04-22-2005, 11:58 AM
Sandeep (and others),
Professor Balu has been doing research in related area(s). He runs a yahoo group on the book that he has come out with. Here is one post from their group from Satya (one of IF members)..
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ess/message/478
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Following a short exchange on the nature of science with Jakob last year, I have been pondering about the nature of knowledge in pagan and religious cultures. I would like to see if the members of this group have any thoughts or reaction on the matter.
It seems to me that if we agree that culture is a 'configuration of learning', then we could expect culture to have a profound effect on our conception of what knowledge is. Diverse cultures might be expected to have different attitudes about knowledge, different notions about what exactly constitutes knowledge, and probably different approaches towards accumulating it.
Professor Balu has said in the past (if I understood properly) that science, as we know it, could not have arisen without religion. I have no basis to quarrel with this assertion, but it has always surprised me how religion (in which a ready made explanation of the entire Cosmos is self-contained) could possibly spur the production of - or give rise to - any new knowledge about the Universe. (If God
created the Universe in Seven Days, and we all know that because he revealed that truth to us, why should we be at all interested in how, say a galaxy was formed?) Yet, it seems obvious, that Western science has done exactly that at a rapid clip.
My question is - does anybody else perceive such a paradox? If not, why not? If so, do you have any thoughts on how to reconcile said paradox?
*************
I was listening to a program on the radio a few weeks ago, which commemorated the journey of Lewis & Clark, who explored the American wilderness with a Native guide, Sakagewa. Lewis & Clark catalogued many thousands of species of plants in their journeys. The radio host raised the issue - given the sheer number of new plants they were encountering, how did they decide which ones were most important to catalogue and sample?
It seems the decisions were guided by the knowledge of the natives. It was they who pointed out the plants that were important or useful either medicinally or for other uses.
Lewis and Clark are hailed as making a landmark contribution to Botanical Science in America, one that apparently serves as a basis even today. But it seems, when you dig below the surface, that they were in many cases, merely compiling knowledge that already existed amongst the Natives.
This led me to wonder: are there any instances of the same in other fields?
I know for instance that, maybe a hundred years before Western science postulated germ theory, an ancient surgical method to repair nasal fractures was transplanted from India to the West. The West, at the time, lacked the knowhow to repair nasal fractures. The Indian method (it still bears this name, I believe), utilized
antiseptic and cautery techniques that improved the success rate. Even though Harvey had already demonstrated the human circulatory system, the West had not figured out that the skin flap grafted over the wound required an adequate circulation.
The Indian method, sans Harvey, took this into account.
Even though Western medical science can explain why the Indian method was successful, it is unclear what logic ancient Indian surgeons used to arrive at their technique, which is still the one in use today.
My point is that non-religious (or pagan) cultures must have their own methods of pursuing knowledge. And since they are different from cultures influenced by religion, these methods could be expected to be very different from what we see in the West.
Has there been any study of what those methods are and how they differ from Western science?
--Satya
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To which Jochem replied..
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ess/message/480
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi Satya,
I do not have an answer to your last question, viz. the question about different kinds/methods of knowledge production. I suspect that this is a barren territory and that the research done so far in these fields will fail in providing any satisfactory explanations.
To give you an example: we still do not know how the Romans managed to build all those magnificent temples, theaters, aquaducts, etc.. There were no architects, civil engineers neither was there the technology or scientific know-how of today. If you read the famous "On Architecture" of Vitruvius you will still not know how they did it.
(http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europ.../home.html)
Modern day archeology offers analysis and interpretation, and I suppose we could copy say a Roman temple or aquaduct. But how did they do it remains (largely) unanswered. Clearly they had the knowledge necessary to build those incredible edifices, but it is doubtful wether it is the same knowledge we apply in our architecture of today.
I wonder what your impression is of the first chapter of Vitruvius' text. Here he sums up the requisites for being a good architect. I think it gives a hint of the differences between the (cognitive) prerequisites for e good Roman architect and a contemporary (Western one).
With regard to you first question I have to say I do not see the paradox. What religion does is promote a certain attitude, it molds one's experience of the world, it makes the world into something explanatorily intelligible. Of course, a particular religion offers a particular account of the cosmos, and one could accept that to be the end to it- why question what has been answered beforehand? But one's knowledge of Gods intentions is always limited. We are but human, our knowledge is necessarily perspectival (being part and parcel of the cosmos), tentative, and hypothetical. Therefore, God's total and ultimate truth (i.e. an EI account of everything that ever
was, is and shall be) is unattainable for humans. In the best case (a part of) this truth is revealed, but in most of the cases one is destined to search for Gods intentions, in both the scripture (being the word of God) an in the world (being His creation and thus an expression of His intentions). Therefore, when it comes to the
divine truth, we are stuck at the level of interpretation. Hence, the offshoot of heresies, the phenomenon of excommunication, etc.
