Exactly.Lazy_eye wrote:I think it's a misleading comparison, because religion and science use fundamentally different paradigms for attaining knowledge.
The scientific method is a conflation of these three bases of knowledge (or pramanas). And because it is a conflation, it seems to have nothing to do with the traditional understanding of the pramanas.As Ñāṇa pointed out somewhere in this thread, the Pali Canon sets out various bases for knowledge: 1) scriptural authority and the authority of noble persons, 2) inference from accepted premises, 3) direct perception (for instance, by a meditator who develops special powers or insight). Notably, these three bases do not appear to include what we would call the scientific method.
In the philosophy of science, there is much criticism of the scientitic method; yet scientists and people who are into science usually pay very little heed to the philosophy of science.
It sure is.Maybe this is why we never get anywhere in these discussions. The "great rebirth debate" thread is essentially an arena for conflicting epistemologies.