to be made generic. If not, some restrictions are put on the environment, specially on the most complex, random and uncontrolled but still unknown factors. Anyway, things look quite good if logic work perfectly with data/experiments. If they don't, drawbacks are found, and theories are improved(changed).This is the whole system. In these 300-400 years, we have developed so many things, life has totally changed, the whole world is changed!

Indians have been quite active doing the same, but somewhat differently. The approach is different, and important to keep in mind. Ancients OBSERVED a lot, and Experimented little (#difference 1). The nature is full of surprises. Many phenomenon happens, and goes unnoticed. Its the eagles eyes which catch them (so called genius eyes). Indian ancestors knew many things, including medical surgeries, and importance of number system, the right approach to mathematics, and many other aspects (largely destroyed). The old literature not only depicts their high-quality of living standard, but also the methods they used for observing systems, and to explain them, using no reasons, but axioms (#difference 2).

Observations vs Experiments


Here comes the difference in approach. I talked some day before about randomness of nature. This Nature is unknown till we know which direction it has moved to , ie. , the random function it followed. The Modern Science is trying to know it, through experiments and theories. Its so huge and gigantic, that its amost impossible. However, Indians took the nature as it is. Yes, the nature is random, and beyond our control; the so called God. They accepted every phenomena of nature as axioms, without reasoning (as if it mattered). If sun rises in east, it rises. Theres no reason to protest why it doesn't rise in west. It deviates us from the basic intention, that is, to understand nature, and to help humans gain knowledge.

Its more important to observe the "effects of rise of sun" than to understand "the very rise of sun".
Humans are complexed chemicals, and they output as psychological behaviors. Medicos have tried to understand the chemicals for long time, but how many can they understand? In every human there are almost infinite of them. The nature, the existence, everything is so complex that it might take long long time to understand (rather control) the humans . This is the deviation. Instead of observing changes, we are trying to change/control it, finding governing laws behind it. However, I make a point, that its not possible at all. More so, its not NEEDED at all.

Indian approach worked better. Indians didn't separate the enzymes/hormones (whatever). they didn't try to know which chemicals are inside body and their structures (thats the most amazing thing to look at.. the helix,fullerences and all.. isn't it?). However, they tried to study humans by observations, by looking at their behavioral changes, by changing environmental conditions. We marked changes in humans, for different changes in environment. For every input, theres an output. Thats the rule. Patanjali's Ayurveda and Yoga, are the most magnifiient things to understand and cure human body. Go figure the science, labs, apparatus behind it!

Learning Human Body


When a system is too stable, like a human body, it implies that it must have many bindings / superimpositions of rather less stable different systems. If we try to bifurcate each of them, it would take millions of days (because there are so many superpositions of them!). Instead, we should accept it as the Big System. At higher level, The Behavioral Descriptions of System is far more important than its very implementation. Humans have explicit way of outputting every change outside through sensors (like eyes and all). Almost all changes inside can be observed outside, and fast also. Instead of learning the exact implementation of humans, we should try to learn the behavior of human system, which is still largely unknown to science.

Large and complex systems like a human body can be more fruitfully understood by observing its interactions with environment. They are so mature that they respond to even slightest of changes in environment. This can not only give us solutions to both tackling a difficult situation but also avoiding it altogether.

Axioms vs Theorums


Indians accepted nature and their laws as axioms. They did not fight over your logic vs mine to explain the things. And why go over this futile exercise, when you can't change or control it anyway. What's more important is that we learn the nature as it is, not why it is. The whys of large and complex systems can't be answered this way (more on this later)

No comments:

Post a Comment