Panini's grammar and Boolean logic

[JSHARMA]

> Date sent:      Thu, 07 Oct 93 10:52:54 BST
> Send reply to:  indology at liverpool.ac.uk
> From:           Dominik Wujastyk <D.Wujastyk at ucl.ac.uk>
> To:             Members of the list <indology at liverpool.ac.uk>
> Subject:        Re: Panini's grammar and Boolean logic

 
> Obviously I know what you mean, and what Briggs meant.  I wondered if
> anyone would take my statement as anything but a dry joke.

 The only thing that is obvious is what you wrote ...
  
> But similarly, given the way you state the "Newtonian Pyramid" idea I would
> certainly disagree.  This is sloppy use of language, pointing to sloppy
> thinking.

 Not any more sloppier than assuming Paninian grammer cannot be based 
on Boolean logic, without clearly stating why other than vague 
references to a percieved "climate". Not scholarly or scientific at 
all ... 

> It may not matter much in the larger scheme of things, since we
> can all guess what is meant.  But I am coming across a rapidly-increasing
> volume of "scientific fundamentalist" literature from India in which all
> sorts of crackpot claims are made for the existence of advanced scientific
> achievements in Vedic times. 
> In this climate of thought I think we must
> all take special responsibility for being clear about matters 
> concerning scientific priority, and history generally.

 What is absolute in science is method, a match between hypothesis 
and evidence; Scientific priority is value based and hence 
subjective. Therefore these statements are quite ad hominem, just as 
much as the claims they purport to debunk !       

J.B. Sharma
Gainesville College