Uniformitarianism Versus Naturalism

Uniformitarianism Versus Naturalism

Dr Mahesh C. Jain

Summary: Uniformitarianism is a useful guiding principle and is applicable to all natural laws across time and space but naturalism prevails over uniformitarianism.  It is not possible to lay down law defining nature and context of things and events.

The idea of uniformitarianism has inspired consciously or subconsciously philosophers, scientist, societies and individuals at all times and at all places. Uniformitarianism is the assumption that same laws and processes that operate in universe now, have operated in the past and have universal applicability.

Doctrine of uniformitarianism was first explicitly suggested by James Hutton (1785) as an axiom and was popularized by Charles Lyell (1830) through his book ‘Principles of Geology’. Lyell’s uniformitarianism was based on the assumptions that seemed most plausible to him and included uniformity of law as well as uniformity of things and events (Substantive uniformitarianism). Neither James Hutton nor Charles Lyell ever attempted to define ‘law’. But from their work it appears that by law they meant ‘methodology’.

As per Charles Lyell, the axiom of uniformity of law is essential in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the observable past. Charles Lyell said that the constancy of natural laws must be assumed in our study of the past, because if we do not, then we can’t make meaningful prediction about the past.

Stephen J Gould (1965) in his first scientific paper “Is Uniformitarianism Necessary” upheld uniformity of natural laws across time and space but rightly dismissed the idea of substantive uniformitarianism.

The author in his article “What Does Not Change” has held that natural laws and fundamental nature of things and events do not change. Visit http://sciencengod.com/blog/what-does-not-change/ . This is essential, for existence of natural order and because otherwise there can’t be any comprehensive, consistent, coherent natural explanation of natural phenomena that allows us to understand the present and predict the past and the future.

Impact of uniformitarianism: Doctrine of uniformitarianism has impacted our lives generally, in myriad of ways, many of which have still not come to the level of conscious perception.

Idea of uniformity of laws finds substantial support in legal domain, despite lack of precise understanding of nature of law. The author has defined law in his book but that definition is strictly applicable only to natural laws and not to man-made laws. Uniformitarianism has given rise to such notions as equality before law, case law or law of precedent, uniformity of legal procedure, state/society governed by law etc. All these notions are only partially correct.

1. Equality before law is often granted as a fundamental right in many countries but is undermined by plethora of statutory laws and judicial interpretation. It was bound to happen because it ignores natural differences among things and events that preclude equality. It amounts to attempt to forcefully bridge natural differences among things and events by the agency of law. For example men and women are naturally different, so how can they be equalized by any law. No two things can be treated as equals if there are substantive differences between them. Therefore in real life situations substantive differences between nature and context of things and events have to be accounted for.
2. Law of precedent, alternatively known as ‘case law’ wherein present issues are decided in conformity with past settlements. A precedent can only be an illustration of application of a particular law but does not become a law by itself. To be a law it has to satisfy the definition of law and therefore can’t be enforced as a law. In the event of being guided by a precedent, substantive differences in nature of things and events have to be kept in mind. Notion of case laws commits a society to dogmatism or traditionalism, i.e. whatever has been upheld in the past must hold good today
3. Uniformity of Process or elevation of legal procedure to the level of law meaning thereby that issues can be decided, disputes can be resolved and rights adjudicated on the basis of compliance with legal procedure alone, irrespective of material facts and legal rights. So enjoyment of each and every legally conferred right is subject to fulfillment of large number of conditions, often leading to denial of right. This to the sufferer means breach of promise by the state.
4. State/Society governed by law: This is another popular misconception that any state or society can be managed on the basis of law alone. To govern a state/society one requires goals and objectives directed management. This in turn requires order, organization and system. So, law alone can never be sufficient to govern any society. In fact any society has to be governed by its goals and objectives but in accordance with law. Any law can be wrongly used if its enforcement is not disciplined by its goals and objectives.
5. Gradualism is another popular misconception derived from uniformitarianism. All the natural events do not happen gradually and linearly. Phenomenon of punctuated evolution is well known. Fossil records bear testimony to punctuated evolution. Nonlinearity in physical events is well known and is generally designated as ‘singularity’ by physicists. Any change of state or phase with concomitant change in applicable rules is again contrary to gradualism.