Religion generates a configuration of learning. This means that it provides a fertile soil for some kinds of knowledges to prosper, while others wither away. Scientific knowledge has thus been privileged in the West. Science has found a fertile soil and in religion it has the perfect example of what an explanation should do.
Why scientific knowledge has emerged in the renaissance and has subsequently progressed so rapidly should probably be rephrased in terms of the double dynamic of religion. I have no idea how to go about that. Would you like to have a go at that? In the mean time is the above explanation clear enough?
Kind regards,
Jochem<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Satya's followup..
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ess/message/500
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dear Jochem,
Thank you. I think your explanation answers my first question about what I saw as the paradox of science flourishing in a religious culture. Wanting to know the intent of God would indeed seem to be a powerful imperative for obtaining knowledge. It would also seem this imperative might dictate that knowledge is framed in a particular way
It is interesting to explore what attitudes might drive the accumulation of knowledge in non-religious cultures. You talked about the Roman aqueducts. I encountered a similar example when I visited Mexico recently. Some of the pyramids there have been designed with ingenious acoustics, and geo-spatial effects. There are still highways in the jungle that stretch for miles. Yet, as our guide was demonstrating many of these things to us, he went on to say that it was a mystery how the Mayans had managed to build all these structures without any knowledge of architecture. Which of course was an astounding statement to me. Not that the Mayans should have built these things, but to suggest that they had no science of architecture or engineering. It seems to me obvious that they did!
Just as it is obvious (because we have the evidence of the aqueducts and the cities) that the Romans did. Yet, imagine if every trace of Roman architecture and engineering had been destroyed and the only evidence we had was Vesuvius' treatise. We would today not be able to imagine (given our conception of knowledge) that the Romans had any ability to build cities or aqueducts or roads.
It is really interesting what Vesuvius finds as important enough to record in his treatise on architecture. For him, it seems of primary importance to say what the *qualities* of an architect should be. It is not as important to record the principles of geometry, physics or optics or even music, history etcetera - all fields he says a good architect should be versed in.
The very first point Vesuvius makes is that that the science of architecture consists of both practice and theory. It's interesting that he talks about science as allowing one to *judge* a work. He is not interested primarily in how to get stones stacked on top of each other to form a tower. For him, science allows one to judge the tower. I don't think of our modern Western science in any such terms. In fact, it befuddles my scientific self that, on opening this treatise on the science of architecture, I see no theories about how to engineer foundations on silty soil or water erosion or any of the innumerable other questions that come to mind when we wonder "How did they do that?"
In fact, as one reads the document, one gets the sense Vesuvius uses even a bread-and-butter science term like 'theory' in a different way than we do today. "Theory," he says "is the result of that reasoning which demonstrates and explains that the material wrought has been so converted as to answer the end proposed." Theory is not (as I would assume) something that allows us to execute the construction of a building. "Practice" alone could accomplish that. "Theory" in Vesuvius' book is what helps us judge the end product: that demonstrates and explains whether the construction has answered its *purpose*.
Our science arises from wanting to discover God's intentions, God's purposes. We then apply the knowledge gained to acheive our own ends. Whereas the Roman science seems to say Man decides on the purpose of his construction, and he uses science to adjudge whether he has acheived that purpose.
Is this how you see it?
Satya
Quote from Vesuvius:
"1. Architecture is a science arising out of many other sciences, and adorned with much and varied learning; by the help of which a judgment is formed of those works which are the result of other arts. Practice and theory are its parents. Practice is the frequent and continued contemplation of the mode of executing any given work, or of the mere operation of the hands, for the conversion of the material in the best and readiest way. Theory is the result of that reasoning which demonstrates and explains that the material wrought has been so converted as to answer the end proposed.
2. Wherefore the mere practical architect is not able to assign sufficient reasons for the forms he adopts; and the theoretic architect also fails, grasping the shadow instead of the substance. He who is theoretic as well as practical, is therefore doubly armed; able not only to prove the propriety of his design, but equally so to carry it into execution.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One can follow the thread from the links above..
