Showing posts with label Pearls of wisdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pearls of wisdom. Show all posts

Monday, November 2, 2020

Slaughter of 'Arundhati', the epitome of Virtue at the altar of "Falsifiability" that Popper would reject. (Courtesy Nilesh Oak)

Note: In his characteristic style, Nilesh Oak responded to this blog in twitter, not to the substance of the critique but in his usual style as expected. Pity the people who believe his 'research'. 


*******

Often one hears Nilesh Oak invoking the name ‘Karl Popper’ in support of ‘scientific’ nature of his ‘theory’ (i.e. date of Mahābhārata war) and accords highest degree of ‘falsifiability’ (a theory espoused by Popper) to Arundhati – Vasishtha observation of Vyasa to establish his date of Mahabharata which is more than 2000 years before the actual date that many people in the know of Mahabharata, particularly from Tamilnadu are aware of.

In this chapter (6th) taken out from my book, I am explaining what these are all about, what Popper told about falsifiability and whether Nilesh Oak’s views do any justice to Popper. An excerpt from the 7th chapter on the so-called "Triangulation" method that Nilesh Oak often talks about, is given to reveal the absurdity of that claim.

 A video prepared by me on his Popperian fuss is given below. 




Chapter 6  in my book Myth of 'The Epoch of Arundhati' of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak

METHODOLOGY: FLAWS IN APPLICATION OF POPPER’S FALSIFICATION

 

Choice of methodology is important in historical research as much it is in scientific research. In a historiographical research to find out the date of Mahabharata war on the basis of internal inputs of a literary work, Nilesh Oak has opted to use the falsificationist methodology of the philosophy of science proposed by the Austrian born British philosopher, Sir Karl Popper. According to Karl Popper, to be scientific means to be falsifiable and testable. A theory can be verified to be true in many ways, but a single statement or singular statements can falsify that theory. In view of the asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability,[1] the falsification done by the singular statement is considered to be of vital importance in establishing scientific theories. Nilesh Oak found this to be applicable to A-V observation and has noted in his book as follows:

I found it fascinating that my approach to this problem (A-V observation) was very much along the lines of ‘testability’, ‘falsifiability’, and ‘simplicity’ as espoused by Karl Popper.[2]


He further writes that that falsifiability is the only criteria to test the astronomy observations of the Mahabharata text. He treats A-V observation as an astronomy observation though it is presented by Vyasa along with scores of non-astronomy observations, and accords to it the highest degree of falsifiability.[3]He puts it on top of the graph in Figure 11 in his book for highest relevance (among other astronomy observations) for the date of Mahabharata War. He justifies highest relevance and falsifiability of the A-V observation on the pretext that theability of Arundhati observation to predict the time interval for the plausible year of Mahabharata War is not affected, when all other Mahabharata observations are eliminated.[4]

 

Writing on the above Figure in his Introduction, Oak says that[5]

Higher the testability of an observation, higher is its relevance for the dating of Mahabharata War and this higher is worth of such an observation! Of course, this is not a new realization but rather a validation of Popper’s emphasis on falsifiability, simplicity and testability.”


A single observation taken as a test of falsification resulted in the discovery of the “Epoch of Arundhati” across a period of 6000 years when Oak thinks Arundhati star walked in front of Vasishtha.

Let us first look into the admissibility and viability of this methodology for dating the Mahabharata War.


1. Nilesh Oak’s research justifies Kuhn’s criticism of Popper’s methodology that result is what one wants to see.

First and foremost it is surprising that Nilesh Oak has picked up a methodology that is no longer accepted within philosophy of science. There are no takers for Popper’s falsificationist theory that a single counter instance is sufficient to reject a theory. The foremost criticism of this methodology given by Thomas Kuhn is that “observation is itself strongly theory-laden, in the sense that what one observes is often significantly affected by one’s previously held theoretical beliefs.[6]


This criticism perfectly holds good for Nilesh Oak who keeps repeating how he was obsessed with the A-V observation. His ‘liking’ and “fascination” for this A-V observation is expressed throughout his book and speeches. His was not an urge to date Mahabharata war, but it was an instant liking he had taken for the A-V observation in which he sensed scope for clinching a “revolutionary” theory if he could prove it scientifically. This made him look for what others had said on this observation, rather than checking A-V observation in the light of other references to Arundhati in Mahabharata or Vālmiki Ramayana. As a result he was “astonished” to know that only four researchers had mentioned this observation [7] while the fact remains that Nilesh Oak had not checked even a single observation on Arundhati other than the A-V observation found within the text of Mahabharata. 


