Tired of seeing the dumb ignorance and scientism (science as a dogma) that has assorted Indian "seculars" "rationalist" and jihadis ranting against "cow urine." So here is thread.
First some background. Many modern medicines are derived from traditional remedies.
1/n
First some background. Many modern medicines are derived from traditional remedies.
1/n
Traditional remedies are those who efficacy has been tested over generations via memetic selection.
Otoh, "Scientific knowledge" of today, especially in medicine, is often based on limited data-sets and time periods and is regularly overturned.
2/n
Otoh, "Scientific knowledge" of today, especially in medicine, is often based on limited data-sets and time periods and is regularly overturned.
2/n
Native traditions (not religions) are knowledge transmission systems, which are local, organic, and validated over time.
Modern Science is also a valid knowledge system. The problem happens when it is treated as the "exclusive" way of knowing, mirroring monotheisms.
3/n
Modern Science is also a valid knowledge system. The problem happens when it is treated as the "exclusive" way of knowing, mirroring monotheisms.
3/n
Now, it is possible for these systems to cross-pollinate. Many "modern" medicines are compounds, extracted and isolated from plants & other substances uses in native societies. And modern science can continue to study these remedies using its methods.
4/
nature.com/articles/nplan…
4/
nature.com/articles/nplan…
The question is what kind of approach is appropriate for a real scientist when encountering claims of traditional remedies. Three stances are possible:
1. A priori rejection
2. A priori acceptance with follow-up experimentation
3. Skepticism, until "scientific" validation.
5/
1. A priori rejection
2. A priori acceptance with follow-up experimentation
3. Skepticism, until "scientific" validation.
5/
(1)A priori rejection, is the most unscientific and dogmatic approach. It substitutes enquiry with pre-determined ignorance, and is the least utility for scientific advancement. It is closed-minded dogma, akin to religion.
This is the default stance of India's secular jihadis.
This is the default stance of India's secular jihadis.
A priori rejection has no scientific basis. Rather it is like the moron-avidya of the local bully, who dismisses with loud laughter rather than research. ("Ha ha, stupid people think ___ works" (substitute ___ with turmeric, or neem, or charcoal in toothpaste, or gau mutra...)
7/
7/
Traditional knowledge is often been seen to be later validated by science. TK accumulates in a process akin to natural selection. Thus (2) a priori acceptance, becomes a natural stance. A scientific mind than seeks to verify TK, leading to new discoveries and theories.
8/
8/
The choice of "moderns" for (3) Skepticism, until "scientific" validation, *for themselves* can be understandable. A healthy open-minded curious skepticism can still contribute to scientific progress, as long as it does not a priori seek to ban those who practise the TK.
9/
9/
Now, returning to gau mutra. The urine of the Indian cow Bos indicus has repeated mention as a significant remedy in both Ayurvedic texts as well as traditional practice across India. By its sheer widespread use, it would fall into the (2) category of respect, but validate.
10/
10/
But even for (3) stance, there is enough literature which scientifically validates gau mutra in various anti-microbial uses "comparable with standard drugs such as ofloxacin, cefpodoxime, and gentamycin, against a vast number of pathogenic bacteria."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
11/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
11/
Of course, the assorted "seculars" and jihadis could hardly read or comprehend scientific research. Science is like a Church to which they genuflect, and black knights storm out screaming "heresy" to behead pagan knowledge.
But gau mutra is a subject of particular derision.
12/
But gau mutra is a subject of particular derision.
12/
This derision is a result of multiple factors. Firstly, *because* Bos Indicus is revered by Hindus it is a source of Orientalist scorn as "superstition." Akin to how Pakistan jihadis slaughter a cow on an Indian flag to show supremacy over Hindus.
13/
13/
The second is Indian "convent educated" shame to talk of substances like urine. It embarrasses them as a sign of "backwardness" of their culture. No scientific enquiry is possible. And any knowledge awaits digestion and validation by the West.
14/
14/
Traditional remedies are natural, organic and integrated with the environment Gaumutra was extensively used in farming as a pesticide and fungicide till "modern" "developed" "scientific temperament" replaced it with chemical cancer-causing pesticides.
hindawi.com/journals/aag/2…
15/
hindawi.com/journals/aag/2…
15/
The hegemony of one kind of scientific methodology as "the" system of knowing has multiple problems. It privileges certain institutions and journals, it is expensive (isolating a chemical and patenting it drives more profit than a natural remedy.)
16/
16/
There is a web of institutions, journals and profit-driven entreprises, which is the authority on knowledge.
Traditional knowledge is local and cheap. One isolates and patents a chemical, then attacks its source as "superstition", to maximize profit.
n/n
Traditional knowledge is local and cheap. One isolates and patents a chemical, then attacks its source as "superstition", to maximize profit.
n/n
No, it’s something worth exploring. Would people be interested if I wrote a book on this? Will take some work to fully flesh this out.
WSJ article—cure for SARS brought new respect for Chinese Medicine.
It's main ingredient—cow urine.
But India gets mocked globally.
The difference? The Chinese are proud, project what they have. Indians are educated to hate it. So Indians mock it, rather than project globally.
It's main ingredient—cow urine.
But India gets mocked globally.
The difference? The Chinese are proud, project what they have. Indians are educated to hate it. So Indians mock it, rather than project globally.
