Your truth is not a scientific fact until you provide genuine evidence

Krishna: I object to the words “without examination”. No scientist would do that. Maybe you don’t know when this was done and how.

You used the word “ancient”. That ‘s when scientific thinking and scientific method were unknown.

First of all let us realize that when we say something is ‘ancient’, it doesn’t come under the heading 'modern science’. ‘Ancient science’ is oxymoronic in nature.

The earliest roots of science can be traced to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3000 to 1200 BCE. (1) Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes.

This initial attempt to understand natural laws and use them didn't use empirical evidence to authenticate itself. It also didn't use scientific method.

Actual Scientific revolution began in the 16th century. But The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation and it was not until the 19th century that many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape (2,3,4).

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems. Contemporary scientific research is highly collaborative and is usually done by teams in academic and research institutions, government agencies, and companies. The practical impact of their work has led to the emergence of science policies.

What we recognize now as modern science strictly follows these policies and adheres to scientific methods.

Therefore, what you call ancient is 'knowledge of those times' alright but is not science in the true sense. It was not validated using scientific method and is not reliable. Also knowledge is not static. It keeps improving all the time. When we get an improved version of something, we should adopt it and abandon useless versions of it . If we don't, we will stagnate and suffer as a result.

Unable to do this some people are twisting science and creating pseudo-science in the process.

Both pseudo-science and ‘ancient version of knowledge’ are useless and even harmful in some situations. This is because if people don’t use scientific method to remove human mind inadequacies, their thinking will be screwed up because of biases, fallacies and distortions. When their conditioned mind processes something, that reflects in the ‘knowledge acquired’ and therefore is unreliable.

That is how Manusmriti is highly flawed. Manusmriti's emphasis on the caste system has been a source of controversy and criticism, particularly in the context of modern social justice movements.

Some passages in the text have been interpreted as justifying the subjugation of women, which has led to its condemnation by those advocating for gender equality.

Do you call such ancient Dharmaśāstra, knowledge?

And Vedas: One common criticism is that the Vedas contain inconsistencies and contradictions, particularly in their descriptions of deities and cosmic origins. Another point of contention is the perceived lack of scientific accuracy in certain Vedic statements, which may not align with modern scientific understanding. And where is the evidence for what was said in those texts?

Moreover, if it is real ‘universal knowledge’, why does it differ from place to place, region to region, and person to person? And why do people fight over the things said in some of those sacred texts?

What is inner truth? Inner truth, in essence, refers to a deep, personal understanding about oneself, one's motivations, and the world. Truth should be an established one and shouldn’t change after a thorough analysis.

However, when we see this inner truth differing from person to person and depending on the conditioning of the minds that are trying to understand it, and when people fight over it, how can you call it truth?

When you can say, your truth is not my truth, what is truth actually?

In science, all the arguments are settled by getting new reliable data and evidence. Once the experimental evidence tallies with the universal principles this universe follows, facts get established as they are reliable ones. And there will usually be only one fact given the conditions in which it is studied and conclusions arrived at are the same.

If some of our peers disprove our work by showing evidence to the contrary, we bow our heads in humility and accept it. Where is ego in this process?

Unable to disprove scientific facts, and without providing any evidence, if you just use words like ego, cultural bias, or fear of inner truth, that reflects on your shoddy thinking. Don’t bring in untested and unverified things into the scientific arguments. There are evidence based facts and there are just beliefs. Unscientific arguments have no place in the scientific world. People who give us not the evidence based facts, but viewpoints on imagined truth are not considered in the scientific world as genuine truth seekers.

Your truth is not a scientific fact until you provide genuine evidence

There is evidence based on scientists' years of toil, thorough analysis and testing and there is rubbish based on wild imaginations, creative stories, biased analysis and perceptions. We don’t entertain the latter, because modern science marked them as ‘unreliable’ long back, and waste our time. period!

Moreover, we have more pressing problems to tackle, and don’t get time to examine each and every word 8.2 billion people on this Earth imagines and thinks to be true. We expect common people to grow up too to meet some of the scientific world’s demands.

And a scientist is a person who will not accept anything just because two-thirds of the world says it is right. S/he is the type of person who demands that he bring non-corrupt data to prove that he is the creator even if the creator of this universe appears before her/him!

Haughtiness? People in the field insist that it is a full proof scientific method. And they don't care what the world thinks or says about it because that is what sustains the scientific world.

Audacity, maybe, for the sake of science! (5)

Footnotes:

1. Science - Wikipedia
2. http://Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
3. http:// The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834.
4. http://Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature : From Omens to Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
5. SCIENTISTS INSIST THAT THEY ARE RIGHT BECAUSE THEY REALLY ARE!