His obsession with this observation grew manifold when he came to know that P V Vartak was the only researcher to have treated the A-V observation as a true astronomy observation. After he went to Calgary he started gathering material to satiate his fascination for this observation. He learnt the basic astronomy terms, bought astronomy catalogues, bought astronomy simulator which he kept running for years to see when Arundhati walked in front of Vasishtha. At last he says “Lady Arundhati was finally pleased with my efforts” when he could see her walking ahead of her husband in the simulator! His obsession has gone to the extent of thinking that Arundhati who was an epitome of a unique virtue of not obstructing the path of her husband would be too willing to expose a violation of this virtue committed by her and was pleased to reveal to the world that she is not what she is thought to be.

When Nilesh Oak completed the experiment of the ‘walking ahead’ of Arundhati in his simulation that he checked for every 1000 years, he was elated, exhausted and delirious”. [8]


He concludes that chapter with a satisfactory note on his discovery of ‘The Epoch of Arundhati’ by comparing “its importance with discoveries of Copernicus (geocentric to heliocentric), Kepler (circular to elliptical orbits) or Galileo (celestial = terrestrial).”[9]


His obsession making itself  revealing too very often, Nilesh Oak’s choice of falsifiability criterion of Popper makes a first rate case of evidence for Thomas Kuhn’s criticism of this criterion that result is what one wants to see! Kuhn argues that “those holding different theories might report radically different observations, even when they both are observing the same phenomena.[10]When one has the end result in mind and wants to prove that result, then one will be behaving like school children who will keep re-doing the tests until the expected result appears.


It is worth recalling here the words of Nilesh Oak quoted in the beginning, in the Introduction, expressing his obsession with A-V observation that he was not at all keen on understanding or interpreting the other astronomy references unless the A-V observation is found to be true.[11]Such obsession would somehow make one get to see it in some way and force-fit other references within that. This reminds us of the dialogue of Sherlock Holmes on the danger of hypothesis in non-statistical research: “Never theorize before you have data. Invariably you end up twisting facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”


2.  A-V observation is not a Basic Sentence in Popper’s criterion.

Karl Popper whose methodology of falsification Nilesh Oak claims to follow in his research  sounds a specific caution in the matter of choosing a falsifier – in this case the A-V observation.  The falsifier must be a Basic Sentence according to Popper. “Every test of a theory, whether resulting in its collaboration or falsification, must stop at some basic statement or other which we decide to accept. If we do not come to any decision, and do not accept some basic statement or other, then the test will have led nowhere...”[12]


A Basic Sentence or Basic Statements are “statements asserting that an observable event is occurring in a certain individual region of space and time.”[13]


However Popper asserts that a basic statement “requires the consensus of the relevant scientific community—if the community decides to accept it, it will count as a basic statement; if the community does not accept it as basic, then an effort must be made to test the statement by using it together with other statements to deduce a statement that the relevant community will accept as basic. Finally, if the scientific community cannot reach a consensus on what would count as a falsifier for the disputed statement, the statement itself, despite initial appearances, may not actually be empirical or scientific in the relevant sense.”[14]


The Basic sentence in Nilesh Oak’s research is the A-V observation which was rejected by everyone except Vartak as a true astronomy event. By Popper’s theory this observation ceases to be a Basic Sentence. In the absence of a consensus on the acceptability of A-V observation as a Basic sentence, there is no justification to treat is as a falsifier. Selective harping on falsification criteria without a consensus on the Basic Sentence is nothing but hypocrisy that does no proud to the name of Popper, whom he often quotes.


3. A-V observation is a subjective observation and not inter-subjective observation mandated by the theory of falsifiability.

Karl Popper is of the opinion that “the objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can inter-subjectively be tested.[15] Karl Popper does not accept subjective observations but only those observations that are seen by many. Writing on this, he says,

The event must be an ‘observable’ event; that is to say, basic statements must be testable, inter-subjectively, by ‘observation’. Since they are singular statements, this requirement can of course only refer to observers who are suitably placed in space and time.”[16]


To explain this, the universal statement that “all swans are white” can be falsified by a single statement that “there is a black swan in the X country”. This falsifier comes from the observation of black swan in the X country. Suppose the observation was reported by Y, then it doesn’t qualify as a falsifier. That is, a statement “Y saw a black swan in the X country” is not a falsifier. Instead a statement that “black swans are seen in the X country” or “many have seen black swans” makes the statement a potential falsifier. The observation must have been made by many – or in other words inter-subjectively’. Karl Popper has insisted on this important difference to make the observation a doubtless one.


