Jack, a scientist is doing a research in his laboratory loves to keep photos of all scientists in his lab and he prefers to put complex mathematical formula in his note. One day while during a research there was a massive earthquake and almost all civilization is lost on earth, after thousands of years civilization again evolves but absolutely on different axioms, they don’t have pen, paper, or even any presentation of knowledge, they transfer knowledge at a will to other mind without any media. While doing kind of archaeological surveys such sophisticated civilization finds Jack’s lab and they saw all instruments, notes (mathematical formulas) and they are surprised, they are not able to understand all as they don’t know any media, they don’t have any idea about any medium being used to transmit the knowledge and they put all the items found in museum.
This hypothetical case is created to derive few questions and challenge to our posteriori knowledge. Why do we think that what we know today are the only logical and correct methods and what we are seeking is the only truth and there is no truth beyond that? We are trying to find out why do we exists and how do we exists but cannot be anything more to this? Why do we consider that modern science is the only and valid method to find truth?
In old times when we had many culture we consider anthropological or cultural relativism and agree that it is all cultural and local but if we assume globalization why can’t we say that science can also be in relativism? If there is an Objectivity then how can it be depend on only one method?
The good example is The Dropa Stone Discs found in China, stone disks dating back 12,000 years are almost similar to magnetic or optical disks that we use today but are off big sizes. As we don’t know the methods, axioms and purpose of this how can we deny this? Same is true with all other schools, methods, philosophies and concepts available like mediation, astronomy, medicines etc. We don’t find them much relevant when we see from the knowledge we have and axioms we know but how can we claim that all are just speculations?
Basically all our knowledge is empirical and there is no reason to believe that there are only few methods and other methods are wrong. Human history has developed many branches and methods of knowledge and there is no logical reason why we assume that only modern methods are valid.
How can we say that knowledge gathered by meditation is not valid or other way it is more religious and mystic? Why do we think that all the knowledge talks only about God or supernatural power? Why we can’t think that they had different axioms and based on that they had their own methods and results. If they have found some high level energies and named it ‘xyz’ and later people just started worshiping different forms these energies should not dilute the invention of energies.
In old times when there was less communication with different cultures, we can see absolutely different philosophies and traditions in different cultures and those were developed based on exclusive axioms and principles. Tradition medicines or folk medicines are the best examples of this, we have Ayurveda, , Unani, ancient Iranian medicine, Islamic medicine, Chinese medicine, traditional Korean medicine, acupuncture etc. Majority of them were developed over a period of time based on absolutely different theories and they hardly share any common methods.
Today it is absolutely deferent, of course we have many branches (and sub branches) in science but they are based on almost same fundamentals and axioms. This is creating limitation to our exploration and we are trained to believe that there cannot be other options, it is restricting us to think out of box.
We have records which shows some precise calculation of planetary positions without using any instruments or devices. There are many books on surgery in Ayurveda written almost hundreds of years ago and it is interesting to think that how did they arrive to such knowledge especially in cultures where you don’t keep bodies after death.
We keep getting arguments that facts given by modern science is consistent and is verified by peer review and experiments and can be reproduce every time under given circumstances. This arguments has two problems mainly one is ‘consistent’ and this is being proven wrong by emerging modern science like Quantum and second is ‘under given circumstances’, if you define what you want to look before you start exploring you are bound to see what you are interested of. When we are dealing with cognitive factors we are dealing with more complex aspects and ‘under given parameters’ gets complicated, however there is no reason to believe that it cannot or it would not be able to define. For example hypnosis, can you create a rule or formulize the hypnosis but you can still reproduce it, however you cannot claim that it works exactly same way for all, there are different approaches and methods but the results are almost same
We have assumed that there could be only logical methods to find the truth and there cannot be other methods, truth can only be find outside and it cannot be found inside. This could be true based on our understanding but we cannot say that other methods are just speculation until we can understand all the axioms they had and we join all dots.