Limitations of Uniformitarianism: A law is nothing more than a mandatory condition. Nature can meet this condition in myriad of ways. For example there are more than 2 million known plant and animal species, all satisfying definition of life but in ways characteristic of particular species.

Therefore, it is not possible to lay down law defining nature and context of things and events. This can only be inferred from natural history of things and events. Hence Stephan J Gould has rightly dismissed substantive uniformitarianism.

Hence in real life situations, one can’t act on the basis of law alone; one also has to factor in nature and context of things and events. Moreover, no law is absolute. Nature’s ingenuity can always devise ways and means to meet its goals and objectives in compliance with natural laws.

Summarizing, all above uniformitarianism is a useful guiding principle but its limitations must be understood. There can’t be any entity such as society governed by law. A society has to be governed by its goals and objectives in accordance with laws.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book that deals with subject matter of origin of nature and universe beginning from null (Zero or nothing).  This article is inspired by author’s understanding of `nature.

Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com

http://www.sciencengod.com/buynow.php

Visit Clipboard

Has Feminist Movement Gone Haywire?

Has Feminist Movement Gone Haywire?

Summary: Feminist movement in its inception sought balanced gender relationship and justice to women. However today it has emerged as a selfish self- seeking movement and has in turn exaggerated gender conflict. Hence feminist movement has betrayed itself from its path.

Feminism initially started as a movement to secure social justice for women. Its purpose was to secure political, economic and social rights for women; besides better opportunities for women in education and employment. It aimed at correcting cultural wrongs done to women due to spontaneously acquired false cultural notions about women and unjustifiably committing women to various cultural traditions. It also aimed to correct women’s drift to weaker position in the survival struggle, caused by biological and behavioral differences between the two genders.  Feminist movement fought for special rights for women under the pretext of gender equality. Feminists vehemently tried to secure their ends, out rightly ignoring finer aspects of spontaneous male female relationship and its familial and social aspects.

Margret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne of 17^th century was among the earliest feminist writers. In 18^th century Jeremy Bentham – a male, said that it was the placing of women in a legally inferior position that made him choose the career of a reformist at the age of 11. Bentham spoke of complete equality between sexes. He advocated women’s right to vote and participate in government. He opposed different sexual moral standards to women and men.  Marquis de Condorcet, another 18^th century philosopher was a fierce defender of equal rights for women.
A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) by Mary Wollstonecraft is one of the first works that can unambiguously be called feminist. For many Commentators, Wollstonecraft represents the first codification of “equality” feminism, a refusal of the feminine. But a refusal of the feminine impliedly meant, refusal of natural, healthy male female relationship. This amounted to advocating over correction of the cultural wrong done to women. This eventually inspired gender clash instead of gender harmony.
But what may be appreciated here is that even in the so-called male dominated society, it is the men who championed women’s cause seeking balanced and just male female relationship based on mutual respect, equality but at the same time taking care of natural differences between men and women. All over the world, it is the male dominated legislatures that have granted special rights or legal privileges to women in order to support them in the event of survival struggle or gender clash.Once, I searched the net for men’s rights and I found that none of the countries in the world have granted any special privileges or legal rights to men in order to protect their interest or to support them in the event of gender clash. Only in the matter of sexuality and reproductive function, consent of the spouse needs to be taken before a woman undertakes any therapeutic procedure affecting mutual interest. On the contrary women have been conferred a large number of legally protected interests or rights.
Therefore, women blaming male dominated society for all their ills are totally unfounded in their allegations. Whatever grudges they have against men spring from their natural dependence on men. All that they now want to have through feminist movement is to have dominant relationship, autonomy without being responsible, unlimited freedom, reckless individualism and even freedom from their biological role. Slut walks all over the world demonstrate women’s craving for reducing their sexuality to mere entertainment. Pro- abortion movements demonstrate the same. They want total control of their body oblivious of their role, responsibilities and interests of all those who matter.Majority among men have always tended to respect, protect and provide for women. As exception, minority of men have deplorable tendency to indulge in sexual violence against women, quite often on provocation of some kind. No society has ever defended such acts against women.Males normally seek companionship as opposed to domination in male female relationship. Males normally assign the toughest of responsibilities to themselves and discharge the same to the best satisfaction of various interests. Society has never appreciated men who have betrayed themselves from this path. This has been essential to keep familial and social integrity. So, all the men can’t be blamed, for acts of minority.Throughout its history, except in inception, feminism has never sought balanced and just relationship with men. It is the will to dominate, individualism, unlimited personal freedom, feminine whims, fancies and fantasies and the desire to live up to them that has been deriving the feminist movement.The whole notion of gender equality is incorrect because nature has not only made both genders unequal but has also granted them different roles and responsibilities. Men are naturally more comfortable doing certain things and the   same is true for women. This has led to physical and mental inequities. Accordingly notion of role and responsibilities or division of labor has evolved in human society accounting for evolution of family culture and social culture as it is seen today. This also led to unfair cultural fixations contrary to feminine interests which need to be corrected and hence the feminist movement. But today feminist movement has turned into a class war between men and women. Home makers are fast emerging as home breakers leading to social disintegration. Nuclear families have become order of the day and old age homes have sprouted in numbers.Women intoxicated by wave of feminism want to enjoy all the individual freedom but want to neither share nor discharge their social responsibilities. They want unconstrained freedom that allows them to live according to their fantasies oblivious of rights of others. They want autonomy literally amounting to monstrosity. I have come across a woman author who advocates women’s rights to wear short clothes in public even if it is provocative for young boys but at the same time demands boys to behave responsibly. They do not even want to take consent of their partner in matters affecting both. They argue for total control of their physical body as if they exist in vacuum totally unconnected to any other soul on planet Earth. Instead of feeling guilty about their unjustifiable, illegitimate demands; they doggedly pursue their agenda to their selfish ends.Therefore, over a period of time women who were once depraved and oppressed have now turned into oppressor. So the time has come to talk about men’s rights or male legal privileges.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null. Several chapters of the book are devoted to social sciences.