But what has Nilesh Oak done? He has taken a subjective observation – an observation that was reported only by Vyasa. The A-V observation that Arundhati walked ahead of Vasishtha was not reported by anyone other than Vyasa.  A few days after this reported observation Bhishma from his arrow bed had remembered Arundhati and compared Sāndli with her. Years before the observation by Vyasa, Kunti had blessed her daughter-in-law to be like Arundhati. Why didn’t these two people ever mention about Arundhati going in front of Vasishtha if the observation by Vyasa was universal. Moreover the context of their remembrance leaves no doubt about her position in the sky – i.e. behind her husband.


Picking out a theory of scientific inquiry is welcome, but one should do it within the norms given by that theory. The theory of falsification can work only when it is based on inter-subjective observation. Karl Popper or any of his critics would straightaway reject Nilesh Oak’s falsifier, the A-V observation, for not fulfilling the criteria of inter-subjectivity.


Shockingly enough, this book of Nilesh Oak based on A-V observation as a falsifier was nominated for the Lakatos Award for the contribution to the Philosophy of Science, whose principal architect was Karl Popper.

Source: Nilesh Oak’s tweet.

This is either a case of self nomination or the nominators not knowing what Popper has said, or not having read Nilesh Oak’s book fully from the perspective of Popper’s falsification theory. Thankfully the Latsis Foundation[17]spared itself of the embarrassment by not choosing this book for the award.


4. Inappropriateness of Popper’s falsifiability as a methodology for proving A-V observation.

Karl Popper’s methodology of falsifiability works on scientific theories for the purpose of progression of science. Successful falsification of a theory leads to the birth of a new theory which again stands to test by falsifiers. Thus there is continuous improvement in the field of science with experimental observations challenging the previous theories. Popper’s choice of falsifier over verification arises from this fact, to give an example - Einstein’s theory of relativity was successfully falsified by the observation of the bending of star light during solar eclipse. Any number of experiments on verification of Einstein’s theory could not do what the falsification observation did to the success of the theory and furtherance of knowledge as a result.


In contrast Nilesh Oak’s A-V observation is not a theory, nor does it give rise to any growth of science once falsified. Checking it at the Voyager simulator at best can be termed as verification – a process that Karl Popper was not keen on accepting as a potent way of proving a theory. As such Popper’s methodology is irrelevant to testing the A-V observation. From what Nilesh Nilkanth Oak has done, it deserves to be called as ‘Verification through Voyager software’ – with no scope to scientific claim or a falsifier of Popper kind.


5. Criticism of adhocism leading to manipulation.

Popper himself has conceded the criticism of his falsificationist methodology that it is liable for ad hoc changes to suit the results. Writing on this in his book he says,[18]


“.. it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible; and this fact, it might be claimed, makes the logical value of my proposed criterion of demarcation dubious, to say the least.”


The highlighted ideas in the above quoted passage from Popper’s book “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” are found to fit in two ways that Nilesh Oak has manipulated the astronomy references in Mahabharata.


(1) For proving his date of Mahabharata, Nilesh Oak is found to give weird meanings to the very basic terms of astronomy and astrology, such as retrogression / Vakri, pīdana / affliction and so on. There is a long list of Nilesh Oak’s manipulations of astronomy positions given at the end of this book. As Popper says, scientists don’t work this way; nor do historiographers or archaeo-astronomers.


(2) The other point is his refusal to admit that A-V observation is only a nimitta – which is a transient phenomenon and not an astronomy reference. Nilesh Oak refuses to accept that a nimitta is a not a falsifier for the astronomy nature of the A-V observation. He has argued severally in his blogs by sticking to a stance that nimitta is scientifically testable. This will be exclusively discussed in another chapter.


