Recently, I came across an article by a science outreach and engagement professional titled ‘The Fire in your belly’, which claims to understand “the role of Agni element in Ayurveda from the lens of modern science.”
I have been coming across claims of authentic Ayurvedic practices in verbal communication recently. I believe we should keep our eyes and ears open to claims of scientific theories, results, and methods rooted in the Indian/local context, not conforming to the standard, Europe-centric view of science. So I thought of illuminating myself.
I was disappointed.
The article, instead of doing anything close to understanding the role of the “fire element” in Ayurveda “from the lens of modern science,” lists hypotheses about this element and other “cosmic” elements that it claims constitute the universe. It does not even tell the reader what these elements mean. Are we talking about real fire? Is combustion happening? Are five cosmic elements enough to explain the complexity of the human body?
One never knows.
The scientific process requires one to examine claims with experiments, and if the claims do not match the results of the experiments, then throw them out of the window. Typically, scientists go about improving the claims because the results are not too far off from their initial hypothesis. (Revolutionary ideas, while less common, are plenty, Albert Einstein’s special relativity is an example.) For that, they need to define the claims concretely.
It is this definition where the claim about the five elements governing the function of the entire universe, including the human body, fails. It does not define what space/ether, wind/gas, fire, water, and earth — are in this context. The idea of five elements determining how the universe functions is so vague that the theory is not falsifiable: the litmus test of whether an idea is scientific.
(By the way, “modern science” has falsified the concept of ‘ether’; see special relativity.)
The article assumes that the reader is perfectly convinced about the veracity of such strange hypotheses. It then goes on to classify the “fire” element into three types and piles upon the reader’s agony with more claims and what they mean for the human body. After a point, it is clear that the writer has an agenda of spreading pseudoscience in the name of science.
Why did I write this instead of ignoring just another article propagating pseudoscience?
Because I believe professional science communicators should not shy away from discussions on what constitutes science. It is also their duty to explain the scientific process, and if claims that go against this process are peddled in the name of communicating science, they should dispel the myths.
Science engagement professionals should not propagate pseudoscience, and others, including “science communicators”, should not amplify them. Such practices are a great disservice to society and science.
Now, why would anyone try to justify vague claims in the name of science?
A science communicator offered an answer from a social science lens. Scientists and science communicators embrace criticism and go to great lengths to learn from them and improve their ideas. However, the original article’s author and friends dismissed the criticism without offering any concrete counter-argument, exposing their unscientific attitude.
What was the critic’s hypothesis?
According to the critic, the answer lies in studying what purpose such claims serve. They hypothesised that the act served the purpose of preserving the Brahmanical social order. By trying to paint unfounded claims with no basis in the modern scientific method as “scientific”, the claimant and their supporters aim to preserve the social hegemony of those belonging to the Brahmin caste in India, they said.
It is an established fact that people belonging to this privileged caste have traditionally gained from monopolising traditional “knowledge” that they claim to govern the universe and human life. So, to anyone who knows how the caste system works in India, the hypothesis fits the bill.
But any misgiving I had about the hypothesis is immediately erased by the article’s author and their friends — whose only concrete defence against the criticism are the two following falsified ideas:
- Natural sciences have nothing to do with the social sciences. Reality: They are interlinked.
- “Merit” works. Reality: Merit is a myth.
I rest my case.
Debdutta Paul 