Ayurveda

I went to an Ayurveda workshop at Living Yoga last weekend.  I spent the money mostly to have an excuse to socialize.  I was not all that interested in the subject, and am amazed at the belief people put into such obvious nonsense (bloodletting is a detoxification method for the Pitta dosa).  It did, however, work to help me socialize.

Ayurveda was introduced by the instructor as the "science of life."  Science, in this use, would relate to the study of something, not necessarily to scientific study.  That is, science in the -logy sense, where geology is the science of Earth systems, cosmology is the science of the universe, and theology is the science of religion.  Obviously, science is not the best translation of the Greek root.  It should be, rather, the study of the Earth, universe or religion, in the previous examples.  The translation from Sanskrit for Ayurveda would probably be better not as the study of life, but as the knowledge of life.  The Wikipedia translation defines it as "the complete knowledge for long life."  (The Wikipedia page seems like (I have not read it) a good summary of Ayurveda, and can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda, as a discussion of what Ayurveda is functionally, is out of the scope of this post.)  Even if the ancient Indians called Ayurveda science, it would not be science today.  Unfortunately, most people lack the understanding of the difference between that which is science, and that which is not to appreciate the difference.

People have a difficult time defining science, and there is not, to my knowledge, a definitive definition of satisfactory quality published by a respectable body, for example, the National Academies of Science.  In this vacuum of fact there is an overabundance of opinion to which, I add my own.  Science is a method to study a system strictly using the scientific method.  The scientific method is observation, question, hypothesis, test, observation.  A "scientist," who observes glaciers, but does little hypothesizing is a naturalist.  It is a noble pursuit to be a naturalist, and in fact, science would be better if those incapable of original thought stuck with naturalism, rather than "inventing" social significance, hypotheses and such to validate their research as science, but I digress.  For this rant, I will use my definition of science, and I encourage people to think about those things that claim to be science (naturalism, engineering, creationism, etc.) in this light, and see if the world makes more sense.  I would be grateful for any comments about how to improve my definition without adding complication.

Pursuits that are not science are not bothered with all the steps of the scientific method.  In the geosciences, it is common to see naturalists skip the hypothesis and test steps (observation, question, observation).  In every "pseudo-science" it is the test step that is wont to be skipped.  In Creationism, the method is something like answer, question, observation, answer (a dogma cannot really be a hypothesis because one believes it).  In Ayurveda, the method is observation, question, hypothesis, observation.  It is notable to point out that in all of these examples scholarly people are pursuing explanations for the world, the question here is one of rhetoric (defining science), and belief.

Belief is a plague in society.  Belief has its place.  Religion is nothing without belief, but love, trust and happiness are probably nothing without belief too.  The problem is that people believe (or not) in nearly everything.  Common beliefs in society are about trivial things ("I believe the meeting is at 09:00"), the functionality of a treatment ("I do not believe in chiropractic care" or "I believe in Ayurveda") or any number of similar ideas where thought, not belief, belongs.  Does the co-worker believe the meeting is at a given time, or do they think the meeting is at 09:00 based on their memory of a memo?  Does the person actually not believe in chiropractic care, or do they not think that it is not a useful treatment?  Should the person believe in Ayurveda?  Of course not!  Here is the test for the use of believe; can you replace what you believe in (or do not believe in) with a common object?  If you can, then you should think not believe.  Here are some examples.

"I believe the meeting is at 09:00."
Replace the meeting time with something else, say telephones.  You now have the statement, "I believe in telephones."  There is plenty of evidence for the existence of telephones, and there is also plenty of evidence for the meeting times.  There are also ways to test both the existence of telephones, and the time of the meeting.  Therefore, telephones is an appropriate substitution for the meeting time.  Thus, the statement should be, "I think the meeting is at 09:00."

"I do not believe in chiropractic care."
Replace chiropractic care with red cars to get, "I do not believe in red cars."  Can you test for the existence of red cars?  Yes.  Can you test for the existence of chiropractic care?  Yes.  Can you test the effectiveness of chiropractic care?  Again yes.  Red cars can substitute for chiropractic care in this statement.  Thus, the well spoken, rational person says, "I do not think chiropractic care is useful."  (Personally, I think chiropractic care is an effective treatment for certain ailments, as a note.)

"I believe in God."
Replace God with dogs.  Is there a test for the existence of dogs?  Yes.  Is there a test for the existence of God?  No.  Thus, dogs cannot substitute for God in this statement.  It follows that one can believe in God, or have faith in God, or what have you.  This is not to say that you cannot think that God does or does not exist, it is simply to say that one can believe in God without being a complete idiot for doing so (e.g. the guy who does not believe in red cars is a complete idiot).  In the case of deities, belief just indicates that you are out of the discussion.  I, for example, do not think that God (or any other omnipotent being) exists.  I would find it most enjoyable to have a discussion about this with someone who thinks such a being exists.  I do not (generally) mind hearing the thoughts of those who believe/do not believe in God, but I gain little from this because I will be swayed by thought, not feelings, opinions or ancient texts.

Back to Ayurveda and science.  The beauty of all these methods of describing the world is that the observation step is common to everything!  Creationists observe a beautiful, complex world, and seek explanations.  Naturalists observe a beautiful, complex world and seek to record and categorize it.  Ayurvedics observe a beautiful and complex world, and seek a path through it.  Scientists observe a beautiful and complex world, and seek understanding.  To focus on Ayurveda, Vatta people are generally thin, active and cold.  To be comfortable in life, they should give themselves warmth and eat regularly.  Maybe this is because they are Vatta, or it could be that there is a physiologic reason for this.  Either way, the observation that thin, active people are generally cold, and need to eat small meals regularly holds solid.

As for my Ayurvedic experience, I am tri-dosic, meaning that I am Pitta, Vatta and Kapha in nearly equal proportions.  Finding balance in my life is difficult owing to this.  I suppose I might be all three dosas, or it could be that it is difficult to develop a system that answers all of the questions of the human body based on three types of people who are controlled by the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and ether), and thus some people fit multiple dosas.

I gained several things from the workshop.  Most important, were invitations to two dinner parties.  Of lesser importance, was the knowledge of my own dosas.  As for Ayurveda, six hours of sitting on the floor gave me an increased appreciation of the observations that people of all belief systems can contribute to the combined knowledge of humans.  This dovetailed nicely with finishing the book Lost Discoveries as the author of that book attributes scientific discovery to ancient peoples.  After the workshop, I think the discoveries of most ancient peoples are made through insight, not science