6. Falsification does not apply to astrological concepts.

The very basis of Popper’s methodology of falsification is to enable one to draw a line between scientific and unscientific theories. Popper uses falsification as a criterion for demarcation between these two systems. He says,


“The problem of finding a criterion which would enable us to distinguish between the empirical sciences on the one hand, and mathematics and logic as well as ‘metaphysical’ systems on the other, I call the problem of demarcation.”[19]


If a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific, if not, it is unscientific or pseudo-science. Karl Popper straightaway rejects astrology as a pseudo-science. According to him subjects like astrology, metaphysics and Freudian psychoanalysis are “not empirical sciences, because of their failure to adhere to the principle of falsifiability.”[20]


The problem with the falsifier of Nilesh Oak, namely the A-V observation is that it is a nimitta which is part of astrology. In the very beginning of his conversation with Dhritarashtra, Vyasa says that he sees numerous omens (nimitta) indicating terror and starts listing them down, among which the A-V observation takes place. The Nimitta reference comes in the 16th verse,[21] and from that begins a series of omens of which A-V observation comes in the 31st verse in the same chapter, in the same monologue of Vyasa.


Nilesh Oak has used an astrology concept as a falsifier for his ‘scientific’ dating of Mahabharata!  Behind the tall talk of scientific methodology in dating Mahabharata War trumpeted repeatedly by Nilesh Nilkanth Oak lies the hard fact that he has taken a Basic Sentence that Karl Popper could never accept as a falsifier!


Popper’s theory is such that astrological references and astrological terms can never be categorised as science and therefore are not falsifiable (not testable). There is no use picking out a nimitta as a potential falsifier to build an entire theory. As an admirer of Popper, Nilesh Oak knows very well that he must keep a distance away from astrology. This is evident from his disclaimer-like statement in the Introduction of his book rejecting astrological explanations.[22]


Wherever the traditional astrological terms such as ‘vakri’, ‘pīḍayate’ etc., appear he doesn’t hesitate to hand out the weirdest interpretations in the name of scientific approach – his only scientific approach being the use of Voyager Simulator to look at Direct Visual Astronomy on his proposed date.  But ironically he had missed out the main context of the A-V observation that it is a Nimitta. It is evident that Nilesh Oak was not at all aware at the time of writing his book that the A-V observation was a nimitta. That word doesn’t appear anywhere in his book.


It shows only one thing – that Nilesh Nilkanth Oak did only selective reading of the Mahabharata text for cherry-picking astronomy references! This reiterates the very first criticism given above(attributed to Thomas Kuhn) that he has seen what he wants to see – even from among the data available for research!


The Mother of Ironies

Nilesh Nilkanth Oak, the Popper follower, had not known for long that Thomas Kuhn was a severe critic of Karl Popper’s theory of Philosophy of Science. This is proved by a slide tweeted by Nilesh Oak as recently as on 12th August 2019,in which he had Kuhn’s name in the list of ideologues who contributed to his Vyapti-jnana. The slide (below) contains names of all texts and people whom he quotes as his source. Note Kuhn’s name in that, but struck out in red.


The rejection of Kuhn must have come very recently for he is an odd man out in the slide. This strengthens the view that Nilesh Oak had come to know of the diametrically opposite stance of Kuhn against Popper very recently leading him to strike him out. When confronted with a tweeple why he had struck out Kuhn’s name, Nilesh Oak replied that “Because the first time I read it, none of it made sense & whatever little did was ‘trivially true stuff’. I made a conjecture (1993) that his work is useless, misleading and fraudulent.”


If fraudulent, why did Nilesh Oak add Kuhn’s name in the first place in the list that he claims to contribute to Vyapti-jnana? Would anyone keep the name of someone whose works were known to him right from 1993 as fraudulent? Certainly this slide was not an old one prepared in 1993. Between 1993 and 2019 there was enough time to correct the slide by dropping Kuhn’s name. By striking off Kuhn’s name in the already prepared slide, it has become more than obvious that Nilesh Oak had come to know only recently of the incompatibility of keeping Popper and Kuhn together as contributors of his Vyapti-jnana.


The inference is very simple – that Nilesh Nilkanth Oak does not only selective reading, but also superficial reading. He has not studied Popper fully, nor has he read Kuhn fractionally!


(End of Chapter 6)


 From Chapter 7 on Triangulation of Popper - another jargon often used by Nilesh Oak


The worst ever part is his triangulation of Popper that shows he has not understood Popper either. Popper talks about dimensions of a theory in terms of geometric shapes in his chapter on Degrees of Testability in his book ‘Logic of Scientific Discovery’. According to him the degrees of testability of the Basic Sentences or the falsifiers can be compared on the basis of the dimensions that can be tested by the falsifier. The dimensions are determined by the number of parameters by which a theory is represented. The lesser the dimension, higher is the degree of testability.


