'Opinions are not science'

(Ms. Gayatri Devi Vasudev, Editor, The Astrological Magazine, Bangalore, writes:)

Mr. T. Jayaraman's views (April 21) seem to have no relevance to my main point that Sir C. V. Raman's views on astrology must be respected as personal opinion, not beyond. All that he tries to show is Sir Raman did not believe in mumbo-jumbo, whatever he means by that, although he plainly wished for a cremation (the Hindu way of disposing the dead).

This has nothing to do with astrology and the discussions is not on Sir Raman's personal views or habits. There is no need to go out of one's way to prove Sir Raman's secular credentials which is not the subject of discussion.

I shall just quote the following episode and your readers are free to draw their own conclusions:

``We can even say that there were practically very few contemporary eminent men who had not known Rayaru. Bangalore could be divided into two parts those days. One part was the old Bangalore.

The other was the Cantonment area. Rayaru and Dr. C. V. Raman knew each other. Dr. C. V. Raman was a reputed scientist. He was the only one amongst India's scientists to have been conferred the Noble Prize for physics. He was residing in Bangalore.

Once there was a discussion between Rayaru and Dr. Raman on `jyotisha'. Frank and outspoken, Rayaru told Dr. Raman plainly that the latter knew nothing about astrology. He questioned him on how he could form an opinion on `jyotisha', therefore. Dr. Raman was an honest intellectual scientist.

He conceded Rayaru's point that he did not know anything of `jyotisha and therefore, it was not right on his part to say anything about it.''

Rayaru was Prof. B. Suryanarain Rao (1856-1937), grandfather of Dr. B. V. Raman (1912-1998), and an eminent scholar who introduced astrology to the English-knowing public of India for the first time through his lectures and writings.

The above lines are a translation from the Kannada biography `B. Suryanarayana Rayaru', of Prof. B. Suryanarain Rao written by Mr. N. S. Seetharama Sastry, one of the most-senior and respected journalists of Karnataka who was on the staff of the Kannada daily Kannada Prabha and published by IBH Prakashana, Bangalore, and which is one of a series of such brief biographies of great men brought out by the IBH.

Sir Raman gracefully conceded his disqualification to comment on astrology because he had not studied it. Would it be too much to ask Mr. Jayaraman to emulate the Nobel Laureate?

While Sir C. V. Raman had the humility to refrain from talking about a subject he knew nothing about, it is a pity that Mr. Jayaraman should believe that he is omniscient or modern science has reached the end of all knowledge when he says ``The heavenly bodies exert no force that can affect individual behaviour. Nor is there any likelihood that future developments in science will discover such a force,'' (April 21).

It is somewhat unbelievable and impossible to accept Mr. Jayaraman's claim that he is the sole custodian of all the laws of nature and of all future developments in science.

It is precisely such smugness that prevents scientists of his tribe in approaching `jyotisha' with an open mind. Let me repeat that opinions are not science.

Further, any scientist worth his salt should seriously object to Mr. Jayaraman's statement ``Ms. Vasudev's statement that scientists have not studied astrology in detail is besides the point. No one needs to study astrology in all its details for an extended period to come to the conclusion that it is unscientific.''

It is very much the point, the main point and only point. Only a knowledge of a subject can entitle one to come to any conclusion on it. Ignorance of a subject cannot qualify one to call it scientific or even unscientific. Mr. Jayaraman's argument is an insult to all scientific minds and equates science with ignorance. I am not so sure of Sir Raman would have endorsed such statements, were he to be with us today.

Let me reiterate, no one who has studied a discipline, astrology or any other, with diligence is qualified to dismiss it. Ignorance simply cannot substitute for knowledge.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Lawyer cannot substitute for client: S.C.