LOGIC: Divinity of Guru & moon Landing - Sorry I unsuccessfully tried to send a doc attachment

[Guest guest]

My latest comments are in red, (the earlier ones are in blue followed) by

Reference Notes in brief

 

 

 

In each science there are certain principles or laws, which are recognized as

fundamental within that science. Every conclusion which it claims to have

demonstrated depends for its validity on the truth of those principles.

 

In each case the principles have their own sphere of application. They are

principles of this or that science, and beyond it they are not operative.

 

 

 

There are, however, certain laws, which are not confined within the limits of

any one of the special sciences, but which apply to all that is, to all that has

a right to the name of Being or Thing.

 

Logic is similar. It can be seen in

 

1. Principles of Mathematics

 

2. Science

 

3. Principles of Audit -Quality Process Management (ISO 9000-2000

guidelines)

 

4. Jurisprudence (in “procedure established by law” and in “due process of

law”)

 

5. Laws of Thought in Principles of Logic – Western Philosophy

 

6. Nyaya shastras

 

7. etc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> The Atomic model has been reviewed repeatedly for better

undertanding beginning from

> 1) Thompson

> 2) Bohr - who won a Noble prize and then

> 3) Schrodinger.

>

> New Theories replaced old ones. The zeal to understand better drove

the scientists for further study.

>

> Similarly in Mechanics :

> 1) Galileo

> 2) Newton - classical mechanics

> 3) Einstein - mechanics at speeds near the speed of light

> 4) Schrodinger, Planck, etc - Quantum mechanics.

>

 

It is not clear to me what the above has to do with moon landings or

lack thereof.

 

 

 

A prudent mind will easily catch that one is hinting at possible double

standards in applying “scientific approach” in “study of atom” and in “study of

moon” as the following statement clearly mentions

 

> Respecting the scientific approach a question comes:

> Assuming that man did land on moon in 60s and 70s - why is an

expedition not organized now ?

> Computers have advanced relatively a lot from 60s and 70s.

> An expedition now for better study would itself prove (how ethical

were the acts)of the Governments who claim that they were and that

they are commited to science and that they did not play any hoax.

> The fact is that it is not being done - no one even talks about it -

------------??????

 

There are any number of logical reasons why moon landings are no

longer undertaken:

 

The above sentence shows a major fallacy in using the words “are” and “logical”.

 

Logic accepts the use of the words ‘are’ and ‘logical’ only when it is backed by

substantial supportive evidence.

 

According to Principles of logic the appropriate words are “can be” and

“practical”.

 

Not doing so shows a bias.

 

The entire sentence would correctly read:

 

There can be any number of practical reasons why moon landings are no longer

undertaken:

 

1) The missions are expensive

 

True. After the “stated” moon landings there were much hyped reports about

future space & moon travels – many rich people gave lot of donations to book

their seats just to see moon as was reported in newspapers – the whole tempo

later went into cold storage. Newspapers & magazines did not report about what

happened to all the collected cash

 

>From an ISO 9000-2000 perspective a mission can be accepted as expensive w.r.t

funds available only if it is supported by documents (created, reviewed &

aproved) on

 

detailed expense forecast (based on past history, current costs & technology

)

weak customer demand (i.e from public)

possible benefits (in case of Science Research as Edison said I have

discovered 999 ways in which a bulb cannot work. Later he invented the bulb.

Note that Edison did not consider his 999 attempts to be without any gain.

History of Science shows many risks being taken few of which resulted in usable

results.)

 

 

 

 

 

2) There is no financial gain (of course, there is always the chance

to gain in knowledge, but here too there is nothing new to gain since

already many expeditions have been sent).

 

Again the above sentence shows a major fallacy in using the word “is”

 

Logic accepts the use of the word ‘is’ only when it is backed by substantial

supportive evidence.

 

 

 

Just because Edison tried 999 times & failed he did not give up saying that it

was illogic to explore further.

 

The argument that there is nothing new to gain since already many tries have

been done logically fails miserably in case of Thomas Alva Edison’s invention &

was rightly rejected by him inspite of the repeated rebukes from his

contemporaries.