Popper has listed out upto four dimensions to explain this idea. A triangle in this scheme represents two or three dimensions depending on whether it passes through three or two given points (in conical shape). A falsifier (Basic Sentence) of this type must possess three or two dimensions to test a given theory to prove it as either wrong or right. As per his scheme, a triangle is two dimensional with three sides, with each side passing through two points.


This purely belongs to the realm of science, and if someone wants to adapt it, he can do so by invoking Poppers’ name if there is some semblance to what he does. Nilesh Oak claiming to do scientific research invokes Popper’s name for the Triangulation he uses for the metaphysical concept of Astika Darshanas.


The following model is given in his blog (and repeated in his lectures) that “It is important to comprehend the logic of scientific method in order to understand what is demanded of a scientific theory, how its consequences are calculated and how it is objectively tested with the help of evidence.”[23]


The name of Popper’s book,The Logic of Scientific Discovery”, is adapted here as ‘logic of scientific method.’ The triangle is bounded between parallel lines on two sides with no Popperian logic of why such boundary is needed. The Agama is relegated outside and never used anywhere in his scheme. He recognises the 5 elements in this model as “5 key elements of the scientific method. In his own words:



There is nothing scientific about the first two elements. The 3
rd is his only source of method used for his entire research. The 4th is about how he has fitted his ideas in a framework. The 5th is available in simulator and the catalogues. In the place of just saying that he used the simulator to note down the planetary positions around the time of his date of Mahabharata war, he has spun scientific semblance from Popper and Vedic semblance from Pramānas!


All for a date that is terribly WRONG !!!!





[1]Karl Popper,  “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” (English edition 1959), Page 19

[2]“When Did The Mahabharata War Happen?” Page 58.

[3]Ibid. Page 201- 203

[4] Ibid. Page 201

[5]Ibid.  Introduction page 9

[6]“Karl Popper: Philosophy of Science” https://www.iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/

[7]Ibid. Page 54.

[8]Ibid. Page 66.

[9]Ibid. Page 71.

[10] “Karl Popper: Philosophy of Science – Criticisms of Falsificationism” https://www.iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/#SH2c

[11]“When Did The Mahabharata War Happen?” Page 57 - 58

[12]Karl Popper: Basic Sentences and the role of Convention” https://www.iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/#SH2c

[13]Karl Popper,  “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” (English edition 1959), Page 85.

[14]Karl Popper: Basic Sentences and the role of Convention” https://www.iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/#SH2c

[15]Karl Popper,  “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” (English edition 1959), Page 22.

[16]Ibid. Page 84.

[17]The Lakatos Award is sponsored by Latsis Foundation based in Geneva.

[18] Ibid. Page 19-20

[19] Ibid. Page 11

[22]“When did the Mahabharata War happen?” Introduction Page 2.




Saturday, October 31, 2020

Any confusion about Shabda Pramana and Pratyaksha Pramana? Take lessons from Nilesh Oak.

Excerpted from the 7th chapter of my book Myth of 'The Epoch of Arundhati' of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak titled, 'Methodology: Faulty concept of Pramana'


Is A-V observation a valid Shabda Pramāna?

This question arises after reading the views of Nilesh Oak on Shabda Pramāna in different platforms between 2011 and 2019. In his book he treats A-V observation as a Shabda pramāna. Writing on A-V observation in the chapter on “The Epoch of Arundhati” he says,

“This is an illustration of the validity of ‘Shabda Pramāna– Verbal Testimony’ corroborated by ‘Pratyaksha Pramāna – Empirical Proof.”[1]

Here he treats the sighting of Arundhati – Vasishtha by Vyasa as Shabda pramāna, and his own verification of the same in the simulator as Pratyaksha Pramāna.

