08-06-09. Mail. The word “science” refers to a collection of methods and principles used to make sense of the natural world that we inhabit.
In this case, we have a theory. The evidence is lacking. Let me explain.
One of the major frustrations that my Dad had when I was child was that I never obeyed anyone unless given a proper reason. Every rule had to be backed up by a reason. Why should we do this? Why should we do that? This irritated him the most when I demanded reasons at uncomfortable places, in the church, at the Sunday market or in a social gathering. He used to say, “Trust me on this one. I will give you the reason when we have the time to sit and talk.”
When my Dad gave me a rule and delayed the reason, my mind would start cooking up reasons. And my thoughts would go, “He is asking me to do this probably because of this. And I think it is this because of that. But why this that and not that that? I think it more likely to be that that than this that because of this and that.” Of course, this would go on and on. And then we had the time, I used to ask my Dad about the reasons. Most of the time when the reason was delayed, it would end up being a “non optional social convention” which irritated me a lot.
In this case, we have a rule. And you have a plausible reason. And absolutely no evidence to back it up. Or in other words, you just have “He is asking me to do this probably because of this” but nothing of “And I think it is this because of that. But why not this that and not that that? I think it more likely to be that that than this that because of this and that.” The principles of the scientific method can be applied within a belief system but it does not seem to be the case here.
This practise of inventing reasons that sound scientific for harmless age old customs seems totally unnecessary to me. Statistics seem to suggest the rate of transmission of AIDS is lesser in societies where circumcision is practised. Should Muslims and Jews pounce upon this study to add scientific legitimacy to their age old practice? In my church, we have a running joke about the P53 tumour suppression protein. Since this protein is produced when cells are at rest and the person is relaxed, it is used by some people to add scientific legitimacy to the rest of sabbath.
I have often pondered on why people do this. For one, it could account for the fact that science has come to hold an important and respectable position is society. Science and its methods have managed to increase comfort and longevity and decrease space and time, things which most people hold in high regard. Therefore, the temptation to apply the label of science to everything is simply too much to resist. Second, it is probably done to get people like me, who question each and everything, to follow these customs. But it beats me on why people fail to understand they can only manage to give these customs an air of science but can never truly stand the test of scientific rigour.
[...]
In your mail, you have mentioned “Indian Science”. Science, by its definition does not take on such adjectives. While its principles and methods were explicitly recognised and started to be codified during the Middle Ages in Europe, they are mostly universal. The thought of “Indian Science” immediately brings to mind Ayurveda, the ancient system of medicine practised the subcontinent. Why is Ayurveda not accepted as main stream science? Simple. Its practices and methods have not been tested against the required rigour of accepted science yet. There is plenty of work going on in this area currently. However, if the methods and practices that fail are not rejected outright, they are susceptible to the same pitfalls as those who use science to justify traditions and customs.
Of course, the adjectives could be used to refer to the group which did a major chunk of work in different periods. Oriental science gave way to Islamic science which flourished until being taken over by the Europeans. If the nineteenth century science was British and the twentieth American, twenty first century science is set to be global. The questions now being addressed by science are simply too large and expensive for one group to work on. Currently limited to a very small piece of the cake, we tend to become nostalgic of the time when we were the leaders. I am not sure whether this serves any useful purpose.
By the way, I have this totally inexplicable idiosyncrasy, duly inculcated by my parents, of using my right hand while giving out or receiving something from others. I keep my purse in my right pant pocket. Though I am quite ambidextrous, I will shift my purse to my left hand once I have taken it out so that I can take out the money with my right hand and hand it over using my right hand. I simply consider this as part of being Tamilian. I will give you a thousand bucks if you can cook up a “scientific” reason for this!
For more on this Hindu tradition of Sikha (kudumi), click here. This mail is addressed to a friend who theorized (with absolutely no evidence of any sort to back it up) that the practise was instituted to help cushion falls and prevent head injury.
June 20, 2009 at 2:45 pm |
“By the way, I have this totally inexplicable idiosyncrasy, duly inculcated by my parents, of using my right hand while giving out or receiving something from others. I keep my purse in my right pant pocket. Though I am quite ambidextrous, I will shift my purse to my left hand once I have taken it out so that I can take out the money with my right hand and hand it over using my right hand. I simply consider this as part of being Tamilian. ”
This practice is not Tamilian, but I think whole of India follows this as this has been taught by my parents too!! Reasons or no reasons, I like it this way!!!
