[Buddha-l] RE: Problems with karma

[curt]

Bob Zeuschner wrote:
> .... 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.
>
I think that verifiability is a great thing - but not all claims include 
the claim that they are rigorously testable - thus the common phrase 
"your mileage may vary". I certainly think that anyone who claims about 
karma something like "poor people are poor because of bad karma from 
previous lives" should have their feet held to the fire until they 
either produce some evidence or recant. But even Newton's laws do not 
explain everything, so why should "karma" be required to do so? In 
physics people like to focus on the easy stuff - which generally means 
anything that can be modeled with a nice simple linear model. But lots 
of things are non-linear, and non-linearity entails the possibility that 
you can have a very good model that has no predictive power. This can 
happen, for example, because it takes as long to run the model as it 
does to just sit and watch what happens "in reality". Even worse is the 
case where a non-linear model has "sensitive dependence on initial 
conditions" in which case it has NO predictive power - at least not in 
any quantitative sense.

Basically what I am saying is that physics cannot tell me with any 
certainty whether or not it is going to be raining in Indianapolis at 
5:45 pm on the first Tuesday of August of next year - and yet this does 
not mean we must reject physics. People cause suffering to themselves 
and others by their actions. In many cases this can be observed directly 
and even reproducibly. That is the "F = ma" of karma. Working out the 
details is not only much more difficult, but potentially impossible. For 
mere mortals.

- Curt