http://HYPERLINK "http://www.sciencengod.com"www.sciencengod.com

http://www.sciencengod.com/buynow.php

 Visit: Clipboard

What Is the Secret of Jupiter and Saturn’s Extra Energy

What Is the Secret of Jupiter and Saturn’s Extra Energy ?

Summary: Both Jupiter and Saturn emit much more energy than they receive from Sun. This can only be due to either creation of energy or low energy nuclear reaction. Which of the two possibilities is correct is a matter of further investigations.

It is well documented that Jupiter and Saturn radiate much more energy than they receive from the Sun.

 Jupiter emits about 1.9 times the energy it receives, so it radiates 6.1 x 10²⁵ ergs per second. This means that Jupiter is radiating 2.9 x 10²⁵ ergs per second of its own energy. The interior of Jupiter is hot: the core is probably about 20,000 K. Presently; the heat is thought to be generated by the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, the slow gravitational compression of the planet releasing gravitational potential energy. However this mechanism has been ruled out in case of Sun and Moon, so how can it hold well in case of Jupiter? In author’s opinion the whole idea of Kelvin Helmholtz Mechanism is a figment of scientific imagination. For this mechanism to be effective each and every particle must be individually pitted against rest of the universe and it does not happen. Imagine if each and every electron had to individually balance against the whole of nucleus. This is bound to lead to collapse of all atoms except Hydrogen. Moreover, how can there be any phenomenon like ‘slow gravitational compression’?

This mechanism is like saying that it rains because of gravitational collapse of water vapors.  Events involving compression or collapse of any celestial body shall be determined only by properties of matter in gaseous, liquid and solid state or inter-atomic and inter-molecular forces of attraction and repulsion.  Release of energy, if any, shall proceed accordingly. Gravity has no role to play. Therefore, Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism can neither account for temperature of interior of Jupiter nor for extra energy emitted by Jupiter.

 It is generally accepted that Jupiter CAN NOT produce energy by thermo-nuclear fusion as in the Sun; being much too small and hence its interior is too cool to ignite nuclear reactions. Moreover it is yet to be proved that thermo-nuclear fusion is the source of Sun’s energy.

Jupiter’s chemical composition consists of approximately 88 to 92% Hydrogen, 8 to 12% Helium, trace amounts of Methane, Ammonia, water vapors, Silicon etc. Oxygen is just not there. Therefore chemical energy as the source of Jupiter’s extra energy is impossible as no redox reactions are feasible due to absence of atmospheric oxygen.

Saturn emits even more energy than Jupiter, as compared to the amount of energy it receives from Sun. In fact, it emits 2.3 times the energy it receives from Sun. Identical arguments, as in the case of Jupiter have been advanced to explain this anomaly. However, the above mentioned arguments also apply to Saturn and are not being repeated herein. Therefore, Saturn’s extra energy emission can’t be explained on the basis of thermonuclear reactions, chemical energy and release of gravitational potential energy. 