In his 2015 blog comes the rejection of Shabda as a pramāna in the context of explaining the sutra of Patanjali “pratyakṣa-anumāna-āgamāḥ pramāṇāni” Unable to accept Agama as a pramāna, he figures out a scenario of misinterpretation of Agama, stating that “anytime ‘Agama’ was misunderstood and was interpreted as ‘knowledge beyond doubt, scepticism or criticism’, humanity has landed in big trouble.”[2]

He further says that Agama was modified into Shabda later and was twisted with an element of dogmatic insistence. To quote his own words,

It appears that some of the Indian traditions modified Patanjali’s original ‘Pratyaksha-Anumana-Agama-Pramāna’ into ‘Pratyaksha-Anumana-Shabda’ as means of ‘Pramāna’....However the worst part of this twisting was their dogmatic insistence on Shabda (Authority-read-utterance/opinion of Gurus, Godmen, Teachers, Professors, elders) that, IMHO, led to Dark Age of Science in India.”

So according to him Shabda replaced Agama and was twisted badly such that the Indian science was pushed into Dark Age. This view of him seems to have grown exponentially over the years that recently in a twitter interaction Nilesh Oak was found to be spitting scorn over the very idea of Shabda Pramāna.

However his view recorded in 2017 was dramatically different from this, echoing his earlier insistence on A-V observation as Shabda Pramāna. One can read this in the transcript of his lecture given at Srijan Foundation, posted in a website. [3]

So, now we bring all of this together and let us adorn our scientific hats. We have got our empirical proof; we have got the “Shabda Pramaan”,somebody’s claims. Arundhati walking ahead of Vasishtha, we got empirical proof?Yes, that indeed it went ahead of the Vasishtha........

“....That’s fine ‘Shabda Pramaan’ matches with the ‘Pratyaksha Pramaan’, empirical proof that’s all nice but come on, that is just one observation.”

Few months after this, in 2017, Nilesh Oak repeats the same idea of treating A-V observation as Shabda Pramāna in a crisp reply to Dieter Koch.[4]

Now more recently in May 2019, in a twitter interaction he envisaged taking up Shabda Pramānaas a last resort when the other pramāna are not available.



Thus we find a changing stance on Shabda Pramāna.

2011 (book) – Accept Shabda Pramāna.

2015 (blog) – Reject Shabda Pramāna.

2017 Feb (lecture) – Accept Shabda Pramāna.

2017 May (Blog) – Accept Shabda Pramāna

2019 May-twice (Twitter) – Reject Shabda Pramāna.

The only common feature through all these is to accept Shabda Pramāna if it is about A-V observation. But Shabda Pramāna in general is rejected. This raises the following questions.

1.      Having rejected the very idea of Shabda Pramāna summarily, how can he still hold on to the claim that A-V observation is the Shabda Pramāna validated by him?

2.      Rejection of Shabda Pramāna must hold good for all Shabda Pramānas. By harping on A-V as Shabda even after this rejection, does he mean to accord an exception to A-V observation?

3.      If A-V is special that he treats it as an exception, on what grounds he does that?

4.      If Arundhati walking ahead of Vasishtha is a Shabda Pramāna, then what is the status of Arundhati walking behind Vasishtha that is continuing for aeons? Isn’t Arundhati behind Vasishtha a Shabda pramāna, given the fact she is invoked in Vedic mantras precisely for this reason at Vedic marriages?

5.      Can two Shabda Pramānas exist for two facets of the same person / star – Arundhati walking ahead and Arundhati walking behind Vasishtha?

6.      These two being contradictory, both (contradicting) statements cannot become Shabda Pramāna. But one of them can be Shabda Pramāna. Did he analyse which of the two qualify to be a Shabda Pramāna?

7.      At the least, did he analyse the verse on A-V to check if it is qualified as Shabda?

8.      Taking up the analysis, let me reproduce the verse given by Nilesh Oak in his book.
“My dear King, Arundhati (saintly wife of Vasishtha) who is revered by the righteous all over the three worlds, has left her husband Vasishtha behind.”[5]

·         This has two parts, appearing as two lines in the Sanskrit verse.

·         Line 1:My dear King, Arundhati (saintly wife of Vasishtha) who is revered by the righteous all over the three worlds, (the cause for the reverence is that Arundhati follows Vasishtha - inter-subjective observation as per Karl Popper)

·         Line 2: Has left her husband Vasishtha behind (subjective observation by Vasishtha).

·         As per Karl Popper’s falsification method, the first line is a Universal Statement (much like “All swans are white).

·         The second line is an existential statement (like “There is a black swan”)

·         To make the second line a Basic Sentence or falsifier, it must have been seen by more than one person. In the absence of any reference to that effect, the first line continues to be unchallenged, remains a universal statement and therefore only the first line is validas a ‘Shabda Pramāna’.