Professor Balu has been doing research in related area(s). He runs a yahoo group on the book that he has come out with. Here is one post from their group from Satya (one of IF members)..
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ess/message/478
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Following a short exchange on the nature of science with Jakob last year, I have been pondering about the nature of knowledge in pagan and religious cultures. I would like to see if the members of this group have any thoughts or reaction on the matter.
It seems to me that if we agree that culture is a 'configuration of learning', then we could expect culture to have a profound effect on our conception of what knowledge is. Diverse cultures might be expected to have different attitudes about knowledge, different notions about what exactly constitutes knowledge, and probably different approaches towards accumulating it.
Professor Balu has said in the past (if I understood properly) that science, as we know it, could not have arisen without religion. I have no basis to quarrel with this assertion, but it has always surprised me how religion (in which a ready made explanation of the entire Cosmos is self-contained) could possibly spur the production of - or give rise to - any new knowledge about the Universe. (If God
created the Universe in Seven Days, and we all know that because he revealed that truth to us, why should we be at all interested in how, say a galaxy was formed?) Yet, it seems obvious, that Western science has done exactly that at a rapid clip.
My question is - does anybody else perceive such a paradox? If not, why not? If so, do you have any thoughts on how to reconcile said paradox?
*************
I was listening to a program on the radio a few weeks ago, which commemorated the journey of Lewis & Clark, who explored the American wilderness with a Native guide, Sakagewa. Lewis & Clark catalogued many thousands of species of plants in their journeys. The radio host raised the issue - given the sheer number of new plants they were encountering, how did they decide which ones were most important to catalogue and sample?
It seems the decisions were guided by the knowledge of the natives. It was they who pointed out the plants that were important or useful either medicinally or for other uses.
Lewis and Clark are hailed as making a landmark contribution to Botanical Science in America, one that apparently serves as a basis even today. But it seems, when you dig below the surface, that they were in many cases, merely compiling knowledge that already existed amongst the Natives.
This led me to wonder: are there any instances of the same in other fields?
I know for instance that, maybe a hundred years before Western science postulated germ theory, an ancient surgical method to repair nasal fractures was transplanted from India to the West. The West, at the time, lacked the knowhow to repair nasal fractures. The Indian method (it still bears this name, I believe), utilized
antiseptic and cautery techniques that improved the success rate. Even though Harvey had already demonstrated the human circulatory system, the West had not figured out that the skin flap grafted over the wound required an adequate circulation.
The Indian method, sans Harvey, took this into account.
Even though Western medical science can explain why the Indian method was successful, it is unclear what logic ancient Indian surgeons used to arrive at their technique, which is still the one in use today.
My point is that non-religious (or pagan) cultures must have their own methods of pursuing knowledge. And since they are different from cultures influenced by religion, these methods could be expected to be very different from what we see in the West.
Has there been any study of what those methods are and how they differ from Western science?
--Satya
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To which Jochem replied..
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ess/message/480
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi Satya,
I do not have an answer to your last question, viz. the question about different kinds/methods of knowledge production. I suspect that this is a barren territory and that the research done so far in these fields will fail in providing any satisfactory explanations.
To give you an example: we still do not know how the Romans managed to build all those magnificent temples, theaters, aquaducts, etc.. There were no architects, civil engineers neither was there the technology or scientific know-how of today. If you read the famous "On Architecture" of Vitruvius you will still not know how they did it.
(http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europ.../home.html)
Modern day archeology offers analysis and interpretation, and I suppose we could copy say a Roman temple or aquaduct. But how did they do it remains (largely) unanswered. Clearly they had the knowledge necessary to build those incredible edifices, but it is doubtful wether it is the same knowledge we apply in our architecture of today.
I wonder what your impression is of the first chapter of Vitruvius' text. Here he sums up the requisites for being a good architect. I think it gives a hint of the differences between the (cognitive) prerequisites for e good Roman architect and a contemporary (Western one).
With regard to you first question I have to say I do not see the paradox. What religion does is promote a certain attitude, it molds one's experience of the world, it makes the world into something explanatorily intelligible. Of course, a particular religion offers a particular account of the cosmos, and one could accept that to be the end to it- why question what has been answered beforehand? But one's knowledge of Gods intentions is always limited. We are but human, our knowledge is necessarily perspectival (being part and parcel of the cosmos), tentative, and hypothetical. Therefore, God's total and ultimate truth (i.e. an EI account of everything that ever
was, is and shall be) is unattainable for humans. In the best case (a part of) this truth is revealed, but in most of the cases one is destined to search for Gods intentions, in both the scripture (being the word of God) an in the world (being His creation and thus an expression of His intentions). Therefore, when it comes to the
divine truth, we are stuck at the level of interpretation. Hence, the offshoot of heresies, the phenomenon of excommunication, etc.
