On the nature of science

A discussion on a group that I subscribe to sparked off this opinion. The discussion started with a debate on the efficacy of drinking 600ml of water to cure all kinds of diseases. Obviously it attracted a few skeptical comments and references to snopes which were countered by evidence on how "my mother's friend had this xxx disease that doctors gave up on but was cured by homeopathy/ ayurveda" etc. Broadly the arguments were split between "Where is the proof?" and "It is all individual. There is no proof required as it clearly works." spiced by "Western science is selective about proof anyway".

This got me thinking about proof and the nature of science and I thought I will dash off a quick opinion. A well reasoned article will have to wait a bit though.

Anecdotal evidence is not proof in any system of logic, including the vedic system of logic or Eastern philosophy that No-proof-is-requried camp normally subscribe to.

If I say placebo effect or natural remission or even immunity build-up as explanations for the instances that alternative medicinces seem to work, it will normally be pooh-poohed as a "Western concept" without really offering an "eastern" explanation for why it works for a class of people. If it does not work for class of people, then it is irrelevant anyway.

But the fact is that neither the explanation nor veracity of this assertion can be confirmed by either camp it is beyond the competence of both parties, specifically as it applies to medicine. So other than sophistry, it achieves nothing to enter into a debate on that.

Nobody but a novice is arrogant enough to claim that all phenomena are explained, indeed, are even explainable.. Even in so called classical physics only a small set of problems are amenable to solutions. The rest are all approximations. THerefore this myth that science has all the answers is not something that is propagated by scientists or people who understand what science is.

In my opinion, there is no western or eastern science. There are only observations & anamolies and theories that attempt to explain them. All schools of reasoning and logic require that all assumptions be clearly stated and rigour be employed in arriving at conclusions. However, all schools also demand that you subscribe to their epistemology in doing so. Euclidean geometry only works if you subscribe to the axioms, which by definition, cannot be proved. Therefore pays your money and takes choices.

The problem with making choices is this: It is interesting that all of us who rant & rave at the 'other' side nevertheless partake of the bits that are personally palatable or profitable from any system of thought. You, who are such a champion for the "Ancient Indian Tradition" "Vedic xyz", no doubt are an excellent logician in the Hellenic tradition because that is what was required for you to code. Nor are you, I am willing to bet, shy about taking a flight or using a computer or undergo a heart surgery (which hopefully you dont need) despite their western origins. I, the champion for skepticism and 'Western' rationality, have to shamefully confess that I prefer my mother's kashayam when my stomach is upset to any tablet and that I do feel a sneaking pride when I read about Aryabhatta or Bhaskara or when I hear the infamous "you invented nothing" slogan for nothing more than the accident of being born in the geographic area as these worthies. Hell, I am sure many a skeptic has sent up a prayer (inadvertenly or involuntarily, I am sure) when a loved one is very sick. So each of us assembles a quilt of biases, thought models, mental shortcuts, conditionings, world views, epistemologies, ontologies and go around thinking OUR hodge podge is better than the other's pot pourri.

We are all instrumental in our philosophy. The rest is just time-pass.

That having been said, homeopathy doesnt work!