Yes, you've made that quite clear.
because 1) The criticisms you are using against the Indian method apply to the Western scientific method too
Which, the record will show, is what I said. You gave "Examples in both Indian and Western systems", and I made the same criticism of them.
2) The criticisms you are using about the PSI experiments apply to experiments conducted in all scientific fields.
To some degree, yes. Look, you can't get me with this your-science-is-not-infallible bull. It's only yours that claims to be. (I remind you yet again.)
In short I see nothing but rheotrical garbage from you, a total failure to acknowledge and engage with any arguments, and ignorance of all key scientific fields, perhaps no credentials at all in these areas, just regurgitated rhetoric from skeptic.dik.com.
Except that I've just corrected your ancient Indian presentation of how an arrow falls, and that "invisible" things are only revealed by bouncing things off them, hence they become not invisible. Sheesh. The machinations you make up to avoid your own logic are quite extraordinary.
So now having good reason to believe you are a troll there is no need to continue this discussion.
Was there ever a need?
, and if you want to end it, then please do so.
And did I need your permission to end it?
However, I am willing to continue only to show what a hypocrite you are in how you accept Western materialist science and the observations metaphysical entities they postulate,
That will be fun. Please supply where I say such a thing. I told you to stop lying.
but do not accept Indian science and the metaphysical entities they postulate.
Lies. The record will show very clearly that I have been a probabilist/fallibilist/sceptic all along and this is your fantasy.
You fail to note the evidence I have already shown from your fav source wikipedia too The Indians systems of logic, linguistics and epistemology are more advanced than anything in the West till past the mid-20th century Interestingly, you never responded to that evidence(as expected, you will not acknowledge or respond to any evidence you cannot respond to - such as Dean Radin)
Dean Radin is irrelevant to whether you can know anything absolutely. So, I propose, is any method of argument, including linguistics or mathematics. The record will show me saying that. Since I said those things, I am responding to the points you make, just not accepting them as useful to the main task I suggested you take on: show that Indian philosophy is absolutely true. You didn't miss that bit, did you.
Pāṇini's work became known in 19th-century Europe, where it influenced modern linguistics initially through Franz Bopp, who mainly looked at Pāṇini. Subsequently, a wider body of work influenced Sanskrit scholars such as Ferdinand de Saussure, Leonard Bloomfield, and Roman Jakobson. Frits Staal (1930-2012) discussed the impact of Indian ideas on language in Europe. After outlining the various aspects of the contact, Staal notes that the idea of formal rules in language ? proposed by Ferdinand de Saussure in 1894 and developed by Noam Chomsky in 1957 ? has origins in the European exposure to the formal rules of Pāṇinian grammar.
Pāṇini's grammar is the world's first formal system, developed well before the 19th century innovations of Gottlob Frege and the subsequent development of mathematical logic. In designing his grammar, Pāṇini used the method of "auxiliary symbols", in which new affixes are designated to mark syntactic categories and the control of grammatical derivations. This technique, rediscovered by the logician Emil Post, became a standard method in the design of computer programming languages. Sanskritists now accept that Pāṇini's linguistic apparatus is well-described as an "applied" Post system. Considerable evidence shows ancient mastery of context-sensitive grammars, and a general ability to solve many complex problems.
The Ashtadhyayi is one of the earliest known grammars of Sanskrit, although Pāṇini refers to previous texts like the Unadisutra, Dhatupatha, and Ganapatha. It is the earliest known work on descriptive linguistics, and together with the work of his immediate predecessors (Nirukta, Nighantu, Pratishakyas) stands at the beginning of the history of linguistics itself. His theory of morphological analysis was more advanced than any equivalent Western theory before the mid 20th century, and his analysis of noun compounds still forms the basis of modern linguistic theories of compounding, which have borrowed Sanskrit terms such as bahuvrihi and dvandva.
Jonardon Ganeri has observed that this period saw George Boole and Augustus De Morgan make their pioneering applications of algebraic ideas to the formulation of logic (such as Algebraic logic and Boolean logic), and suggested that these figures were likely to be aware of these studies in xeno-logic, and further that their acquired awareness of the shortcomings of propositional logic are likely to have stimulated their willingness to look outside the system. Indian logic attracted the attention of many Western scholars, and has had an influence on pioneering 19th-century logicians such as Charles Babbage, Augustus De Morgan, and particularly George Boole, as confirmed by his wife Mary Everest Boole in an "open letter to Dr Bose" titled "Indian Thought and Western Science in the Nineteenth Century" written in 1901:
De Morgan himself wrote in 1860 of the significance of Indian logic: "The two races which have founded the mathematics, those of the Sanscrit and Greek languages, have been the two which have independently formed systems of logic."
