vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
From the Bhagavatam's point of view, the scientists are subject to the
>four defects so even the experiments can be wrong; 

>The numbers given by scientists are just AVERAGE numbers not EXACT and
>their formulas are questionable.

This is a gross inaccuracy. The truth is that they can be wrong, but
in what sense and to what degree? You say that the scientific
calculation of the planetary orbits are inaccurate; I believe that
they are, but if you ask a kind question to some person at
www.nasa.gov , I think they will give you the degree of error in their
calculations (yes, every scientific calculation must also give the
degree of error, or it is not scientifically accepted). I don't know
the actual numbers, but I don't think that the modern computer models
have errors of more than several centimeters in the orbits of planets
around the Sun; the calculation is very accurate and includes all
sorts of Newtonian and relativistic corrections. Even the light bend
around the Sun and the planets can be calculated very accurately. The
science has its blind spots, it has its stupidities, but it is so
widely accepted exactly because of the enormous precision of some of
its branches, like physics and mathematics, and if you are going to
attack science, please don't try it with the astronomy, because you'll
look like a moron.

>> There is a principle called Occam's Razor, that should be invoked in
>> such cases. Basically it means that, when there are two explanations
>> proposed for a phenomenon, the simpler one is the one more likely to
>> be correct...
>
>Is Occam a liberated soul that we should accept his rule?  Even modern
>science rejects it!  Previously they thought they have all the
>solutions with Physics and later Einstein came along and introduced
>formulas more complicated than Newton.  Using this rule, they should
>reject Einstein right?  

##"%$#%#/ :((((((
The simpler theory is the one that explains ALL THE OBSERVATIONS in
the SIMPLEST possible way. This means that two basic conditions must
be met for a theory to be accepted as good: it must explain everything
that is known, and it must do it in a simpler way than the alternative
theory. Einstein's theory explained everything that the Newton's
theory could explain, and it also explained some things that Newton's
theory _couldn't_ explain - for instance an error in Mercury's orbit
caused by the timespace bend caused by the proximity of the Sun's mass
- and therefore it's simply a better theory. Occam's razor could apply
if there was another theory alternative to Einstein's, which would
attempt to explain the mystery. Einstein's theory is mathematically
complex, but it is, in scientific terms, very simple, because it
explains lots of things with very little basic assumptions and
problems, it says that timespace is non-isotropic and it can be bent
proportionally to mass; it also says that time slows down and your
mass grows as you speed up, and those basic assumptions cover lots of
ground in physics. As for the Newtonian physics, it's still good if
you don't travel too fast and don't get too close to the black holes.
It isn't abandoned, it's simply corrected in the extremes by discovery
of some other laws of nature that act in such extremes. 

>> conscious devotees need to abandon perverse anti-science world views
>> fostering over-credulous gullibility, and cultivate an understanding
>> of the scientific method, including a sound knowledge of observation
>> based astronomy. 
>
>If you have perfect sense perception, go for it.  As far as I know,
>when I see a mirage, it definitely looks like water to me.  Using
>Occam's trash rule, it IS WATER!  But scientists give a much more
>complex explanation of why it's not water.

If we have imperfect senses, we invent a doppler radar and similar
gadgets. There are gadgets like computerized color doppler ultrasound
scanner, which can observe the blood flow in a fetus inside a womb,
with such precision that would make your jaw drop. Our senses aren't
infallible, but that doesn't mean that they don't have their field of
application. If I smack your head with a brick, it will hurt, and your
senses will be very accurate.

>master and your spiritual life.  Again, the same example, NEWTON'S
>LAWS WERE EXPLAINING EVERY EXPERIMENT, so what was the use of

No they were not, go back to school and learn, then come again.

-- 
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net