[Advaita-l] 'End' not 'Means'

[S Jayanarayanan]

--- Aditya Varun Chadha <adichad at gmail.com> wrote:

> Saying that nirguNa brahman exists because Sruti says so and that's
> that, is fine because the claim of existence is UNFALSIFIABLE.
> 
> Saying that women are not fit to study the vedas because Sruti says
> so
> and that's that, is NOT fine because the claim is in theory
> falsifiable through pratyakSa. The experiment: let several (enough
> to
> form a statistical sample space) women study the vedas, and see the
> effect on them. If the effect is on average negetive on society as
> a
> whole, Sruti is upheld, else it is falsified.
> 

What do you mean by "negative effects on society as a whole"? This is
the crux of the issue. Whatever you mean by that term, it does not
refer to a purely scientifically measurable quantity.

Your example makes the assumption that:

1) All effects on humans are measurable.
2) There exists such things as "negative effects" on society that can
be scientifically determined.
3) "First-person negative effects on humans or society" can be
determined by third-person observations.

Consider this experiment instead:

"Let several (enough to form a statistical sample space) men and
women rampantly kill and eat animals, and see the effect on them. If
the effect is on average negative on society (of course, humans) as a
whole, non-vegetarianism is upheld, else it is falsified."

It is precisely by such examples that people who mistreat animals
justify their claims. I can give other examples, but I don't want to
test the patience of other list members.

-Kartik

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com