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
the“ability 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!
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:
[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
[21]Mahabharata: 6-2-16 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs06002.htm
[22]“When did the Mahabharata War happen?”
Introduction Page 2.
[23]On the chronology of Mahabharata War: 5561 BCE vs 3067 BCE – Part 3 https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2018/09/13/on-the-chronology-of-mahabharata-war-5561-bce-vs-3067-bce-part-3/