June 21, 2009 at 3:10 pm |
Cooking up reasons is an inborn charecteristic of all indians.. I figured out the reason for using the right hand in less than 60 seconds. It may seem funny but at the same time one cannot rule out my theory. Let me explain, in olden days, our people didnt have toilets anywhere. so, they used up all the areas surrounding their villages. even till date there are places where i have been to that do not have proper toilet facilities. now, the problem lies in washing up. luckily, almost at all times people spot an area with as little as a mug full of water and wash up. you never know how hygenic it is. therefore our anchestors got togather and devised a hygenic way of communicating, greeting or whatever you may call it.. “USE YOUR RIGHT HAND”
June 21, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
You have a good theory. Unlike the case of kudumis, there is at least some evidence to back up your theory. But is it necessary to use the theory to justify the tradition? What if recent studies suggest that there is really no point? Will we be flexible enough to stop enforcing the norm strictly? I don’t think so!
In short, in most such discussion, a conclusion has already been reached. The “science” is being used to back it up. Science does not work this way. If you have already made up your mind, what is the point in searching for evidence?
July 9, 2009 at 10:46 am |
you totally got it wrong……….
science is not being used to back up the traditions.
traditions were established to backup the science. Traditions were established to be followed with a reason behind them; science. but gradually only those traditions were left and the science behind was neglected.
In ancient india rishi munees were not just did yagyas but they were the civilizers. Now in a tribal clan if u went to explain them that “eat curd before u leave for journey; because this will keep u away fom thirst and you will also not need to pee in a long time…..and the biological and chemical effects of curd on our body. It will be impossible for u . Now the rishi munees felt the same so taking the advantage (for good) of their respect done by the uncivilised people they just said ” eat curd before u leave for a journey.”
This is the way in which all traditions were established. Those keen and eger enough to learn the reasons were recruited as desciples….others remained the same……….
July 10, 2009 at 5:49 am |
Yes. It is highly likely that our traditions had rational reasons behind them. But having lost those reasons to time, we can only speculate on them now. If we wish to build a theory using science, the process must be rigorous and must be based on evidence.
Your theory about consuming curd before travel throws up a number of questions. Is there any evidence of any sort to back it up? Were the biological effects of curd known to those people back then? If such questions are not addressed, it is as good as any other cooked up story.
This post is also about a related but different issue. Say, the research throws up reasons that might are not valid in modern times, will folks stop following the tradition? If the answer is no, why do people bother? Worse, in most cases the “research” is done purely with an intention to justify the tradition. Hardly a candidate for the label of “science”.
July 10, 2009 at 6:53 am |
Well. This *is* the source of all problems. Let us assume that your ‘curd’ argument is valid. Now why do you think proving one or two old customs gives credibility to *all* of them? Proving it for one obvious case and extrapolating it, is definitely not right.
People commit this mistake with astrology. Just because astrology correctly predicts the position of planets (to some level of accuracy atleast), people claim it should also predict the future correctly! What sort of craziness is this?
The essential DONTs:
1. Do not extrapolate when it makes no sense to do so.
2. Do not generalize when it makes no sense to do so
July 10, 2009 at 10:33 am |
Now to make something clear I also agree with you that all traditions dont have scientific reasons. but dont you think they may have certain social reasons?
like “sati” aur “johar”. you will find nothing resembling to such tradition in our ancient scripts. this is not a tradition. in time of ramayan and mahabharat to say it as upto the widow to go sati or not. (and that time it was not even called with the same name.) it was only her will or descision and nobody had right to force to do so. in MANU SMRUTI a book written by manu. one can find all the social laws and rights of a citizen. duties of a king to duties of even a begger. so in it manu says that the widow has no right to go sati if her child has not completed his education, or if she is left with ill in-laws and parents,etc…..
now as the time passed human mind started thining of reasons but forgot think rationaly. a time came where a widow had no choice but to finish herself after her saviour was dead. it was the time after 850 a.d. when the first wave from gulf attacked india. now in around 1000 years of rule by different muslim dinesties no one was safe this u no well i suppose. young, little, grownup, women of every agegroup was lifted by any soldier for his use. now when a woman`s husband died what do you think she would choose. to die was only the choice i suppose as she had no one to take her responsibility.
now the rule is over such fear is also over but still it continues in india. now dont you think its our fault that we continued it without thinking rationally over it. or its the fault of our ansistors? i think its our own fault.
my friend i agree with you that not all traditions have such reasons behind them but many are such which have reasons that are to be found. please do ask me any thing related i will try to solve as per my knowledge. thank you. and regarding ur query about kudumis i am searching for it and i know i will soon meet an agreeable logic.
July 12, 2009 at 1:14 pm |
If you go back and read the post, you will find this: The word “science” refers to a collection of methods and principles used to make sense of the natural world that we inhabit. That’s right. The methods and principles can be used even in the process that attempts to understand how our traditions and customs came into being.
You have provided a nice theory that looks convincing and provides a good starting point. Some historical record or archaeological evidence should do it a little more good. What are some of the problems that your theory faces? Have you considered alternate theories? Why were they discarded over this one? Can the historical record and archaeological evidence be interpreted in other ways? Why is there a strong case for your particular interpretation over others? And then, there is the peer review.