--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > For the record, Nanda's work is not exactly > > > universally admired, even among those who are not > > > "Indian right-wingers." > > > > > > Just for fun, excerpts from Amazon reader reviews > > > of her book "Prophets Facing Backward" (7 of 12 > > > reviewers gave it the lowest possible rating): > > > > > > "At the micro-level the arguments of the book > > > seem reasonable. But for anyone who knows > > > science, it is clear that the author does not > > > have knowledge of the primary texts > > > (presumably because she does not know > > > Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian) and she has knit > > > together fragments from secondary sources in a > > > manner that makes no sense." > > > ----- > > > "Apparently, she does not possess adequate > > > knowledge of the Indian scientific literature, > > > and she relies on summaries of it which are > > > out of date or have been refuted. This is one > > > of the three legs of the stool, and as it > > > falls, the general argument becomes invalid." > > > ----- > > > "The book attempts to somehow bind the post- > > > modern critiques of science to the Hindu > > > challenge to the Orientalist constructions of > > > India. Given that the Hindu challenge goes > > > back to at least Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Swami > > > Vivekananda, much before post-modern ideas > > > arose, this binding makes no sense. Also, the > > > connections between Vedanta and modern physics > > > have been advanced by great scientists like > > > Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their more > > > recent followers, therefore to see a Hindu > > > conspiracy in this is unreasonable." > > > ----- > > > "Gaps between human comprehension (natural > > > phenomena) and human perception (observable > > > phenomena) are definitely NOT something > > > incompatible with science, per se. Science is > > > limited in that it may only address the > > > comprehensible, but it does not, in itself, > > > imply any limit to the observable." > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/cpladm [amazon.com] > > > > > Of course, the reviewers may have their own axes > > to grind. Heck, they could be from TM'ers. > > Well, *of course*. I mean, Nanda is obviously > *completely* objective and without any > conceivable axe of her own to grind. So any > critique of her criticism of TM is automatically > suspect. That's just a given; we all know that. > > > > She says tough stuff, of course she is not going to be universally admired. > > It does sound like people are making a lot of assumptions, especially the > > first two quotes you posted. My personal opinion, from the little I read > > of Schrodinger and Heisenberg on "philosophical" issues (Ken Wilbur's book > > Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists) is > > that what scientists have said is frequently blown out of proportion. > > And, their mystical writings are musings, not science. To tie the Vedas to > > science isn't science. >
Huh? I was speaking only to the quotes you gave. They didn't have any meat. Where in the world did I argue that she was totally objective so critics are suspect? Read what I said. I said nothing about her objectivity at all. I simply was giving an "on the other hand" comment and pointing out problems with some of the quoted material. <sigh>