How do we explain this anomaly? There are only two possibilities:-

1.     Both, Jupiter and Saturn create their own energy which is subsequently emitted. Apparently this is a contradiction to law of conservation of energy. But law of conservation of energy is valid only in the domain of physical, chemical and nuclear reactions and there too it is subject to action of universal heat sink or entropy which amounts to decay of energy. Creation of energy in this universe is essential for two reasons:

(a)    To compensate loss of energy to universal heat sink so that it is a self-sustaining universe.

(b)   For the purpose of origin, growth and evolution of universe from null or nothing.

                   Hence law of conservation of energy must be accordingly amended and its             scope and limits accordingly defined.

2.  Both, Jupiter and Saturn generate energy by low energy nuclear reactions and subsequently emit the same. Low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) involving mass-energy inter-conversion were first described by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. Recently NASA has also acknowledged occurrence of LENR. Read: NASA Acknowledges Cold Fusion & Low Energy Nuclear Reactions,  http://theintelhub.com/2012/01/14/nasa-acknowledges-cold-fusion-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/. In this way Jupiter and Saturn may be consuming their own mass to emit extra energy.

Which of the two possibilities is correct is a matter of further investigations. Keeping in view self-sustaining nature of universe odds are in favor of Jupiter and Saturn being hubs of energy creation.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null.

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm 

Clipboard 

What Does Not Change?

What Does Not Change?

Summary: There is no dearth of people saying that in this universe only constant is change. However, this is not so. Natural laws and innate nature of things are invariant with respect to time and place. 

It is generally known that this is an ever-changing universe. Each and every thing we see and all the events we observe are in a state of constant flux. Even the simplest of stable particles, i.e. Photon has oscillating electric and magnetic fields. Even in the transcendental or meta-physical Zero, inherent instability or oscillations have to be postulated to explain origin of nature and universe.

 So even things and events that appear to be constant and stable, are often in a state of constant flux. In ‘Zero’ oscillations are essential to explain origin of particles and antiparticles constituting material universe and black holes respectively, from null. In Photons oscillating electric and magnetic fields are essential to resolve existential dilemma paused by Laws of Energy Flow (Generally known as Laws of Thermodynamics). Magnetic energy being non-conducting is a relief from energy flow and therefore conversion of electric energy into magnetic energy prevents its dissipation by conduction or energy flow. Therefore it is true that even to keep existence anything has to constantly change.

Atoms and molecules are in a state of constant oscillation in accordance with their energy content. Gas molecules are perpetually in Brownian motion. All the celestial bodies are constantly moving in their elliptical orbits and spinning around their axis. All this is essential, to keep existence.

So there arises a question that in this ever-changing universe is there anything that is constant and if so than what is it?

The answer to this question is ‘yes’ because there are many things even the nature can’t afford to change if nature and universe were to keep their being, identity, integrity and progressive evolution. This is also essential if scientific knowledge has to remain meaningful. Some of such things are as under:-

1.                 Natural Laws do not change from time to time and from one place to another. Natural laws are constraints with in which nature has to exist and function and so natural law are the basis of natural order and hence, natural laws discipline ‘change’. To effectively discharge their functions natural laws can’t vary with time and place. Ever changing natural laws are bound to lead to disorder or chaos as a result of different material entities changing differently in uncoordinated manner thus precipitating chaos.

Constancy of natural laws is the basis of uniformitarian thought widely prevalent even in the contemporary society. Charles Lyell, the pre-eminent exponent of uniformitarianism, in the early 19^th century published first volume of his great work Principles of Geology Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth’s Surface by Reference to Causes now in Operation. His work convinced most of the contemporary scientists about validity of Uniformitarian thought.

Constancy of natural laws is a founding principle for science because in a universe endowed with ever-changing natural laws, scientific predictions of past, present and future are bound to go haywire leading to demise of science. If particular Photons are not stable, which to astronomers are predictors of conditions prevalent at the time of origin of universe, than they can no longer be treated as representatives of conditions of their origin.