·         Can Nilesh Oak challenge this by Popperian methodology of falsification that he is fond of?

9.      On what basis Nilesh Oak treats the A-V verse as Shabda Pramāna – because it was seen by Vyasa, or because it appears in Mahabharata, a text he assumes to be factual?

·         If Nilesh Oak picks out the first among the two, raised in the 9th question, then it becomes the Pratyaksha Pramāna (direct perception by Vyasa) and not Shabda Pramāna.  That Vyasa had seen Arundhati going ahead of Vasishtha is his perception – PratyakshaPramāna. The researcher has to check it with the next in sequence namely; Anumana and then cross check it with Shabda – that is how the process of research happens with Pramānas. But why did Nilesh Oak go on the reverse – taking up Vyasa’s observation as Shabda and himself seeing it in simulator as Pratyaksha?

·         Taking up the second in the 9th question, will he accept everything in Mahabharata text as Shabda Pramāna? If yes, why did he cling on to a number 98 that is nowhere found in Mahabharata as the number of days Bhishma was lying on arrow bed?  If his answer for the question is no, why should he treat the A-V observation as Shabda Pramāna as he himself has conceded in his book that   it is reasonable to assume existence of transcription and transmission errors in the Mahabharata text”?[6]A text with errors and doubtful transcript cannot be treated as Shabda Pramāna.

Post his book release, Nilesh Oak’s obsession with Pramānas seems to have grown. A-V observation is Shabda Pramāna in his book, and on all the occasions he speaks or writes on A-V observation. Come other times, Nilesh Oak is up with various interpretations of Pramāna, forgetting every time that his newer definitions would contradict the Shabda Pramāna nature of A-V observation. So far he has talked about the Pramānas from Yoga Sutra of Patanjali and from Nyaya Sutra (in the tweet shown earlier). Mixing them with Karl Popper’s ideas he has created what can be called Nilesh Oak Sutra of Pramānas’. I tried my best to pick out the substance from them and present it below.

Nilesh Nilkanth Oak Sutra of Pramānas.

Sometime after he published his book, Nilesh Oak had come across Patanjalai’s Yoga Sutras and found something dramatic in support of his methodology of how he arrived at A-V observation. He writes in his blog in 2015,[7]

While reading Patanjali Yoga-Sutra, I came across a Sutra (Aphorism) and instantly realized that I had landed on more intricate and elegant scientific method”.

The sutra that attracted him is “pratyakṣa-anumāna-āgamāḥ pramāṇāni”

The above narration by Nilesh Oak gives an impression that he is new to the concept of Pratyaksha etc pramānas until he read the Yoga sutras, although he was found to have used two terms ‘Pratyaksha’ and ‘Shabda’ pramāna in his book. It could also mean that he already knew the terms (or else he could not use them in the book) but had thought about them deeply only in 2015 when he was reading the Yoga sutras. And in his habitual way of interpreting terms in his own way (much like interpreting vakri, pīdana etc) he re-interprets the sutra of Patanjali and declares,

I want to present alternate explanation for this Sutra that is further enriching and exhibits iterative and sophisticated view of acquiring knowledge:”

The uniqueness of his interpretation is such that he has made Pramāna, a generic term, a subset of itself. To give a simple example, there is a triad, the Tri-mūrti: they are Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Now you state the triad consists of Brahma, Vishnu and Tri-mūrti, how correct is it? It is correct if we accept Nilesh Oak’s interpretation.

For Nilesh Oak, the pramānas are Pratyaksha, Anumana and Pramāna!!

He strips off Agama from the triad of Pramānas given by Patanjali and forms what he calls a triangulation comparable with Popper’s Triangulation of Explanation-Prediction-Testing in which

Pratyaksha = Testing

Anumana = Prediction

Pramāna = Explanation.

Interestingly he has coined the term “Tri-mūrti scientific method[8] for the triangle he interpreted from Karl Popper. Though he compares Agama with background knowledge and assumptions, he prefers to set it aside from pramānas, as he thinks that anytime ‘Agama’ was misunderstood and was interpreted as ‘knowledge beyond doubt, scepticism or criticism’, humanity has landed in big trouble.”

He justifies this treatment to Agama by citing how Aristotelian science turned into dogma leading to stagnation of growth. He also accuses some of the Indian traditions as having modified Agama into Shabda which resulted in dogmatic insistence of the authority of Gurus, Godmen, Teachers, Professors, elders. It is clear he has no respect for Shabda Pramāna – but that did not stop him from quoting A-V observation as Shabda Pramāna!

