You see Political-Buddhism because it is at nose’s length and don’t see anything else as they are a few inches away.

Thanks!

Who are them? Muslims?or Taliban beleive any other religion?

Dear sv kasynathan;

Thanks, for the response. I was thinking the world has lost its interest in philosophy. But you ignited the sacred lamp to believe me other wise. Thanks again.

You said “Deductive reasoning does not lead to truths unless you begin with premisses which are themselves true and these cannot be acquired by inductive reasoning alone.”

But I think it is the most common case tough its not the only case. It is very effective to use Deductive reasoning along with inductive reasoning (presumptions) as we see in Science, but it is not an essential condition. Presumption is an essential part of an argument (reasoning)and it is not necessarily be take from outside the deductive system or from the inductive system (through sensory perception). For example the deductive conclusion “Bachelor is not a married man” does not need any outside help or presumption borrowed from any other system to stand on its feet. Further, (Pure)Mathematics does not borrow any empirical presumptions at all to establish its knowledge system.

You say:

“”“Inductive reasoning is the principle used in the Scientific method.”

Not quite sure what exactly you mean by this. If you mean, as it used to be repeated pretty long time ago, that hypothesis are arrived at by something called inductive method, it was dismissed as an incoherent idea, again, quite some time ago. If there is any “method” in scientific reasoning, that is deductive – and, again, not to discover truths but only to eliminate untruths.””

I think you have made a confusion here. It is true that Science contain the knowledge gained through both Inductive logic and deductive logic.(here logic = reasoning). But you will have to understand the difference in subtle meanings between “Scientific Method” and “Science”. Scientific method(=inductive reasoning/empiricism) is not Science. Scientific method is the the methodology of obtaining “Scientific Knowledge” not “Science”. I think you have taken “science”, “scientific method” and “scientific knowledge” as one.

My statement is perfectly right.

You say:

“”“Different opposing ideologies exist mainly because many rely on “Coherence theory” and “Pragmatic theory rather than [“Correspondence theory”] to ascertain truths.

These theories are not ways of ascertaining truths – if by ascertain you mean verifying or finding out the correctness or otherwise of any proposions. Like other theories, they only seek to explain the nature of something or, as in this case, the criteria that are relevant to the application of a label.””

Really they are the ways of ascertaining truths, conceptualized in western epistemology, but has been in use from known time both in east and west. Really as you said correctly they explain(?) the nature of something. They ascertain the truthfulness of “propositions” or a “statements” which are known as “truth bearers”. It may be true that a proposition does not bear the “truth in entirety” or the ultimate truth but it decides the truthfulness of a proposition an of any proposition.

You say:

““I can see many are criticizing their theories in their absence, but I have seen no one courageous enough to engage with them. Why is that?”

Courage and cowardice are not the only determinants of peoples’ behaviour in non primitive societies.
While I agree, that not confronting error allows it to persist and to grow, what can we say of our times and our society where the expression of certain truths is becoming, more and more, also an exercise in courage?”

There may be other reasons as well as you said. But reluctance to engage with them was my point, whatever the reason is. The need of confronting them and working towards it is not matching but the latter is rather lacking. However, the the criticism in their absence is in abundance. I think that is a point to ponder.

You say:

“Forgive me if I appear to be nit-picking, but I Intervene only because you seem to be a staunch advocate of reason.”

It is perfectly all right for you to respond my arguments in a reasonable manner as you do. I appreciate it.

Thanks!

Yapa

“The knowledge gained through the deductive reasoning is always true, hence it is a very good method of arriving at truth both in physical and Metaphysical planes.”

Not quite. Deductive reasoning does not lead to truths unless you begin with premisses which are themselves true and these cannot be acquired by inductive reasoning alone.

“Inductive reasoning is the principle used in the Scientific method.”

Not quite sure what exactly you mean by this. If you mean, as it used to be repeated pretty long time ago, that hypothesis are arrived at by something called inductive method, it was dismissed as an incoherent idea, again, quite some time ago. If there is any “method” in scientific reasoning, that is deductive – and, again, not to discover truths but only to eliminate untruths.

“Different opposing ideologies exist mainly because many rely on “Coherence theory” and “Pragmatic theory rather than [“Correspondence theory”] to ascertain truths.

These theories are not ways of ascertaining truths – if by ascertain you mean verifying or finding out the correctness or otherwise of any proposions. Like other theories, they only seek to explain the nature of something or, as in this case, the criteria that are relevant to the application of a label.

“I can see many are criticizing their theories in their absence, but I have seen no one courageous enough to engage with them. Why is that?”