‘Zero’ remains a ‘Zero’ despite being in a state of flux and a Photon that presumably originated at the point of origin of universe, preserves its characteristic energy content, frequency and wave length over a period of billions of years until it is absorbed. Therefore scientific theories which advocate chaos preceding origin of universe and order after the Big Bang call for hysterical dissociation of beliefs. Therefore Big Bang Theory even if justifiable from one particular stand point, needs to explain as to how chaos can ever lead to order without external intervention of mythic proportions? The same is true of other natural laws.

Even in Biological domain life originating in accordance with RNA world hypothesis and then transforming to DNA based life forms is a highly improbable event.

Therefore, it is essential that to explain cosmic phenomena comprehensively, constancy of natural laws should be kept in mind. One should desist from entering into a universe that does not follow its own rules. This also implies that natural laws that led to origin and evolution of nature and universe must be as effective today as in the past. So universe must still be growing and evolving.

What can really change about natural laws is human understanding of natural laws. It may be imprecisely defined today and precisely defined later on with improved understanding.

2.     Nature of Things does not change in their basal state or state of rest. However, observed nature of things is subject to conditions of their existence and can vary nonlinearly from one set of conditions to another. Therefore properties of matter and various forms of energy can’t vary across cosmos.

This is essential for the purpose of behavioral uniformity and consistency and permits science to predict things and events in past, present or future.

3.     Human nature about emotions, relationships, intellect and biological needs does not change with changing times. Changing times may lead to cultural change redefining ways and means people use to meet their ends but this does not change innate human nature or the ends.

Therefore cultural change brought about by technical advances, economic advances, changing trends in fashion etc. do not alter innate human behavior and fundamental needs. Only means change but not goals and objectives. However this is subject to one exception, i.e. behavioral change brought about by mental training, education and experience.

Therefore generation gap is in reality generation conflict brought about by differences in needs and perceptions of different age groups. Older generation often trying to protect younger generation from mistakes they have committed, on the basis of their hard-earned experience whereas younger generation is interested in learning from their own experience and experimentation.

 In my opinion, the best course of action for older generation in a conflict situation is to allow younger generation to learn by self experience and bear with them until then. This may be a better way of keeping relationships intact.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null. Sixteenth chapter of the book deals with the subject matter of ‘Change’.

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

Clipboard

What Is Wrong With All Religions?

Summary: All religious philosophies have certain deficiencies in common such as supernatural world view, relying upon faith and belief as opposed to reason and stubborn in their refusal to evolve. Yet they have served useful purpose to mankind and continue to do so. This is primarily because of their holistic character. Therefore they can’t be summarily dismissed either.

Einstein in his address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939 commented about religion that religion lays down clear fundamental ends and valuations and sets them fast in emotional life of an individual and thus in social life of man. The only justification for these fundamental ends is that they exist in all healthy societies as powerful traditions, and it is not necessary to find justification for their existence.

Further, Einstein in a symposium – Science, Philosophy and Religion at New York 1941 stated:-

                        “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”

                        “What is still lacking here is a connection of profound generality but                              not knowledge of order itself”

Undoubtedly various religions have been established by persons of very high intellectual caliber who not only successfully understood themselves, essence of cosmic order and their times even if subjectively but also prescribed ways and means of human living and human social organization. No doubt, that they achieved all this at a subjective level but all that they said can’t be summarily rejected for its subjectivity. May be because of deficient material knowledge during their times that they were unable to rationally connect things and events but that is not sufficient reason for summary dismissal.  They were weak in reason but that did not prevent them in achieving their goals and objectives of “GOOD TO ALL”.

So even when they had in-depth intuitive understanding of various issues which concerned them, they were deficient in reason. They understood things and events more at a subjective plane or intuitively rather than an objective and rational plane. Therefore, at times being philosophically correct was sufficient for them even if not so scientifically. If they found themselves philosophically correct, they looked no further for reason; neither encouraged their followers to do the same.  Despite all this, many of their teachings have been able to find scientific support even if for wrong reasons and even till today 59% of humanity is religious minded.

In order to circumvent their deficient reasoning, they relied upon arguments like feelings (emotions), individual experience as opposed to collective experience, faiths and beliefs etc. To circumvent rationalist attacks and prevent consequent distortions in their perceptions and practices they advocated dogmatic belief in their teachings and elevated their understanding irrespective of merits to the level of Gospel truth not to be questioned, not to be challenged. Only to be believed and followed. But the result of dogma and gospel truth phenomena has been both, refusal and failure, to evolve with time and improvement in material knowledge. They are stubborn in their faiths and beliefs and refuse to evolve with improvement in material knowledge.

