Does science offer real knowledge – can we live today without scientific knowledge?
Does science offer real knowledge can we live without science in this age as I said science offers us models of reality and whether it offers us reality that is a complex question which many scientists don't bother to address because what is reality we have got multiple models, working models and we don't know what is what so a simple example of this if I have a map of America I can have a political map I can have a topographical map I can have a map in terms of say the existence of minerals under the earth so now all these maps will be looking at the same territory but I may see them as significantly different and substantially different so if I don't know that all of them are maps of America only this is showing something different, this is showing something different now all those maps are useful but no map describes the territory exhaustively so science offers us a map of reality and in today's world this map is not only useful for many purposes it is indispensable especially if you are living in the modern post modern civilization we are surrounded by technology and technology is a product of the science mapping of the world so there can be alternative ways of looking at the world also so to give an example allopathy maps the human body in a particular way ayurveda maps the human body in another way in ayurveda there is a concept of kapha vata pitta they consider the digestive fire jatharagni as the primary parameter of health so if the digestive fire is strong then the person will be healthy now if we ask from allopathy perspective what do you mean by fire? the body has temperature that is created by metabolism but there is no such thing as a fire in the body so now actually speaking if we see allopathy works in curing patients ayurveda also works in curing patients so now there may be some allopaths who may mock at ayurveda there may be some ayurvedic doctors who may mock at allopathy but the fact is both work in different situations for different people just that these two are models of the same human body and there may be some things which match there may be some things which don't match so whichever model works for a person they can use that so like that we as devotees don't have to go on a crusade against science or a crusade for science science is a tool for acquiring knowledge and in many ways it gives useful knowledge and in today's socio-cultural context is that science products are indispensable in it but the model which science offers us looking at reality that is not the only model there is a whole different way of looking at reality also and some of the Vedic scriptures for example Sankhya Sankhya that is described in the third canto is very briefly described but that offers a different way of looking at matter it is looking at matter but matter as composed of elements fundamental elements and as manifestation of the energy of God it's a different way of looking at matter that's also another way of looking at matter Prabhupada encouraged devotees to do research in that way and explain that that's also good so science gives us knowledge definitely it's valid knowledge but it is not exhaustive knowledge the scientific picture of reality is correct but it is not complete it is correct when we consider it in terms of the model that it is offered see if science were not correct when I call you if you are in India and I am in America I call you my call is reaching you so certainly there is some level of some significant level of correctness that is there in science way of looking at the world but it is not exhaustive and when it is made we consider it to be exhaustive that's where it becomes wrong so I will conclude with a simple example suppose somebody is playing a billiards game now now say somebody hits a ball and say with a stick they hit a ball and this ball hits another group of balls and then one ball goes into the hole now if I look at it only from the framework of the table if I am looking from just above the table and how did this ball go into the hole? I can explain that in terms of the laws of physics now this stick was moved at this force and it imparted, it hit this ball at this angle and the hole is complex but we can describe in terms of laws of physics how the force with which the stick was moved that caused the ball to go into the hole that is a valid explanation now if I extend my frame a little bigger further I can say oh there is an expert billiards player who was playing and it was because of the expertise of that billiards player that the ball went into the hole the two explanations that the ball went into the hole because of the force with which it was hit and the angle at which it was hit, explanation in terms of the laws of physics and explanation by looking at the expertise of the player, both these explanations they are not contrary they are complementary so like that science offers us explanation of things from a finite framework a particular framework and within that framework it is valid but if it is made into an exhaustive description of all of reality then it becomes incorrect so it is correct but it is not complete, when the incomplete is thought of as complete then it becomes incorrect so thank you very much Prabhupada.