From: arun@sun14.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Arun Achyuthan)
Subject: On "Secularism and Science" by T. Jayaraman
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:41:28 GMT

I liked the article (though I disagree with some of the things
that the author says).

As I see it, the article tells:

1. How dangerous it is to direct the course of science through
   faith (conversely, it is equally dangerous to direct faith through
   science, though the author does not say that). Therefore it is
   not faith-vs-science. Also "directing" one with another has to be
   distinguished from "interpreting" one with the other. The former
   is dogmatic and the latter is philosophical. Also it is not an
   attack on Hinduism, but one one on making Hindusim fundamentalistic
   and redefining Hindutva to use religion for understanding a nation-
   state.

2. The author does not ridicule ancient Indian mathematics or in fact,
   the vedas. He merely points out how some zealots use the vedas to
   claim that "every thing about math is said there". In other words,
   claiming it to be the absolute. This itself is in contradiction
   with the spirit of vedas or the Hindu belief system. Therefore,
   while the author criticizes the teaching of "Vedic Math" using the
   "text book" written by the former Sankaracharya or Puri, citing 
   the unscientific way it has been written and has interpreted the vedas, the
   author does not say that ancient Indian math should not be taught,
   or that the pupils should not be made aware of the Indian mathematical
   heritage. In fact he says the book by Sanakaracharya is not of any
   use for the students of Indian mathematical history.

3. The other point that author touch upon, i.e., the unscientific
   way the excavations have been done at Ayodhya. I cannot assertively talk
   upon the merits of the archaeologists who claim about the existence of
   a temple (allued to in the article as "Kar Sevak" archaeologists), or those
   who accuse them of following unscientific practices. But I did read 
   a news item which talked about the evidence of further proof for
   the existence of a temple, using some artifacts that were taken
   from the site of the rubbled mosque. I found the argument quite
   unconvincing because (i) the material was collected during a major
   criminal operation where the press and the public who were opposed
   to the kar seva were physically prevented from entering the premises, 
   thereby lacking the accounts of a neutral witness
   (ii) the material was collected from among the rubble which was produced
   by a hysteric mob; so the material was not excavated scientifically.

Now a few "minor" minus points on the article:

1. The author says that the work of a scientist should be judged only by the
   criteria set by science and not bu criteria relating to their beliefs.
   Yet the author laments about an IIT Physicist who took part in the
   kar seva operation, and questioning his credentials as a scientist.

2. The talk on the decline of mathematical pursuit in Pakistan by highlighting
   the failure of students to seek admission to MIT is not convincing enough.

3. The use of the phrase "kar sevak archaeologists" to describe the
   proponents of the temple theory is in bad taste.

-Arun Achyuthan