Religion generates a configuration of learning. This means that it provides a fertile soil for some kinds of knowledges to prosper, while others wither away. Scientific knowledge has thus been privileged in the West. Science has found a fertile soil and in religion it has the perfect example of what an explanation should do.
Why scientific knowledge has emerged in the renaissance and has subsequently progressed so rapidly should probably be rephrased in terms of the double dynamic of religion. I have no idea how to go about that. Would you like to have a go at that? In the mean time is the above explanation clear enough?
Kind regards,
Jochem<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Satya's followup..
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ess/message/500
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dear Jochem,
Thank you. I think your explanation answers my first question about what I saw as the paradox of science flourishing in a religious culture. Wanting to know the intent of God would indeed seem to be a powerful imperative for obtaining knowledge. It would also seem this imperative might dictate that knowledge is framed in a particular way
It is interesting to explore what attitudes might drive the accumulation of knowledge in non-religious cultures. You talked about the Roman aqueducts. I encountered a similar example when I visited Mexico recently. Some of the pyramids there have been designed with ingenious acoustics, and geo-spatial effects. There are still highways in the jungle that stretch for miles. Yet, as our guide was demonstrating many of these things to us, he went on to say that it was a mystery how the Mayans had managed to build all these structures without any knowledge of architecture. Which of course was an astounding statement to me. Not that the Mayans should have built these things, but to suggest that they had no science of architecture or engineering. It seems to me obvious that they did!
Just as it is obvious (because we have the evidence of the aqueducts and the cities) that the Romans did. Yet, imagine if every trace of Roman architecture and engineering had been destroyed and the only evidence we had was Vesuvius' treatise. We would today not be able to imagine (given our conception of knowledge) that the Romans had any ability to build cities or aqueducts or roads.
It is really interesting what Vesuvius finds as important enough to record in his treatise on architecture. For him, it seems of primary importance to say what the *qualities* of an architect should be. It is not as important to record the principles of geometry, physics or optics or even music, history etcetera - all fields he says a good architect should be versed in.
The very first point Vesuvius makes is that that the science of architecture consists of both practice and theory. It's interesting that he talks about science as allowing one to *judge* a work. He is not interested primarily in how to get stones stacked on top of each other to form a tower. For him, science allows one to judge the tower. I don't think of our modern Western science in any such terms. In fact, it befuddles my scientific self that, on opening this treatise on the science of architecture, I see no theories about how to engineer foundations on silty soil or water erosion or any of the innumerable other questions that come to mind when we wonder "How did they do that?"
In fact, as one reads the document, one gets the sense Vesuvius uses even a bread-and-butter science term like 'theory' in a different way than we do today. "Theory," he says "is the result of that reasoning which demonstrates and explains that the material wrought has been so converted as to answer the end proposed." Theory is not (as I would assume) something that allows us to execute the construction of a building. "Practice" alone could accomplish that. "Theory" in Vesuvius' book is what helps us judge the end product: that demonstrates and explains whether the construction has answered its *purpose*.
Our science arises from wanting to discover God's intentions, God's purposes. We then apply the knowledge gained to acheive our own ends. Whereas the Roman science seems to say Man decides on the purpose of his construction, and he uses science to adjudge whether he has acheived that purpose.
Is this how you see it?
Satya
Quote from Vesuvius:
"1. Architecture is a science arising out of many other sciences, and adorned with much and varied learning; by the help of which a judgment is formed of those works which are the result of other arts. Practice and theory are its parents. Practice is the frequent and continued contemplation of the mode of executing any given work, or of the mere operation of the hands, for the conversion of the material in the best and readiest way. Theory is the result of that reasoning which demonstrates and explains that the material wrought has been so converted as to answer the end proposed.
2. Wherefore the mere practical architect is not able to assign sufficient reasons for the forms he adopts; and the theoretic architect also fails, grasping the shadow instead of the substance. He who is theoretic as well as practical, is therefore doubly armed; able not only to prove the propriety of his design, but equally so to carry it into execution.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One can follow the thread from the links above..