The contradictions don’t stop here as we find new interpretation for the pramānas in his tweet from Nyaya Sutra, posted in May 2019.(Next Page).

As per the logic of Nilesh Oak, Pratyaksha appearing first in the list of pramānas is the highest Pramāna and Shabda appearing last in the list is the last resort. In other words, he gives place value for the three pramānas Pratyaksha, Anumana and Shabda appearing in this order.  Applying this place value formula for the Tri-mūrti-s I started wondering how would he interpret the importance of the three murtis? Would he say that Brahma is the deity of highest importance and Shiva being the last in the list must be invoked only as a last resort or after reaching out to the first two?


In Nilesh Oak’s scheme, Agama and Shabda deserve to be eliminated from Patanjali’s Yoga sutra to make them more scientific. After he started reading Nyaya sutra, he seemed to have somewhat come to terms with Shabda Pramāna, but wanted to uphold Pratyaksha above Shabda and the placement order convinces him of the superiority of Pratyaksha over Shabda.  However one cannot help thinking that this love for Pratyaksha over Shabda may be to justify his ‘direct viewing’ of the A-V phenomenon through Voyager- Simulation which he promotes as Pratyaksha Pramāna! 

.......

·         By having rejected Shabda / Agama, Nilesh Oak has reduced his much laboured work – laboured to prove that he is following Vedic methods – into nāstika or non-Vedic work!

·         By making Pratyaksha Pramāna as the primary and the only pramāna, Nilesh Oak has made his research fit to be called as “Carvaka” work.

·         By embracing a methodology of Pramānas with twisted meaning of Pramāna by making it a sub-set to itself, Nilesh Oak has set the tone of his research – of ignoring the established meanings of the terms of Mahabharata and twisting them as he likes. E.g.: Vakri, Pīdana.

·         By merging the lofty concept of Pramānas with Popper’s Triangulation (that is however inferior to modern Flow chart models of scientific research in sociological studies that include history.[1]), Nilesh Oak has undermined the scope of Pramānas. To quote an example, Popper does not recognise the role of negation as a Basic Sentence which however is one of the sources of knowledge (pramāna).

·          The following view of him shows the limitations of his methodology.
“A statement of the form ‘There is a so-and-so in the region k’ or ‘Such-and-such an event is occurring in the region k’ (cf. section 23) may be called a ‘singular existential statement’ or a ‘singular there-is statement’. And the statement which results from negating it, i.e. ‘There is no so-and-so in the region k’ or ‘No event of such-and-such a kind is occurring in the region k’, may be called a ‘singular non-existence statement’, or a ‘singular there-is-not statement’. We may now lay down the following rule concerning basic statements: basic statements have the form of singular existential statements.”[2]

·         It is a fact that the ‘Singular non-existence statement’(or there-is-not statement), not recognised by Karl Popper is very much part of the Pramānas of the Astika Darshanas. Such statements have a parallel in the concept of Anupalabdhi, the 6th pramāna among the eight narrated by Vatsyayana and followed by Vedantic schools of Thought. A non-existence statement such as “There are no stars in the sky” pre-supposes that there were stars in the sky but not apprehended at the time of looking at the sky. It also gives the knowledge that the statement was uttered in the day time! Sometimes non-existence conveys existence, and non-perception is perception. Such kinds of expressions are found in Mahabharata astronomy terms – which cannot be deciphered by a Popperian follower. The Indian system of Pramānas is undoubtedly far superior source of knowledge and need not be mixed with Popper’s philosophy of science to sanctify it as scientific.



[1]C.R. Kothari, (2004)  “Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques” New Age International Publishers, New Delhi, Page 11

[2]Karl Popper,  “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” (English edition 1959), Page 83


[1]“When Did The Mahabharata war Happen?” Page 70

[3]“AV Observation And The Date of Mahabharata Explained.”https://indictales.com/2017/02/14/av-observation-and-the-date-of-mahabharata-explained/

[4]Debating evidence, method & Inferences: Oak vs Koch – Part 3” https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2017/05/22/debating-evidence-method-inferences-oak-vs-koch-part-3/

 

[5]“When Did The Mahabharata War Happen?” Page 53

[6]“When Did The Mahabharata War Happen?” Page 14