Nothing in the link above brings out his “rightie” agenda. Oh wait, he has a beard…
Hmm… leftie nutjob, maybe?
Oh, and BTW just as point of information Bhaskara is nowhere near “ancient Vedic”; he’s of the 1100s, a time of very high advances in math and astronomy in India and Persia, way ahead of their European contemporaries.
Obviously the Indians were stealing from The Method of Mechanical Theorems by Archimedes.
India certainly contributed great advancements in science and technology. But - in my opinion - what stands out as India’s single most exemplary achievement was the foundational work in linguistics, which laid the foundation for the development of complex, rule-based grammar, and had no known equivalent in any civilization, up until the 20th century.
Panini’sseminal work, the Ashtadhyayi, laid the foundation for modern linguistics, and heavily influenced later European developments. Panini was the greatest genius who ever lived, again IMO.
It is sad that Western science will not pay greater homage to this genius. There is a general cultural pattern of the West downplaying or entirely negating the achievements of ancient civilizations. Part of it is just ignorance, but the British did have a stated policy of destroying Indian traditional knowledge systems, so malintent is there, too.
Unfortunately can’t connect to your link.
interesting so are you saying that ancient indian science is better then modern science that developed from the west
Noooooo.
He most certainly is not. Beyond the fact that he’s only talking about one tiny branch of scientific inquiry (linguistics) which, no offense to linguists, is quite a bit further down the scale than biology, let alone chemistry, physics, and mathematics… Modern linguistics has gone far beyond ancient Indian linguistics. I really don’t understand where you’re coming from here. If the science from ancient India even came close to the modern science in the west, don’t you think you’d have more evidence of a far more advanced civilization? Things like electronics, nuclear weapons or power, metalworking, sanitation, a working understanding of how disease works… The question is just straight-up asinine. I don’t know how else to put it.
No.
See, that statement you have been bouncing around since the OP is where the problem isl. The comparative “better” in this sentence or “superior” in the thread title are meaningless when applied to the two concepts being paired. Indian science at many different points in history HAS been at a higher development than that same time’s Western science, and this is not (cannot be) contested. How commonly understood that it outside India is a different matter, Hell, some Western cultures often don’t recognize the advancements of other Western cultures. But that the science in the times of the Maurya, or the Chola, can be somehow be demonstrated to be “better” than the science of the 21st Century (of which Indian scholars ARE a major part), what can that even mean?
(Piece of trivia: in English, our numeral system is called “arabic”; in Spanish, Portuguese and I believe Italian, it’s “indoarábico” – recognizing that it’s just the Arabic version of something that’s originally Indian)
what do you guys think
I think you should read and respond to what other posters have said.
I think a 7 year old news report without significant evidence isn’t very important.
I think you are not interested in a discussion.
Pretty sure this predates The Lost Symbol…
http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?p=9942&sid=003421f61b30db51c0bdb10b2272e1f0
Do not agree for multiple reasons. So the development of linguistics is, to you, inferior to other branches of observational knowledge, such as biology and chemistry? If it is your personal opinion, I do not contest, otherwise I’d have to say you are pretty much wrong here. Modern linguistics, deriving heavily from Panini’s work, and with later European additions from Emil Post and other luminaries, enabled the development of computational science, without which we could not have made so much progress in other branches of science.
What are you driving at - that 2000 years ago India did not have mobile phones and that proves ancient India’s technological achievements are overstated? And we needed to have nuclear warheads too? :eek:
And *sanitation? *This is hilarious. Ancient Indians and Chinese had innovative drainage, sanitation, and irrigation works. It was Europe that was the shithole of the world at that time. It took the Black Death to get Europeans to believe in hygiene.
Budget Player Cadet may have reacted to how thanatic is claiming that Ancient and Classical Indian sciences are somehow “superior” or “better” than “modern Western-based science” in far from the finest possible way – we know those modern practical applications are not really signs of fundamental superiority either. Now, let’s be clear, the relativity equations are the relativity equations and were they to be found in Ancient/Classical Indian texts I’d be excited about it. But while it’s just a reality that Classical Indian sciences were far advanced over what passed for science in the West for a long time, the question remains, does that convey any *essential superiority *vis-a-vis the western moderns? I don’t believe so.
Infinite series mathematics is not “Calculus.” Without the concept of infinitesimals and limits, it doesn’t even come close. This is only knowing that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 … = 1. It’s a damn fine thing to know, but it isn’t Newton or Leibniz.
And…infinite series were known in Europe around the same time: you have to be able to sum an infinite series to calculate the odds at craps. (An awful lot of European math came from gambling.)
Fair enough. I may have underestimated the impact of linguistics on modern science. However, again, we have that leap, much like in calculus, from “here is this cool thing” to “here is an application for that cool thing which benefits humankind greatly”. Which didn’t happen back then, for various reasons. Again, we’re not comparing ancient Indian science with ancient western science, we’re comparing it with modern western science, a standard which is damn hard to beat.
Noooo, I’m saying that because 2000 years ago, India did not have anywhere near the grasp of electricity, of modern physics, of medicine, of engineering, et cetera that we have right now, it is not superior to modern western science. This thread is incredibly silly, because the OP is asking a question where the real answer is “No, that’s ridiculous”.
Was ancient Indian sanitation notably better than modern Indian sanitation? I sincerely doubt that it measures up to modern western sanitation. Do you know why I doubt that? Because that’s an impossible standard.
Alties often tell us that ancient Indian/Chinese/stone age civilizations knew a lot more about health than mainstream We$tern medicine. Which is in part true.
They certainly knew a lot more about dying prematurely.
My father extols the virtues of Ayurvedic chakra healing from time to time. I have yet to be convinced that it’s anything more than faith healing wrapped in an esoteric package.