If scientific theories are incorrect how do the scientific inventions work?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Question from Prem Raspuri. If scientists and their explanations are incorrect, then how are they able to make correct predictions, like say the timing of eclipses? Answer. From the Vedic perspective, scientists are not incorrect.
They are incomplete in their understanding. For example, this is an example given by a Nobel laureate physicist. He says that if we consider the movement of a car, Rogers Perry, he says that, we can say that the movement of the car is moving because of the wheels’ motion.
That is happening because the axle is causing the wheels to move. That is happening because there is a spark in the ignition. That is happening because the key has moved from vertical to horizontal.
And depending on the amount of fuel that is there in the engine and the way it is burnt and everything, science can accurately determine that the vehicle will move at this speed if this much is the accelerator pressed and this much is the fuel being consumed and this much is the pressure being applied on the axle. Now, all these are correct facts. But are they complete to describe the motion of the car? No.
Apart from the mechanical factors involved, there might be a person, there is a person in the car and maybe he is in a hurry. He has to go for an interview and he is late and that is why he is pressing the accelerator so much and he is moving fast. So, now from the scientific perspective, the emotions and the intentions of the driver are not taken into consideration.
So, the mechanical analysis is definitely correct. It is based on mathematical equations. It makes accurate predictions.
In that sense, it is correct. But it is not complete. So, similarly with respect to eclipses, there is a particular model of how things happen in science and based on that model, the predictions that are made are correct.
But the correctness does not necessarily imply completeness. Another example to understand the difference between correctness and completeness could be that when a farmer sows seeds in the ground and gets grains, crops, the farmer does not know necessarily the exact mechanism by which the seeds germinate and grow into crops eventually. So, this farmer s knowledge is correct.
But it is not complete. He knows whatever his particular occupation requires him to know. I have to plough the land, I have to sow the seeds, I have to water it, I have to protect the weapons.
We have to have scarecrows to ensure that no predators come and take the grains and then I can harvest. So, the knowledge is correct. But it is not complete because there are so many subtleties involved.
So, similarly the knowledge of scientists is correct. So, you can have correct knowledge without having complete knowledge because correctness is often determined by the functional use. Now, I can have correct knowledge about my computer, how to type, how to delete, how to transfer.
But I may not know about the software that is underlying the function. So, from the Vedic perspective, science is correct in many ways. As far as, especially even in science, there is the functioning of the universe and there is the origin of the universe.
The two are often considered to be equally the branches of science. But science is much more authoritative when it talks about things that can be observed right now because experiments can be made, experiments can be falsified or verified. But when science projects back to origins, it cannot do that.
And that’s why it’s not authoritative over there. So, in general, even Shila Prabhupada used technology and technology indicated that there are certain principles which work. Shila Prabhupada not primarily against the point that scientists are all wrong.
Point is that their knowledge within their framework for their purpose is complete. But it is not complete in a holistic or broad sense. So, they know what they need to know for making an airplane fly, for predicting eclipses, for making computers work.
But that doesn’t mean that they know everything. So, there is many times scientists engage in what is called as non-scientific extrapolation of scientific data. You have certain level of data and from that we extrapolate beyond that.
And that is what is objectionable. So, we don’t necessarily have to argue that scientists are incorrect. All that would say they are incomplete.
So, by observing the universe as we see it right now, to extrapolate beyond that, to say that the universe came from a Big Bang without any intelligence, supervision or guidance, that is a non-scientific extrapolation of scientific data. And that is where atheistic theories come into the picture