But they pretended to be rational and so had to evolve a world view to rationalize their teachings. They had to pretend that they know and understand everything. But because of deficient material knowledge they often conjectured a universe which is beyond sensory experience. They devised whole lot of Gods, Goddesses, deities, mythology etc. in order to rationalize their sermons. They created supernatural (unreal) universe and often relied upon dummy principles and dummy universe which was a creation of their own illusions and delusions.

Need for evidence and reason was effectively substituted by everything being a matter of feelings, individual as opposed to collective experience, faiths and beliefs etc. These are their stock arguments against non-believers in their faith.

Their intentions may have been fair and their thinking holistic but their understanding and practices were not. They froze their teachings in time as Gospel Truth and labeled a dissenter as ignorant. In the matter of their core philosophy, they stubbornly refused to evolve with time and advances in scientific knowledge. It may be partially because they were unable to reconcile their world view and their core philosophy with advances in scientific knowledge or they were victims of their own image.

But what is common to all religions in our times, is seeking scientific approval of their faiths and beliefs. Church for a long time supported scientific movement hoping that this will lead to literal evidence in support of Biblical faiths and beliefs. This continued until there was a parting of ways as both being different and irreconcilable. Darwin was a devout Christian and he began his journey to collect evidence in support of Biblical view of creation and it continued till he found evidence to the contrary. But all the evidence that Darwin put forth did not change the Biblical view of creation.

Scientific advancement of the past few centuries and its consequential cultural effects have led to followers of various religious philosophies seeking scientific approval of their religious philosophy or claiming that their religion is scientific because their religion has found support in scientific principles and practices, even if partially and even for wrong reasons. But being philosophically correct is different from being scientifically correct. Being philosophically correct does not earn scientific status for any religious philosophy. For this they have to establish themselves in entirety in a manner which is in accordance with scientific method.

So the best any religion can claim is partial scientific approval of its philosophy and its practices from scientific stand point and nothing more. But that does not give any particular religion a scientific status.

Summarizing, all above all religious philosophies are based upon deficient material knowledge, have supernatural world view, refuse to evolve with time and have primarily a historical existence. Various religious philosophies even though holistic in character are not rationally sound in entirety. However their holistic character has empowered them to address several issues that concern human beings that they are able to sustain despite scientific advances of past few centuries, even if as a matter of faith and belief.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing.  32^nd Chapter of the book is about Culture, Religion and Science.

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

 Visit clipboard       

What Is Occult

What Is Often Wrongly Understood About Occult?

Summary: Occult knowledge is a taboo in scientific domain, having disreputable association with knowledge of Supernatural (unreal). But it is hardly realized by the majority that much of scientific knowledge is also occult knowledge even if it strictly pertains to nature and its phenomena. Therefore, the desired course of action is to evolve mental faculty to differentiate occult knowledge about natural phenomena from occult knowledge about supernatural (unreal) phenomena rather than wrongly rejecting any piece of knowledge by labeling it as ‘occult’.

The word occult comes from the Latin word occultus (clandestine, hidden, secret), referring to "knowledge of the hidden". The terms esoteric and arcane can have a very similar meaning, and the three terms are often interchangeable. The word has many uses in the English language, popularly meaning "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable", usually referred to as science. By the eighteenth century unorthodox religious, scientific and philosophical concerns were well defined as 'occult', inasmuch as they lay on the outermost fringe of accepted forms of knowledge and discourse." This position holds good even today.

In accordance with literal meaning of the word ‘occult’, all knowledge that is not amenable to direct sensory perception is classifiable as ‘occult’. But by this yardstick the word ‘occult’ has wide connotations. It embraces not only knowledge of the ‘supernatural’ or unreal but also knowledge of the ‘natural’ provided it is not amenable to direct sensory perception. Therefore it embraces not only direct or perceivable truth about natural phenomena but also indirect or non-perceivable truth about natural phenomena and truth about natural phenomena perceivable only with the help of instruments.

Each and every thing and event in nature has indirect truth or occult associated with it. Gross description of natural things and events is often insufficient. Almost nothing can be completely known by mere gross narration and description. Quite often, it is the hidden knowledge that carries much greater significance than the knowledge gained by direct sensory perception.