 

“There is nothing new to gain since already many expeditions have been sent” is

an illogical statement

 

 

 

 

3) NASA does not enjoy the generous funding these days which it had during the

Cold War era.

This “may be” accepted as a practical statement if and only if it is supported

by

 

documents about all the funding that NASA has got till date

a comparative study exists and has been reviewed and published of the way the

funds have been (and are being) used by NASA

Method by which NASA gives priorities to its different possible projects is

documented, published and has been consistently religiously followed

Documents exist & are publicly published which state why the advertised space

trips & moon trips were shelved

Documents exist which show that all the above were reviewed & approved by

relevant competent authorities

Review records which show evidence that the above has been consistently done

by NASA for ALL its projects for ALL the years till date.

 

(Please refer

 

· ISO 9000- 2000 guidelines which discuss about the validity & criteria

for acceptance of a statement given by any company

 

· Evidence act in Jurisprudence

 

· Laws of Thought in Principles of Logic - Philosophy)

 

 

 

 

The logic that "we don't go there now, therefore it must have been a hoax in the

past" is highly questionable at best.

 

The above words clearly show The Fallacy of Excluded Middle.

 

(Please refer

 

· Laws of Thought in Principles of Logic - Philosophy Evidence act in

Jurisprudence

 

· Mathematics

 

· Statistical approach, etc)

 

 

 

The words that I had written were:

 

 

 

An expedition now for better study would itself prove (how ethical were the

acts) of the Governments who claim that they were and that they are committed to

science and that they did not play any hoax. The fact is that it is not being

done - no one even talks about it --??????

 

 

 

I have NOT written that “we don't go there now; therefore it must have been a

hoax in the past”

 

Explanation:

 

There are

 

+ve similar to - it has happened

0 similar to - it may or may not have happened – a state of doubt

–ve similar to - it has not happened

 

(Please refer “NOTES IN BRIEF FOR REFERENCE” in the end)

 

I had written : if we go now it would prove (when most of the countries

including India are sufficiently technologically advanced to scientifically &

technically review by observing ON THEIR OWN). Till that is not being done the

entire “moon landing display” rests in a state of doubt.

 

Wrong interpretations of my direct words prove the degree of existence of

“logical brain” in the commenter.

 

 

 

It is a public embarassment for the devotee community

 

I accept that I have always been and am still a public embarrassment to my Guru

Maharaj (though he mercifully does not think that way) inspite of him taking

eternally every possible painful effort to help and improve me. I have a long

long way to go till I learn to not misrepresent him. Please pray for me.

 

 

 

when some devotees adopt conspiracy theories based on questionable logic or bad

science.

 

I accept that there is a need for both me and you and infact for all of us to

develop “strong logic” and “good science”

 

However, all of this is besides the point. The point of this group is

not to discuss moon landings or conspiracy theories.

 

Thank you. It would have been more appropriate if you had mentioned this in your

first posting itself. I accept that it is a waste of time to discuss “moon

landings”

 

 

 

 

 

The point is to discuss the original issue - which is the guru's infallibility

or

omnisicience. The moon landing issue was merely an example.

 

 

 

I am sorry. Based on my limited understanding “an aspiring or an elevated or

even a pure devotee is strongly FORBIDDEN to talk or EVEN THINK about

FALLIBILITY OF ANYONE what to speak about the GURU”

 

As bible also says “Thou shall not judge”

 

 

 

An intelligent faith mandates one to differentiate between

 

“the PROCESS” and

“the PERSON executing the process”.

 

One can talk about the applicability of a process based on time, place

circumstance but never ever talk or think about the fallibility of a person

unless one is doing the service of a Guru.

 

The Process can be:

 

the process of thinking (logic, rationality –its limitations in LOVE) (w.r.t

time, place & circumstance.)

the process of willing (w.r.t time, place & circumstance.)

the process of feeling (w.r.t time, place & circumstance.)

the process of speaking i.e the choice, tone of words used (w.r.t time, place

& circumstance.)

the process of acting (w.r.t time, place & circumstance.)

the mood involved

the consciousness involved

the different cases corresponding to each of the above

the risks and limitations involved in each of them noting that it is not

possible to represent sufficiently adequately the ABSOLUTE TRUTH – its

manifestation (creation, etc), name, forms, qualities, pastimes, etc

the contingency and mitigation strategies to handle the above risks based on

diff time, place & circumstance as given by

arthshastras

dharmashastras

jnanashastras

bhagavad shastras

 

 

corresponding to sattva, raja and tama as witnessed in Pancharatrika schools and

Bhagavad schools of learning

 

possible packaging of the above based on the contemporary terminologies and

methodologies used or a combination of them for educating & preaching.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> As a thumb rule it is always advisable to trust people (for their

ethical approach) who have dedicated their life and senses in the

service of the Lord.

