Skip to main content

Is There Really Scientific Evidence


Science is completely dependent on evidence but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.....



I was reading an article by the celebrated Cambridge physicist, Stephen Hawking, titled “There is no heaven; it is a fairy tale”. It is an interesting read, although it lacks any semblance of logic does not present any scientific basis for his claims. However, when someone of his stature makes a statement, it becomes gospel truth for the gullible readers. He has written books, most of which, according to a great scientist, John OM Bockris, makes for an interesting read, but is far removed from science. Present medical science avers that patients with motor neuron disease should not live beyond a couple of years of its diagnosis. In the case of Stephen Hawking, this scientific rule has been proven completely wrong! We are glad for that. May he live long!

If “science is measurement and measurement is science,” as defined by Mary Curie, heaven cannot be a scientific concept. Even if one were to take the definition of science by a noted Hungarian-born American scientist, John von Neumann, that “science is making models, mostly mathematical constructs, which with verbal jargon, are supposed to work,” also makes the concept of heaven untenable. Unfortunately, in biology including human physiology, one cannot measure a lot of things. One simple example could be human thought. No one can deny that all of us get different thoughts at different times, but can a scientist measure human thought? Does that mean that thought does not exist? Absence of evidence does not scientifically allow one to infer that it is scientific evidence of absence!

All that one could say is that human consciousness, at the moment, does not permit us to show the presence of heaven or God. Hawking goes on to make some atrocious claims that the human brain is just a computer. When the computer shuts down, man dies, there is no after-life, etc. Hawking does not realist that there is research data, going back to 60 long years in one of the US universities, trying to document after-life. Many of their papers are published in indexed journals. Hawking bases his claim on the ancient work of people, like the neurosurgeon, Penfield, that when you stimulate a part of the brain, some part of the body responds. Hawking thinks this is same as the GI-GO computer. The problem with conventional physics is that it does not accept consciousness as a scientific concept. My rudimentary knowledge of human physiology does not permit me to agree that brain is a simple computer. It would be an insult to Jagadish Chandra Bose if we deny the existence of consciousness which, he showed, exists even in plants! 
 

Hans Peter Durr, emeritus president of the Max Planck Institute in Munich, has elegantly shown the fallacy in some of the physics formula which Hawking claims are sacrosanct. One example is enough. In his paper, Matter is not made out of matter, Hans goes to show how E=M (a duality) is the future physics. Physics had changed for good when Werner Heisenberg propounded the, now famous, uncertainty principle (pq is not equal to qp). Heisenberg was asked by the reporters about where he did his experiments; his immediate response was Gedanken experiment (experiments in his mind). If Heisenberg’s brain were to be just a computer, as claimed by Hawking, he would not have been able to propound his theory. The book, Occult Chemistry, by Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater (originally from Cambridge, like Hawking), in 1920 had graphically described their idea of the atomic structure of nine elements from hydrogen to helium, using their ‘third eye’ during yogic sidhis in the Himalayas. Their atom is close to reality now. 
 

One could just say that having a scientific temper is vital for human growth and to save mankind from dangerous superstitions. At the same time, one needs to be aware that science, as it is known today, is not the be all and end all of human wisdom. A wise scientist knows that science is just organised curiosity with a touch of logical septicemic.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gold Nanostars - The Future of Cancer Detection

Gold Nanostars, couple of nanometers in size and might take thousands of them to span diameter of human hair and yet could be effective in fighting tumor. Nanotechology has shown a promising offer, a new possibilities for cancer therapy.  Photo courtesy of   CrystEngComm Blog Since my initial research, searching for efficient ways to address cancer detection has prompted enormous progress.  On a global scale, by 2030 there will be 21.7 million new cases of cancer and 13 million cancer-related deaths. This health burden is likely to increase if we fail to make the necessary changes in the early detection of cancer.  For years, now, cancer has been studies as a laboratory problem, but, while much has been learned, we are still some distance short of having discovered its cause.  This being the case, we must still, perforce, rely upon already existing clinical knowledge-diagnosis, operation, irradiation -the indispensable triad. Of these three the great...

The journey of communication from set of Electronic chips to the Ultra fast Quantum machines.

Bose-Einstein Condensates Evaluated for Communicating Among Quantum Computers. Quantum computers promise to perform certain types of operations much more quickly than conventional digital computers. But many challenges must be addressed before these ultra-fast machines become available, among them, the loss of order in the systems – a problem known as quantum decoherence – which worsens as the number of bits in a quantum computer increases. One proposed solution is to divide the computing among multiple small quantum computers that would work together much as today’s multi-core supercomputers team up to tackle big digital operations. The individual computers in such a system could communicate quantum information using Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) – clouds of ultra-cold atoms that all exist in exactly the same quantum state. The approach could address the decoherence problem by reducing the number of bits necessary for a single computer. Now, a team of physicists at...