This may be opening a can of worms but here it goes!
I keep seeing this idea that Buddhist knowledge needs to be scientifically validated to hold value. Science is an inherently Western concept coming out of the Age of Enlightenment and the investigations of the universe that followed it. If the scientific method is the only universal method then it invalidates all other forms of knowledge production and relies upon Western traditions of inquiry. Which leaves an Eurocentric taste in my mouth. Buddhism claims to help its practitioner to understand the human condition of suffering by offering a path to end suffering and many people have claimed it works to reduce or eliminate their suffering. It manages to support its own claims anecdotally in this way. It is not like Buddhist methods of inquiry intent to explain the physical world in detail, as science does, it just intends to explain why we experience suffering and how to end it.
So why does Buddhist knowledge production need to be validated by the scientific method instead of its own methods? Not that there is anything wrong with the two finding overlaps, but canât Buddhism be accepted under its own merits for its own purpose?
I would say that according to the Dhamma itself, it only needs personal, experiential validation (paccattaáč veditabbo viññƫhÄ«).
Sometimes, the suttas may contradict what we seem to know of the universe today, but I think these contradictions, even though they may weaken the Dhammaâs credibility for those who havenât experienced it yet, can be brushed aside.
Maybe the Buddha wasnât scientifically speaking omniscient, or ideas contradicting science have been inserted in the suttas during the transmission process (although proving the latter would require a lot of converging evidence). Whatever the case may be, the important thing is that the Dhamma is visible in this world, having immediate effects, inviting to come and see, and leading onwards.
What do you mean by âBuddhist knowledgeâ? liberation? meditation? or also that Mara went into Moggallanaâs stomach? or everything written in any sutta?
Oh, I think the observation of stars, seasons, production of weapons and plough, geometry, mechanics, algebra, etc. were a tad before enlightenment, and also not in the West.
says who? are there any people telling you that your headache doesnât exist because you havenât proven it to exist scientifically? Is anyone demanding to base your election choise on science?
Why indeed do you throw such a can of worms into the ether?
I would say that Buddhist knowledge focuses on suffering and the liberation from it. While âmeditationâ would be an aspect of knowledge production. I am not saying that science is thrown out the window and replaced with Buddhist mythology. I wouldnât say that dealing with every aspect of the mind is within Buddhismâs strong suit of knowledge but some people argue it is.
The scientific method as is a Western concept especially in its modern form, since it followed the Scientific Revolution. The components of the method canât be attributed to one culture just like you say. The theme of challenging science, particularly in areas where people are involved, is very common with epistemological decoloniztion. Gurminder Bhambra is an excellent example of this challenging the idea that sociology purely scientific, unbiased, and universally applicable field.
The main idea I meant to get across is that you cannot fit everything into in a clean scientific procedure. Buddhism covers a lot of areas that science struggles with (particularly with the mind) and people claim to benefit from follow its guidelines. I find that enough to leave it to stand on its own without having to follow the scientific method to back up the claims.
So you object to âthe idea that Buddhist liberation needs to be scientifically validated to hold trueâ. Who are those âpeopleâ with this idea? They must be of a pretty significant number, otherwise you wouldnât have felt disturbed by it. Quote please.
And where is this major force again that wants to fit everything into this clean âscientific procedureâ?
Unless you can show with sources these âscientific enemies of Buddhist liberationâ it looks like a strawman argument.
Obviously itâs not enough for you otherwise you wouldnât have started the topic.
Does Buddhism Need Scientific Validation?
No I say but it wouldnât hurt. A bit of a tangent but are you familiar with Wilburâs book The Marriage of Sense and Soul?
He suggests there is a way for contemplative disciplines to be explored within âa context of broad scienceâ. He points out two primary objections (from the scientific perspective) to an integration of science and religion :
âŠinterior domains have no reality of their own; thus there are no âinteriorâ modes of knowing that cannot be explained away, literally."
âEven if there were other modes of knowing than the sensory-empirical, they would have no mean of validation and thus could not be taken seriously.â
Wilber reasons that if âempirical science rejects the validity of any and all forms of interior apprehension and knowledge, then itâ must also reject âits own validity as wellâ. This is so because âa great dealâ of this knowledge itself, already ârests on interior structures and apprehensions that are not delivered byâ and hence canât be confirmed by, âthe senses (such as logic and mathematics, to name only two).â Likewise, " (i)f science acknowledges these interior apprehensions , upon which its own operations depend, then it cannot object to interior knowledge per se . It cannot toss all interiors into the garbage can without tossing itself with it."
I read the book years ago and I feel he makes some important points. The wikipedia article linked to above covers the topic quite well.
The scientific method is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as:
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
Two words stand out in the definition:
measurement in Buddhism is necessarily subjective. There is currently no universally recognized âsuffering meterâ. Even in medicine, patients are asked to gauge their own pain and suffering.
âhypothesesâ equate to âviewsâ in Buddhism. We tend to trust science, but in that trust we can miss a very important point that scientific theories, no matter how well substantiated by experiment are ultimately still hypotheses at their core. To this day scientists keep testing Einsteinâs Theory of Relativity and results are always reported with a margin of error.
So just as one can conduct experiments on the Theory of Relativity, one can also conduct experiments on the Four Noble Truths:
AN3.53:1.3: In what way is the teaching visible in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves?â
My approach to physics is the same as my approach to Buddhism: learn and test hypotheses. Even today we have Nobel scientists retracting papers whose hypotheses were questionable. So âscientific validationâ is a rather peculiar phrase that improperly implies inviolable certification of truth. Pragmatically, itâs cumbersome to always prefix every scientific statement with âas far as we knowâ, but that prefix should be understood by all of us. As far as we know, science and Buddhism work and are verifiable by each of us.
You canât put nibbÄna in a test tube. Personally I work in science, specifically biomedical science. The scientific method is a great way to examine the material world and itâs great at finding solutions to certain problems of that world, but the scientific method canât address everything. It has its limits. Subjective realities, which is what the Dhamma ultimately deals in, are beyond the reach of science for science can never address the subjective. Itâs simply beyond itâs reach.
The problem is when fans or followers cannot distinguish between their proclivities and a more sober observation. If someone is a bhakta then by all means compose inspiring poems, the EBT are full of them. But then again when itâs convenient some followers say âThe Buddha was a scientist!â (especially in comparison to other denigrated religions), and when another convenience arises âDonât belittle Buddhism with your petty reductionist western science, itâs much grander than thatâ or âIt cannot be measured like thatâ. Well, didnât the Buddha use inference, deduction and induction?
Didnât he use metaphors from the science of agriculture (fields of meritâŠ) and medicine (poisoned arrow), physics (oil swimming on water), engineering (construction of a cart). Oh, but right, these were good sciences, non-colonial, nice genuine innocent Indian sciences. I guess in contrast literature sciences, or comparative religious studies, or neuro-physiology are per definition forbidden. In short, why complain about people who want to investigate Buddhism in their way - letâs see what it brings.