<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is another issue: asymmetry of an explanation. For instance, the length of the shadow of pole can be explained by the length of the pole and inclination; however, the length of the pole cant be explained by the length of the shadow of the pole. Of course, in mathematical terms, both equations are related; so are propositions. The same fallacy is commited when people try to give genetic explanations of caste, or of religion, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------
I am not in particular addressing Chandrakant's. There is a general issue of using genetics in these invasion or migration or indigenous explanations. correction: indigineous explanation does not assume "caste system", merely R1 in Punjab with R2 in East, something already known
Lets look at the scenario of 'speculative' invasionist hypothesis; in which way genetics has any bearing on this invasionist hypothesis.
The questions like "Why P?" presupposes that P is a fact or a theoritical claim of a theory. In other words, that facts that the genetic explanation use is not evidence. It merely presupposes another background theory, which in this case is invasionist speculation. Given this, how to prove the credence of a theory: find some facts that the background theories of invasionist theories don't explain or
predict, and that the invasionist speculation predicts.
Look at the genetic explantion of caste: This theory presupposes that there exists a caste, and try to give an explanation that there is some genetic peculiarity or essense among this group of caste. This explanation is not evidence of the existence of caste; at most, what it does is this: there is a continuity. Do a lil thought experiment: pick up 100 couples, and make sure their offspring don't marry folks out of this group for 2000 years. Assume one can find some pecularity, either genetic or not, among this group. This at most shows that they and their offspring haven't copulated with other group. But it does not tell why this group (100 couples) came into being. Here one finds verses in book to explain. One assumes many unacceptable theories in interpretating these books. Thus far, nobody questioned the logical structure of the these background theories in interpreting. And these background theories are not part of grammar, phonetics, morphology, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
------------------------------------------------------------
I am not in particular addressing Chandrakant's. There is a general issue of using genetics in these invasion or migration or indigenous explanations. correction: indigineous explanation does not assume "caste system", merely R1 in Punjab with R2 in East, something already known
Lets look at the scenario of 'speculative' invasionist hypothesis; in which way genetics has any bearing on this invasionist hypothesis.
The questions like "Why P?" presupposes that P is a fact or a theoritical claim of a theory. In other words, that facts that the genetic explanation use is not evidence. It merely presupposes another background theory, which in this case is invasionist speculation. Given this, how to prove the credence of a theory: find some facts that the background theories of invasionist theories don't explain or
predict, and that the invasionist speculation predicts.
Look at the genetic explantion of caste: This theory presupposes that there exists a caste, and try to give an explanation that there is some genetic peculiarity or essense among this group of caste. This explanation is not evidence of the existence of caste; at most, what it does is this: there is a continuity. Do a lil thought experiment: pick up 100 couples, and make sure their offspring don't marry folks out of this group for 2000 years. Assume one can find some pecularity, either genetic or not, among this group. This at most shows that they and their offspring haven't copulated with other group. But it does not tell why this group (100 couples) came into being. Here one finds verses in book to explain. One assumes many unacceptable theories in interpretating these books. Thus far, nobody questioned the logical structure of the these background theories in interpreting. And these background theories are not part of grammar, phonetics, morphology, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->