Courage and cowardice are not the only determinants of peoples’ behaviour in non primitive societies.
While I agree, that not confronting error allows it to persist and to grow, what can we say of our times and our society where the expression of certain truths is becoming, more and more, also an exercise in courage?

Forgive me if I appear to be nit-picking, but I Intervene only because you seem to be a staunch advocate of reason.

http://www.nation.lk/edition/feature-viewpoint/item/6027-dambulla-temple-devils-quoting-scriptures.html

Thanks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gsWhC7R8eI&feature=related

This happened in Beruwala and is a million times worse. Just because they belonged to a slightly different sect. I wish there is someone in our community who can match Kalana’s writing of self assessment of where we are heading.

I hope there is freedom of expression where such an important matter is discussed.

Ideological differences are the cause of conflicts I think. Even in individual level or social level they prevail due to the inability of people to arrive at consensuses. However, there are some deviations to this seemingly common occurrence of conflicts in some subject areas, where we witness no conflicts or there are a few.

For example, no one has conflicts in mathematics, no one would disagree, in a right triangle, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the two other legs. No much different views found about the scientific knowledge.

What made this difference in these two knowledge areas from others, such as religion, Political Science, Social Science…etc., which always are full of rival ideologies/theories?

I think reason can be attributed to the lack of vision in those subject areas to choose the best criterion to to choose the ideologies/algorithms so that it would decide the most reliable facts to those subject areas.

For example the broad algorithm in Mathematics is the Deductive Logic, and it (almost) never allow to come up incorrect facts or conclusions, hence ensures truthfulness of the result. Until the 16th century, (I think), the methodology of Science for finding “truth” was limited to Deductive Logic and whenever this method was correctly applied the results in Science was guaranteed true. With the introduction of Inductive Logic for “fast track development” of Science in Europe marked the end of “accuracy” of Science. There the accuracy was sacrificed for “human benefits” abandoning its broad scope and specific focus of finding truth. However, after the 20th century, it seems even Science has once again adapted or adapting to that precise methodology “Deductive Logic” to explore the truth in the (broad?)scope of Science. I think unlike Mathematics, though Science deviated from that precise methodology for some time, it has realized its folly for sacrificing accuracy for humanly benefits and slowly coming back to its initial stance to settle with logical (deductive)reasoning. I think if the objective is finding truth, there is no alternative to logical reasoning. It is true that logical reasoning (formal logic) has faced with some issues which could not solve with its original form, but some adjustment to it made it contains almost everything. Adopting to “Four Valued Logic” when necessary from “Two Valued Logic” made Modern Science contain within that methodology.

It is true that Inductive Logic or Scientific Method was very useful in finding knowledge for the benefit of mankind. Technology, Medical knowledge etc., are the result of Inductive Logic. However, if the objective is finding truth, truth with accuracy and precision, the best methodology to rely on is “Deductive Reasoning, there is no similar alternative to it.

I think, the main aim of religions is to find truth and to develop a moral system based on truth (not based on anything else). So in religion the first and foremost invariable objective is finding truth. So, I think no religion if dedicated to this noble goal can choose any other methodology than “Deductive reasoning as their tool/methodology in their endeavour for exploring truth. On the other hand it is the most reliable “yardstick” to ascertain the credibility of any knowledge system, especially for which are dedicated to finding truth. So, I think the most appropriate thing to do to resolve the different views found in religions on truth is to test them against the deductive reasoning. In this way I think we can resolve most of the ideological differences found in our societies and come to consensuses, avoiding most of the conflicts.

I think what Upul indicated as saying “Why don’t all of us simply apply the tool of critical thinking which has helped us enormousely to broaden our understanding of how the world, both animate and inanimate works, to these knowledge systems as well. We should encourage people from young age to break the fundamentalist bonds if any and examine every religion, idea or concept critically to see for themselves if it makes sense. That’s all.” is a commendable and progressive initiative/strategy towards “Conflict Resolution” prevailing in our societies. I think it is a global vision.

Why not we adapt the methodology for all religions?

Thanks!

(please post here )

correction………

“Different opposing ideologies exist mainly because many rely on “Coherence theory” and “Pragmatic theory rather than [“Coherence theory”] to ascertain truths.”

Should be corrected as

“Different opposing ideologies exist mainly because many rely on “Coherence theory” and “Pragmatic theory rather than [“Correspondence theory”] to ascertain truths.

Thanks!

How then do we explain the proceedings in the Arya-Satyakaparivarta?

It documents behaviour before the advent of colonialism and christian crusades.