In information technology, back end of each and every web page carries much more significance than the front end. So, undoubtedly front end is significant but it is the back end that is vital. Similarly invisible Meta tags and Meta descriptions are vital to the purpose of a web page. But all this hidden knowledge that is vital to functioning of IT based products is nothing but ‘occult’.

Likewise, in the domain of natural sciences, all the knowledge that can be perceived only with help of instruments and all the theoretical knowledge about scientific principles and scientific theories is nothing but ‘occult’ knowledge. Therefore it is not surprising that in the Middle Ages, magnetism was sometimes called an occult quality. Newton was even accused of introducing occult agencies into natural science when he postulated gravity as a force capable of acting over vast distances. Newton's contemporaries severely critiqued his theory that gravity was affected through "action at a distance" as occult. Likewise, in the contemporary world, scientific theories such as Big Bang theory, String Theory, M-Theory, Darwinism are nothing but examples of ‘occult’ scientific theories.

Keeping all above in view, it is clear that in pursuit of knowledge, dealing with ‘occult’ or hidden knowledge is inevitable.

The real cause of concern is the ease with which knowledge of ‘supernatural’ creeps into knowledge of ‘natural’ which leads us astray into a universe which is just not there. Such knowledge is of no use except for the purpose of writing science fiction, for example, time machine etc. Such knowledge only builds castles in air. Therefore scientific community must strictly guard against polluting of scientific knowledge by knowledge of supernatural.

Hence, over the past few centuries definition of Science has evolved from knowledge of measurable to the definition given below:-

      “Science is comprehensive, consistent, coherent natural explanation of natural       phenomena”

Therefore, in pursuit of scientific knowledge, conducting isolated experiments and drawing mathematically-logically perfect conclusions is not enough. These conclusions have to be comprehensive and consistent with rest of scientific knowledge. Therefore conclusions drawn have to meet tests of ‘rationality’ and ‘plausibility’ in order to be scientifically valid. This is the only way to prevent creeping of knowledge of supernatural into science so that in due course of time science does not develop a mythology of its own.

Summing up, it must be appreciated that ‘occult’ is unavoidable in scientific domain but it is valid only so long as it is consistent with natural phenomena, directly or collaterally.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing.  Second chapter of the book is about ‘Truth’. I have used excerpts from Wikipedia for writing this article.

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

Visit: Clips

Dinosaur Extinction

Can Climate Change Account For Dinosaur Extinction?

Summary: In line with generally accepted theories of evolution, Dinosaur extinction is currently believed to be due to climate change due to various causes. However this is not correct, being inconsistent with known facts. There are only two possibilities. Either Dinosaurs evolved to their extinction or evolved to some other phyletic lines or species with which ancestor – descendent relationship can’t be presently demonstrated.

Both, Darwinism and Lamarckism support the currently held belief that pan-global mass extinction of Dinosaurs was due to environmental change towards the end of Cretaceous era about 65.5 million years back. But the view about specific climatic change accounting for mass extinction of Dinosaurs has been changing from time to time. The earliest view was that ice age caused mass extinction of Dinosaurs. This view was followed by Asteroid attack on earth. Subsequently a volcanic eruption in India was believed to be the cause of pan-global mass extinction of Dinosaurs that materialized over a period of about one million years. A later view emerged that egg shell thinning led to Dinosaur extinction. The latest view is that Methane gas emission by Dinosaurs led to global warming. A view has been advanced that this global warming is to account for mass extinction of Dinosaurs (www.foxnews.com/.../dinosaurs-farted-their-way-to-extinction...)

. So we have moved full circle from ice age to global warming.

Dinosaur extinction was accompanied by extinction of Ammonites (Mollusks), Mesosaurs, Plesiosaurs, and many Mammalian groups. No theory of relationship has been advanced to explain this association of facts. No theory has been advanced to explain as to why not the entire global flora and fauna became extinct due to alleged climate change but only selected groups of animals. There is evidence that birds survived extinction events affecting Dinosaurs. Flowering plants were making their early appearance at the time of Dinosaur extinction.

Dinosaurs first appeared about 230 million years back and were dominant life forms on earth from 200 million years BC (Jurassic era) to 65.5 million years BC (end of Cretaceous). Therefore Dinosaurs had been dominant life forms on earth for 135 million years from beginning of Jurassic era to end of Cretaceous.

