[Buddha-l] RE: Problems with karma

[Bob Zeuschner]

curt wrote:
> Bob Zeuschner wrote:
>> I teach karma as an important part of early Buddhism, but I personally 
>> do not consider it essential to Buddhist philosophy or Buddhist ethics.
>> It just seems to be wishful pre-scientific thinking.
>>
> Out of curiosity, approximately when (and perhaps where), in your 
> opinion, does the transition from "pre-scientific" to "scientific" 
> thinking occur?

Well, it is pretty clear to me that the transition process is still 
going on, with many people in the world accepting religious authority 
(scripture, lamas) as evidence.
I would include our current president of the US as belonging to the 
pre-scientific mind-set.

However, there are a cluster of traits which distinguish scientific 
explanations from religious claims (like karma and rebirth).
Generally in science, this cluster of traits typical of a best 
explanation would include:
Testability (predictability, falsifiablility), simplicity, fruitfulness, 
conservatism.
If a theory helps to predict future events, that is a powerful tool.
If a theory coheres well with most of the other things we think we know 
about the world, that lends support.
If a theory is simpler than its rivals, demands fewer assumptions or 
auxilary hypotheses, then this is a virtue.
If a theory leads to new insights or discoveries, that is a point in its 
favor.


The reason karma is such a popular explanation is that no possible 
outcome is ruled out; no possible observation could ever be counted 
against the claim.
But, this is precisely the problem. An explanation/theory which is 
compatible with any outcome whatsoever, explains nothing.
It makes no predictions such that, if such-and-such were observed, the 
theory would be considered false.
This is not a strength. This makes karma unfalsifiable, not empirical, 
and therefore not explaining anything in the world.

Bob