When devotee-scientists’ books are criticized by mainstream scientists can we quote them as scientific evidence for KC?
Transcription: Jyoti Shirasangi Mataji
Question: When the books by devotee scientists, like Forbidden Archaeology, are severely criticized by mainstream scientists, then how can we quote them as scientific evidence for the truths of Krishna consciousness?
Answer: Criticism is an integral part of scientific life, and as Dhrutakarma prabhu has written the book “forbidden Archaeology” which is often criticized as pseudo science by some mainstream scientists, he says that, even Darwin himself was criticized severely during his time. That criticism was not just by religions, it was by the people who were scientists themselves. They found his theories to be untenable scientifically, but, still he went on.
Generally in this world, when any new idea that comes up, that is criticized. In scientific worldview, it is not that. Any new idea that comes along is accepted immediately. There are proponents of the old ideas, and they continue to hold on to that old idea, and over a period of time, when it is established how the new idea is superior, only then it is accepted by others.
Even if we consider a person as eminent as Newton, who is considered as 1 of the greatest brain in the world today, but still, during Newton, there were other scientists at his time, who could not accept what he was saying, and there were several disputes between them, and their letters of correspondence which are studied, which people try to understand how Newton tried to explain things, and how some of his usuries some of his explanations were wrong.
So, Keppler was 1 of his contemporaries, and he also gave laws for planetary interactions, and he was himself brilliant. But, especially Newton’s explanation of the Ontology of gravity was very inadequate. Taking that inadequacy of Ontology, Keppler actually critic the whole concept of gravity itself and Newton has to defend it.
Similarly, even in modern history, Einstein is considered as the greatest brain again, and he was a proponent of Relativity, and in gravital contradiction to relativity, there is a theory of Quantum Physics. The proponents of Quantum Physics, they often strongly criticize Inestaine, and there were wars between them. So, the point 1st of all is that, just because somebody criticizes scientific theory doesn’t make that theory false, even the greatest of scientists are criticized.
Then we move forward, what is the content of the criticism? Now, pseudo science is a deceptive label. Anybody can put anything under the label of pseudo science, and thereby criticize it. Just as you give the dog a bad name, and then hang the dog. Like that, just because somebody gives the name pseudo science, we shouldn’t get alarmed by it. We have to look at the content of what is given.
Dhrutakarma prabhu at the start of his book itself he says that, “I don’t see myself as a scientist or a religionist, I see myself as a human being and search for truth, and if I get it through science or get it through religion, I will use that too also” so, the point which he makes by this is that, people should look at the content, and not the source of his ideas.
The source may be religious, but the content and the methodology (if we look at the evidences that he has given, if we look at the arguments that he has given), there are many scientists, who may not belong to the scientific mainstream, but, they are still in their own way intelligent respectable scientists, and they have appreciated the fact that, he has written “Landmark book”. In fact, some scientists called it, “the greatest intellectual achievement of the 20th century”.
The forbidden Archaeology, an exhaustive compilation of data, which criticises the theory of evolution. It is given evidence after evidence after evidence, which contradicts the theory, and then he has given reasoning based on that.
So, science essentially consists of 2 things. The empirical evidence and logical reasoning. And if 1 looks at that, rather than judging the book based on the criticism by other scientists, we should focus on looking at its content, in terms of how sound is the evidence, and how logical are the arguments.
Yes, the book has been criticized, Dhruthakarma prabhu has responded to the criticism also by writing a book called “Forbidden Archaeology’s impact”, and in that book he actually takes the various kinds of criticisms that are there, and he places them in a systematic context, where he shows how people’s criticisms are primarily affected by their ideologies. Their criticisms were not UNbruised, but, they come from certain preconceptions which may well, be misconceptions.
The Philosophers of science, sociologists of science, they have appreciated the “Forbidden Archaeology’s impact”, saying that, the book illustrates how actually science works in terms of its acceptance or rejection of theories.
As far as our quoting is concerned, we can definitely quote it, and more important when stating the book, we can state the evidence within it.
He has travelled all over the world; he has been invited even to top scientific bodies. He has spoken in London, in England; he has spoken at forums where Darwin himself spoke, and where the top scientists of the world have spoken. He has been invited in universities all over the world and conferences; they wouldn’t invite him if it was just pseudo science. They want to hear what he is talking about.
So, Serious scientists are much open minded to consider new ideas, although they may not accept it, they will at least consider. They would reject it by giving the label pseudo science. But, there are minority of vocal extremists even among scientists. These are atheists, who want to own science as their own property, and they consider that, science should be used primarily as a tool to promote atheism.
So, if somebody does the opposite, somebody use the science to prove the truth of scripture, that infuriates them, and that’s why, they critic it strongly.
The British physical society and other societies which comprise the bodies of mainstream scientists, they have invited him to speak, and that indicates that, they are ready to consider the ideas. Even top scientific bodies in Russia have invited him to speak. They heard his ideas, papers have also been published.
So, rather than letting ourselves be discouraged just by the criticisms and the labelling of the work, we should focus on the content, its logical argumentation, and its exhaustive evidences, and we should present that, to others. We should draw attention of others also to that, and in that way we will be able to use it as scientific evidence.
Thank You. Hare Krishna.