Panini's grammar and Boolean logic
JSHARMA at Hermes.GC.PeachNet.EDU
Thu Oct 7 11:32:52 UTC 1993
> 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
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
> 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 !
More information about the INDOLOGY