Foundations: Metaphysics and Cross-Cultural Issues

There are unique issues to studying the history of science in Asia and drawing comparisons with the West, namely that there is no self-conscious category within either India or China that corresponds to the notion of modern science or even natural philosophy.

So our first order of business is to figure out what cultural elements or techniques within traditional Chinese and Indian civilization can overlap with our current notions of science.  

We need to be careful here for a second - remember that concern I brought up in a previous blogpost about "cherry-picking" results?   Our goal isn't just to use the current body of scientific knowledge as a standard and rifling through history to see what these ancient peoples got right.   Trust me, it would probably be a very short exercise.

Rather what we need to do is correlate intellectual and practical activities between civilizations. 
Sometimes its going to be very easy to do that.  Heck, I can do that for you right now.  How about: 

Modern Biomedicine vs. Traditional Chinese Medicine vs. Ayurveda.

Western Astronomy vs. Chinese Astronomy vs. Indian Astronomy

Particle Physics vs. Yin/Yang Dualism vs.  the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta

Yeah - i know what your thinking.  "Wait!!  The Last one doesn't sound right!"   Comparing medicine and astronomy across cultures seems a lot more intuitive because they are concrete practices that informed by theoretical ideas.

It is a lot harder to compare the theoretical ideas themselves with each other.

But I believe this highlights a point that I am yet again going to stress to you.  

Remember, how did we define Science again?   Instead of a wordy definition, let's just use a quick breakdown.
    1.) Focus = External World
    2.) Approach = Systematic (collect knowledge, generate hypothesis)
    3.) Development = Self-Corrective (Modify or kick out older theories when they fail)
    4.) Method = Experimentation (in order to accomplish 3)
As you may recall from the previous blogpost, Number 4 is the kicker.   Without the notion of empirical investigation, we can't really validate what we claim.

ie:  I can come up with a theory in the field of Particle Physics as to how matter (and therefore the universe) is constructed, but it won't be accepted as true until I can demonstrate it via a set of experiments.

Contrast this with the notions of Yin/Yang Dualism and Advaita Vedanta, which incidentally inform some practices within traditional Medicine and Astronomy in China and India.

Scientific statements, by their nature, can be disproven.   These two ideas can't - they are metaphysical.   

LET ME BE EMINENTLY CLEAR ABOUT THIS - i am not saying that Yin/Yang Dualism and Advaita Vedanta are wrong or right for that matter.   Rather, because they are metaphysical propositions which deal with what is beyond direct experience they cannot be empirically verified or falsified.

Metaphysical statements tend to be the products of pure thought and therefore cannot be considered scientific.  I can't run an experiment and prove to you the existence of Chi or Yin/Yang.

Now for the theoretician and historian, this is all just fascinating and perfectly fine.  The comparative approach we are undertaking will simply bring into focus why things developed differently.

But for those interested in the practical application of disciplines informed by these concepts, a standard reaction would probably go something like... "WTF!?   Why are people even engaging in these types of practices?  Why do they do Tai Chi or use Ayurveda and TCM if they can't prove it scientifically?  Shouldn't we just ban all of these outdated practices and be done with it?"

Stop.  Right.  There.

Think on the following:

    1.) I point to the sky and say it is blue because it is made of Smurfs.
                  

  You know, Smurfs. - La la la la la la.   etc.

    2.) You say i'm crazy, because Smurfs do not exist.

    3.) But does that make the sky any less Blue?

 Of course not - my explanation is wrong but the Phenomena is still verifiable.   And as such we can Test that.

Again, I should note and beat into your head that not once during this whole blogpost have I actually disproven any of these metaphysical concepts.   Not once.

However, even if you are skeptical about these things, you don't have to "buy into" Chi or the Three Gunas to accept the validity of say certain methods or formulas in Chinese Medicine.    You can still focus on Outcomes through testing.

A further thought of the systematic thinkers amongst you.

Does a system of interpretation necessarily need to be correct in order to derive useful results?

Could a set of ideas retain a form of internal logic or consistency within a practice?

Or to put it more plainly - Do all the assumptions in a body of knowledge need to be correct in order for it to "work?"