 

I am not clear on what ethics has to do with it. Srila Prabhupada

voiced a doubt as to how astronauts could land on the moon when the

Vedic view holds that one can only reach Chandra Loka via pious

activites and sacrifice.

 

 

 

A devotee left the movement on hearing Srila Prabhupada on moon landing. Srila

Prabhupada cried and said that he was just speaking shastras.

 

 

 

**In the postings submitted by H H Bhakti Vikas Maharaj it can be clearly seen

that Srila Prabhupada doubted the ethical behavior of false scientists. (if one

is simple enough to accept the direct meaning)**

 

 

 

 

 

In response to this, some devotees have adopted poor scientific reasoning to

argue that the moon landing was indeed a hoax.

 

Please forgive me.

 

Indian reports say that Jagdish Chandra Bose was the first person to demonstrate

“wireless transmission”. The western scientific community did not allow him to

demonstrate it in front of them. He was NOT ALLOWED to show that “what he said”

was repeatable.

 

Later “Graham Bell” was attributed this invention.

 

 

 

What is a poor scientific reasoning?

 

Scientific reasoning mandates repeatable performance of an event. (n number of

times – n can be any number)

 

If an event cannot be reproduced or reperformed in an experiment due to

practical limitations (could be cost) a scientific decision cannot be reached.

 

It rests in a state of doubt.

 

Personally I used to always wonder even as a child that:

 

1. just to send a spacecraft into a particular orbit requires so many

constant calculations & monitoring to be done by ground staff along with 3

stages in the rocket (at that time) which used to give the required thrust.

Still there were failures many times.

 

2. For argument sake even if one does accept that man did land on moon it

is a dream to accept that to come back to earth from the moon one does not

require a base on the moon with proper infrastructure or a rocket with 3 stages.

 

Again I am hinting at a state of doubt and not proving or disproving anything

 

 

 

It was they, and not Prabhupada, who made the definitive statement on the

matter.

 

Again the above sentence shows a major fallacy in using the words “It was they,

and not Prabhupada”

 

Logic accepts the use of the word ‘was’ only when it is backed by substantial

supportive evidence.

 

According to principles of logic the appropriate words are “may be”. The entire

sentence would read “It may be they, and not Prabhupada, who made the definitive

statement on the matter. “

 

 

 

Mental speculation is still mental speculation, regardless of the source.

 

I agree. Mental speculation is still mental speculation irrespective of whether

the source is you or me.

 

Sadaputa dasa, on the other hand, gave an explanation in _Vedic

Astronomy..._ that reconciles both views nicely. In his view, Chandra

Loka and the moon are indeed the same, but the astronauts who reached

the moon saw only the airless, lifeless rock that we see, because

they had not sufficient pious activities to see the civilization

there. He uses the example that a microbe may perceive the world in

two dimensions, and thus when confronted with a skyscraper, would

only be able to appreciate its length and width but not its height.

Very clearly explained. Thank you.

 

Seeing and communicating with life forms in different dimensions is also the

principle used by qualified exorcists.

 

Even pure devotees see Radha Krishna leela in Vrindavan

 

Similarly, ordinary living entities may see the moon as a lifeless

rock, but may not see the "extra dimension" in which the Chandra Loka

civilization can be perceived.

 

Very appropriate use of the words “may see”. I accept that this is a possibility

 

Admittedly, this is also speculation, but it happens to be more

consistent with what has been observed to have happened.

 

 

Again the above sentence shows a major fallacy in using the words “what has been

observed”

 

1. Scientific Logic accepts the use of the word ‘observation’ only when it

has been sufficiently shown to be “repeatable” without any element of doubt.