Mathematicians are now aware of the influence of Indian mathematics on the European. For example, Hermann Weyl wrote: "Occidental mathematics has in past centuries broken away from the Greek view and followed a course which seems to have originated in India and which has been transmitted, with additions, to us by the Arabs; in it the concept of number appears as logically prior to the concepts of geometry." (Weyl, 1929)
Indian logic heralds Robert Blanch?'s logical hexagon presented in Structures intellectuelles (1966)
In La Logique et son histoire d' Aristote ? Russell, published with Armand Colin in 1970, Robert Blanch?, the author of Structures intellectuelles ( Vrin, 1966) mentions that J?zef Maria Bocheński speaks of a sort of Indian logical triangle to be compared with the square of Aristotle (or square of Apuleius), in other words with the square of opposition. This logical triangle announces the logical hexagon of Blanch?. It seems that with this logical triangle, Indian logic proposes a a useful approach to the problem raised by the particular propositions of natural language. If Robert Blanch?'s logical hexagon is something more complete and therefore more powerful as regards the understanding of the relationship between logic and natural language, it may be that on a highly important point, Indian logic is superior to the western logic proceeding from Aristotle.
That is very cool, isn't it? Clever old Injuns. It's nice that, "Mathematicians are now aware of the influence of Indian mathematics on the European." So you can chill a bit.
So there you go: It turns out not only was Indian logic, epistemology and linguistics more advanced than modern Western logic,
Well, you're kind of pushing it a bit there. Your wiki quote says "If Robert Blanch?'s logical hexagon is something more complete and therefore more powerful as regards the understanding of the relationship between logic and natural language, it may be that on a highly important point, Indian logic is superior to the western logic proceeding from Aristotle."
But you would. Incidentally - what am I saying? - centrally - does that make Indian logic INFALLIBLE?
Could someone wake Surya Deva up, please, and ask him how he knows Indian philosophy is perfect absolute knowledge, he's not listening to me?
Before I even begin to look at the other rheotric garbage, I want to see how you engage with such blatant, plain sight evidence.
Done. Not a jot of it changes anything I said. And I didn't respond earlier because of time constraints, as I'm sure you can imagine.
Will you concede the point now that Indian logic, epistemology and linguistics(all related fields and share concepts) was more advanced than Western modern logic, linguistics and epistemology?
I'm sorry, but there's a problem here. I don't know that much about "epistemology", but I've been trying to work honestly through what you're presenting me. Here you have posted some wikipedia information that talks positively about the acheivements of Indian philosophy, and says that if somebody's hexagon of something-or-other is true, then on some important point Indian philosophy may be better than what Aristotle came up with and from which the West drew its major ideas. Yes? OK so far?
That does not equate in any way shape or form with "Indian logic was more advanced than Western logic (is now, I presume you mean)". One need only observe that Western logic after Aristotle has developed, for instance. But anyway, I cannot know that it is better, sorry. I know this feels like an important chip on your shoulder, but really it's just a chip.
Secondly, and more importantly, you cannot expect me to take as true that Indian logic was better than Western logic if your presentation of it is anything to go by. I have expected you to lead me through and demonstrate your perfect Indian logic, and all it seems to amount to is false logic (which you even admit half the time) and supposition when you wish to decide what the ultimate reality is - my later posts went into that in great detail, refuting every single thing you presented and showing what a liar you are into the bargain.
So on balance..........................?
The fallacy you are committing here is called Eurocentrism in postcolonial studies:
Once again, in plain ignorance of what has just happened a moment ago, you present me as a racist, having asked me to accept that Indian logic is better than Western on utterly dubious grounds. Shall we split the difference and agree that everybody has made some contributions to logic? Obiously not, that wouldn't suit your Indocentrist racist viewpoint. Shall we say that really "Western" and "Indian" are kind of silly notions? No, because you can't continue to present racist views while accusing me of holding them that way.
viewing the history of science and philosophy of the entire world from the point of of the West. If the first formal logical system and computational logic is a modern 20th century development, then it must be for the rest of the word too.
Well clearly it isn't. The first formal one we know of according to that article is Indian. There may be formal logical systems from even more ancient civilisations than what you consider "yours" that have been lost. Did you think of that? None of that makes it BETTER than MODERN SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGIES.
And a simple question is: if it were, why does nobody implement it? You would think that if the Indian logic of whenever were actually demonstrably superior to that of modern scientific logic, an Indian could show the world how to use it and then we'd all have found prana and nirvana and all the rest of your postulates (which, I'll remind you, you consider absolutely true).
the first formal logical system and computational logic was discovered by the Indian logicians and linguists in 500BCE.