Science does not follow a clear path to truth

[Guest guest]

HinduThought, Srinivasan Kalyanaraman

<kalyan97@g...> wrote:

Let me explain why I hold IE linguistics to be a fraudulent

discipline, not unlike Freudian psychoanalysis which stands

discredited.

 

IE linguistics has become a messed up eurocentric exercise ignoring

the I in the IE as a result of which there is little understanding of

the evolution of languages of Bharat. Remember Burrow's conundrum

after compiling Dravidian Etymological Dictionary? He couldn't figure

out the nature of the borrowings between the so-called Dravidian and

so-called IA etyma and ended up speculating that there could have

been

a linguistic area in Bharat where Munda, IA and Dravidian dialects

interacted in a dialectical continuum. So much for the achievement of

IE linguistics in relation to languages in Bharat.

 

More devastating is the absence of adequate study of semantics in the

discipline. Arbitrary, anecdotal exercises result in a falsifiable *

hypothetical constructions of a hypothetical PIE language. The impact

of the ice age on European settlements has not even been taken into

account.

 

In contrast to the straight-jacket evolution of IE linguistics,

Bharatiya language studies have delved into the issue of general

semantics. One issue in semantics is sphota.

 

 

The term sphoTa is etymologically derived from the root

sphuT,

which means 'to burst', or become suddenly rent asunder (with a

sound)

.

The word sphoTa is explained in two ways [ii].

Naagesha BhaTTa defines sphoTa as sphuTati prakaashate'rtho'smaad iti

sphoTaH (that, from which the meaning bursts forth, that is, shines

forth. In other words, the word that expresses a meaning, or the

process of expressing a meaning through a word is called sphoTa.

SphoTa, according to Maadhava, is that which is manifested or

revealed

by the phonemes: sphuTyate vyajyate varNairiti sphoTaH.

[unquote]

http://www.languageinindia.com/june2004/anirbansphota1.html

Sphota is a permanent element of s'abda.

The very compound padaartha = pada + artha shows the clear

enunciation

of a word as a semantic indicator. This is echoed by Tolkaappiyan:

ella_ccollum porul. kur-ittanave 'all words are semantic indicators'.

If IE linguistics has pursued this line of understanding of evolution

of words, sentences (cf. Bhartrhari's Vaakyapadiya), there could have

been some progress in language studies. IE linguistics is a classic

case of wasted opportunity wallowing in phonemic juggleries.

This is one example of a pseudo-science failing to follow a clear

path to truth.

Kalyanaraman

Eureka!

PD Smith enjoys John Waller's iconoclastic history of scientific

endeavour, Leaps in the Dark

PD Smith

Saturday December 11, 2004

The Guardian

Leaps in the Dark: The Making of Scientific Reputations by John

Waller

291pp, Oxford, £18.99

"Unhappy is the land that needs heroes," says Galileo in Bertolt

Brecht's great play about the Italian physicist, and John Waller

couldn't agree more. In Fabulous Science (2002) Waller showed how

science was a series of "powerful human dramas in which naked

ambition

has at least as big a role as technical virtuosity". In his latest

book he adopts an equally iconoclastic approach. Once again he takes

aim at the heroes of science, firing a broadside at recent popular

histories that follow a familiar formula: "The hero arrives at a new

idea (Act I), suffers the wrath of jealousy, conservatism, and

clerical bigotry (Act II), and is then triumphantly vindicated (Act

III)."

According to Waller, scientific discovery is a "multi-participant

event", not a story of lone heroes. Another trusty cliché of popular

science writing is the "eureka" moment. The falling apple that

supposedly inspired the theory of gravitation was a myth. As Waller

points out, the devious Newton probably used it as a ploy to avoid

acknowledging any of his contemporaries. Such moments make a great

story, but are bad history.

Waller has an academic historian's disdain for the simplifying

instincts of popular writers: "Cutting-edge science is usually a

messy, difficult and uncertain business." It's only with hindsight

that everything seems clear-cut: "Those in the right are then hailed

as heroes and their erstwhile rivals damned as bloody-minded

egoists."

To set the record straight, Waller knocks a few scientific greats off

their pedestals and revives the fortunes of some "also-rans".

Scientists now scorned for backing the wrong horse often followed

impeccable methods. Joseph Glanvill was a respected member of the

Royal Society in the 17th century, and a leading figure in the

scientific revolution. But he believed in witches and demons. To him

the facts were clear: the "Attestation of Thousands of Eye and Ear

witnesses" proved the devil was up to his old tricks. It's easy now

to

dismiss such beliefs as irrelevant superstition, but Waller argues

that they are integral to the age and thus the science (or natural

philosophy as it was then). Glanvill's approach was rigorously

sceptical and scientific, but in the 1600s the world was a strange

place, full of unexplained occult forces. Even Newton couldn't

explain

the mysterious power of gravity, yet no one doubted its existence.

Glanvill's beliefs were "no more fanciful than the conclusions

reached

by countless other bona fide scientists, before and since".

Leaps in the Dark succeeds wonderfully in revealing the subtlety of

the scientific process. Science does not follow a royal road to

truth;

a meandering river is a more accurate analogy. The history of science

often tells us more about ourselves and our relation to the world,

than it does about the discovery of truth - that is why it is so

endlessly fascinating.

There may be few heroes in Waller's account, but there are certainly

villains, those more interested in their reputations than the

scientific method. As he points out, "science, like politics, has its

share of propagandists". The moment when the father of psychiatry,

Philippe Pinel, unchained the inmates of the madhouse of Bicêtre in

1793 has been immortalised in paint and stone. It captures perfectly

the Rousseauesque ideals of the French revolution and the enlightened

approach of science. There's just one problem - it never happened,

says Waller.

Other myths serve more selfish purposes. Sir Robert Watson-Watt

created an image of himself as a scientific hero, the self-proclaimed

"Father of Radar", whose invention saved Britain from Hitler's

Luftwaffe. Watson-Watt's team developed a basic but effective radar

system that was indeed crucial during the Battle of Britain. But

after

the war, this "self-centred" man systematically expunged the

contributions of others. He portrayed himself as the sole discoverer

of "one of the most important technological innovations of the 20th

century", even though it had been around as early as 1904. As Waller

rightly says, "no achievement in science is exclusively the product

of

one brain". They are words that should be framed and hung above every

science writer's desk.

PD Smith's illustrated biography of Einstein is published by Haus.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/scienceandnature/0,6121,1371059,0

0.html

--- End forwarded message ---