 

2. ISO guidelines accept the use of the word ‘observation’ only when it has

been reviewed and approved by competent authorities repeatedly and review

records exist for the same.

 

3. Nyaya shastras give detailed guidelines about “Errors in Pramanas”

 

 

 

Another possible explanation can be as discussed in IIT ’s popularly known as

the “Columbus effect”. Columbus landed in West Indies and proclaimed that he was

in India.

 

 

 

I rest my case.

 

 

 

I have realized that I have to get purified a lot and still I will NEVER EVER be

purified enough to speak or discuss about “fallibility of Srila Prabhupada”.

 

 

 

Thank you for giving me this realization.

 

 

 

Though I have read the “principles of Tarka” as given in the Nyaya shastras (a

brief overview of which has been given in “Straight Thinking and Strong

Speaking” written by H H Jai Advaita Maharaj) I am not competent enough to

participate in any discssions.

 

 

 

I have decided that I shall not submit any posting on any devotional group in

future because I am so fallen that I should devote my time and energy to learn

how not to get carried away in a debate or waste precious time.

 

 

 

I beg all of you, my dear friends to please bless me with the dust from your

lotus feet. Hare Krishna!

 

 

 

All glories to my Guru Maharaj. All glories to H H Bhakti Vikas Maharaj. All

glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

 

****************************************************************

 

 

 

NOTES IN BRIEF FOR REFERENCE

 

 

 

The Fallacy of Excluded Middle.

 

Between the true and false there is a third possibility, the Unmeaning.

 

 

 

Of more moment perhaps is the Hegelian objection. The very basis of the Hegelian

philosophy is the reconciliation of opposites. Becoming is supposed to owe its

origin to the union of Being and Not-Being, and the whole of Nature is regarded

as constituted by this dialectic development. Hegel himself argues against the

principle of Excluded Middle by pointing out that between + A and -A lies A.

 

 

 

As against this view, it is urged that in Hegel's system the opposites are in

fact contraries not contradictories, and that the individual does not owe its

origin to them, but that they are obtained by abstraction from the individual.

 

Thus if it be urged that at dawn we can say with equal truth 'It is day' and 'It

is not day,' and that the state of dawn is constituted by these opposites, it is

answered that the two moments are not, as alleged, contradictory opposites, but

the contraries 'dark' and 'light': and that dawn is not in any sense constituted

by a dialectic development out of darkness and light, though we can mentally

abstract these concepts from the state of dawn.

 

 

 

Nyaya accepts the existence of error. Most discussion of error in Indian

philosophy centers on the possibility and the nature and explanation of

perceptual error. There is little difficulty in accounting for error that arises

from use of unsound forms of reasoning or from misuse of sound forms. Perceptual

error is more problematic.

 

 

 

Does it even make sense to think of the senses as deceiving us? How can I

possibly perceive something that is not there? What am I perceiving if I do?

 

 

 

The Nyaya account of perceptual error is that error consists in perceiving

something as other than it is. Error is always subjective. It arises from three

causes:

 

 

 

Ø defect of a sense-organ,

 

Ø perceiving only a part (and erring because you do not realise that what

you perceive is only a part of something)

 

Ø habit or expectation interfering by rousing inappropriate

recollections..

 

One standard example of perceptual error is the rope-snake. Nyaya explains the

rope-snake as arising from the third cause; I fear to encounter snakes in dark

corners and see a coily something lying in the shadows as a snake.

 

 

 

Traditional management v/s Quality Management

 

Control each result v/s Use the process

 

Who made the error? v/s What allowed the error?

 

Correct the error v/s Reduce variation and prevent the error

 

People are the problem v/s Refine the process

 

Competition v/s Team work

 

Motivation from fear of failure v/s Motivation from within

 

Focus on detecting defects v/s Focus on preventing defects

 

Meet short term quotas v/s Meet long term objectives

 

 

 

****************************************************************

 

Please forgive me for any offence.

 

Radhe Radhe! Hare Krishna!

 

 

 

Your servant,

 

jeetendra

 

 

 

"If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it."

ALWAYS REMEMBER KRISHNA AND NEVER FORGET HIM

 

 

 

The all-new My – What will yours do?