Dinosaurs had been present on each and every continent and occupied all habitats. 500 genera and 1000 species of Non-avian Dinosaurs are known as extant species on the basis of fossil remains. Non-avian Dinosaurs ranged in size from present day birds (e.g. Pigeon) to the size of Sauropods i.e. 60 meters in length and several stories high. Anchiomis is the smallest known Dinosaur with skeletal length of 35 cm and weight of 110 gms.

Dinosaurs shared several traits with birds such as egg laying, nest building and inhabiting all available habitats.

The following excerpt from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur) shows that Dinosaur extinction was not a sudden event lasting only a few hours, days or years. Rather it was spread over a period of at least one million years.

Possible Paleocene survivors

Main article: Paleocene dinosaurs

Non-avian dinosaur remains are occasionally found above the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. In 2001, paleontologists Zielinski and Budahn reported the discovery of a single hadrosaur leg-bone fossil in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico, and described it as evidence of Paleocene dinosaurs. The formation in which the bone was discovered has been dated to the early Paleocene epoch, approximately 64.5 million years ago. If the bone was not re-deposited into that stratum by weathering action, it would provide evidence that some dinosaur populations may have survived at least a half million years into the Cenozoic Era.^[135] Other evidence includes the finding of dinosaur remains in the Hell Creek Formation up to 1.3 meters (51 in) above (40000 years later than) the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. Similar reports have come from other parts of the world, including China.^[136] Many scientists, however, dismissed the supposed Paleocene dinosaurs as re-worked, that is, washed out of their original locations and then re-buried in much later sediments.^[137][138] However, direct dating of the bones themselves has supported the later date, with U–Pb dating methods resulting in a precise age of 64.8 ± 0.9 million years ago.^[139] If correct, the presence of a handful of dinosaurs in the early Paleocene would not change the underlying facts of the extinction.^[137]

Any climate change causing pan-global mass extinction of Dinosaurs along with a few other animal groups namely, Ammonites, Mesosaurs, Plesiosaurs and a few Mammalian groups over a period of one million years should have, rationally speaking, resulted in near extinction of the entire flora and fauna on earth. But to the contrary there is evidence that birds survived extinction event. Flowering plants (Angiosperms) made their early appearance during this period.

 There are known other mass extinction events affecting other groups of organisms, for example planktonic forms Globigerinidae suffered mass extinction at the end of Eocene only to reappear later (Cifelli 1969: Radiation of Cenozoic foraminifera, System. Zool., 18, 154 – 168).

Similarly Lazarus taxons are well known which suffered extinction at some point in time only to reappear later. One such taxon is Coelocanthus fish which reappeared in 1938 after extinction for nearly 65 million years (Wikipedia: search Lazarus taxons) .

From the above account, it is self-evident that no theory explaining mass extinction of Dinosaurs due to climate change of any kind can ever be consistent with known facts.

Therefore, only two possibilities remain, either Dinosaurs suffered pan-global mass extinction as biologically timed out group of organisms or they evolved into some other group of organisms with which no ancestor – descendent relationship can be established, presently. Regarding the former possibility, Gryphaea mollusks are known to have evolved to their extinction.

The later possibility can’t be dismissed outrightly because saltatory evolution is known to occur. This has led to Punctuated Equilibrium Hypothesis of Eldredge and Gould ( Eldredge N. and Gould S.J. 1972, ‘Punctuated Equilibrium an Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism’, in Schopf T.J.M.(ed.), Models in Paleobiology, Freeman , Cooper, San Francisco).

Darwin in 1859 in his book Origin of Species by Means of Natural selection page 298 observed:-

That the periods during which species have been undergoing modification though very long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which these species remained without undergoing any change  

Summing up, pan-global mass extinction of Dinosaurs could not have been due to climatic change. It was essentially not the question of struggle for survival and survival of the fittest or imperfect forms struggling to perfect themselves. Therefore neither Darwinism nor Lamarckism can explain Dinosaur extinction. There are only two possibilities. Dinosaurs either evolved to other phyletic lines or organisms, with which no ancestor – descendent relationship can be presently demonstrated or Dinosaurs evolved to their extinction, alternative speaking were biologically timed out. What really happened is a matter of further investigations.

Cover Page

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing.  Chapter 30 of the book is about Evolution of Life wherein author has worked out a new theory about evolution of life.

Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com

          http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm

Visit Clipboard