Sabda Pramana for Science - The Nyayikas and Mimamsaks of Modern Day Science

For a layman, how can science be authoritative?

Few people today are in a position to investigate into the true nature of science. A layman is always a layman and most of them like to remain so. The question also arises when a scientist of different stream investigates about other streams (say a linguist about biology). What should he believe or better, whom should he believe? 

A better question would be, ‘is science based on verbal testimony?’ 

It eventually comes to verbal testimony, the first introduction to science comes to us by books and established courses of universities and schools. We cannot be much skeptical about them in our initial stage of learning. Afterward, this kind of learned verbal testimony takes a part of axioms which Mimasak would call ‘svatah pramanit’ or self-valid. ‘A point has no dimension’, ‘two parallel lines intersect at infinity’ etc. one cannot escape from verbal testimony, a better thing to do is to find trustworthy verbal testimony.

A scientist would never agree, for him science is empirical truths or facts discovered by a scientist and rendered into formulas. This is reminiscing of the claim that Veda is the compendium of empirical truths or facts seen by sages and rendered into mantras, again a Mimamsa viewpoint.

But there is another view, to explain their position on Shabda Paraman, Nyaya formulated the theory of ‘Word of Apta person’ or the words of a trustworthy person in the particular field in question. We often find the same argument with ‘scientific’ devotees. The cult of Tesla or of Einstein often takes up the monotheistic flavor just like the Nyayikas who eventually became a theistic Hindu school.

The mimasaka are not into human or superhuman. They never were. From the very beginning of prose part of Veda, the Hindu orthodoxy took up a very anti-theistic position. The Veda are eternal and just like the world are not created by some monster. Sabda Praman is not because of the character of Einstein et al which because of their human nature could be doubted but because of the theories itself.

Mimamsak Scientist would say, “Natural laws of science are eternal, the scientist just discovered them. The eternal laws could equally have manifested in mind of any john dick or harry. Such laws are then tested and validated by scrutiny. Unless falsified there is no reason to doubt the Sabda testimony of science.”

Nyayik Scientist would say, “Science can be learned from the appropriate person. The validity of the testimony of science rest on the validity of the scientist.”

What do you think is the better reason to believe in the verbal testimony of science?