THE METASCIENTIFIC OF SIDDHA SCIENCE IN IT’S LOGIC CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITIONS
Author: Dr.Arul Ananth1, BSMS., Dr. S.Victoria2. M.D.(S).,Dr. Sundhara raajan3. M.D.(S),Dr. Muthukumaran, Dr.Dhusiyanthan 4. BSMS.
1. PG Scholor, Department of NoiNaadal, Government Siddha Medical College, Palayamkottai.
2. Head Of the Department, Department of NoiNaadal, Government Siddha Medical College, Palayamkottai.
3. Lecturer, Department of NoiNaadal, Government Siddha Medical College, Palayamkottai.
4. PG Scholor, Department of NoiNaadal, Government Siddha Medical College, Palayamkottai.
Abstract:
The scientific methodology in Siddha systemic protocol has been elucidated as per the logistic analysis and has been differentiated from the existing comparable format. The protocol has been elucidated and been practiced in the treatise of the sufferings gave the drastic change. The differentiation of the opinion of our approach in getting meaning of the said verses has been evaluated according to the theory of the metascientificpercepted phrasal documentation of the Siddhars saying as per the logical analysis by the Agaththiyam.
Tags: MetaScience, Siddha, Logic, Alavai.
The study of metascience is going on all over the world, to evaluate the modern Science in it’s propagation of developing the revolution in the treatise of the Human diseases. The frontiers of the MetaScience(MS) is to get correlated with the systemic evaluation in the Individual Language, Which their Traditional (native) Science in their health management as well as the sociological compartments.
The word MS has been found by the past Seventy years. The MS is the universal collective components in their sociological perceptional concepts practiced in their daily to life. The Holy books of the individual religious and regional paraguations are some of the examples of the metascientific documentation. It’s a hectic way of analyzing the concept said the holy books. As we found The Holy it should be followed as per they said as the say of GOD.
As it stands, the volume offers what some may want to consider an outline of a textbook of the MS analogous to the sort of textbooks that we find in institutionally established disciplines such as classical, mechanics, Scientific and the like. This becomes important when assessing the book, especially since it addresses what can genuinely be regarded as an emergent discipline in philosophy. Schrenk’s decision1 of including some topics and not others carries the consequence of drawing the frontiers of the MS in one way and not in other ways. Indeed, problems about dispositions, counterfactuals, laws of nature, causation, and dispositional essentialism occupy their own place of construal of the MS. Talk of possible words appears in many places, andreferred to, or quoted, more than thirty times throughout the book, invites a general concern about how to draw disciplinary frontiers.
We can utilize it in this way, that the Issues about space and time, the metaphysics of pure and applied mathematics, and the ontology of structures of individuals do not occupy separate chapters in Schrenk’s arrangement of contents, even though they are metaphysical as well as scientifical problems that fall within the frontiers of the MS. This may be explained away by appealing to the always-restricted space for projects like this. Yet, it is worth noting the decisions made by the author when drawing disciplinary frontiers in one direction rather than in another.
According to Schrenk, the ontological framework of the MS encompasses a specific set of presuppositions underpinning scientific theorizing. Chapter 4, in particular, addresses the laws of nature. After providing an extensive revision of arguments concerning dispositions and counterfactuals in Chapters 2 and 3, respectively (where for something X to be disposed to do Y means that the following counterfactual holds: ‘‘If X is in the right sort of circumstances C, it would do Y’’), the author articulates a detailed exposition of the early and the sophisticated versions of the Hume–Mill–Lewis regularity account (Sections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively), Armstrong’s necessitation account (Section 4.4), Lange’s counterfactuals account (Section 4.5), and Maudlin’s conception of laws as the Fundamental (Section 4.6).
According to Christian soto. et. al.2 ,Letthe concept be briefly sketch the following distinction between three styles of MS, namely analytic MS, naturalized MS, and eliminativism about MS.
1. The first takes the MS to be akin to standard analyticmetaphysics.
This view is committed to the belief that philosophers working in this field should set forth the metaphysical foundations that make science possible, postulating an array of metaphysical posits rounding out scientific ontology.
2. The second style, that is, naturalized MS, seeks to distinguish between the MS project and standard analytic metaphysics.
It contending that the former, though not the latter, is a form of science-based metaphysical practice working hand in hand with our current best scientific theories in specific domains. Naturalized MS is restricted to looking into those metaphysical assumptions and presuppositions that are involved in scientific theorizing and does not conceive its enterprise as that of continuing scientific ontology by other nonscientific means.
3. The third style is eliminativism about the MS, which claims that no metaphysics is required in our philosophical examination of science.
Eliminativism can be applied to various ontological concerns, viz. it may argue that we do not need laws in order to account for scientific practice, or that causation is just an epistemic device we employ in order to represent the world in a causal manner, and so forth.
Here thence it is compared to the MS and its logical analysis said in Siddha system of analytical science said in the Siddha Frontiers such as KaivalliyaNavaneetham. It discloses about the meta scientific approach of the evolutionary concepts of the universe.
The three concepts told by Kaivalliyanar in his catepillarised perceptive terminologies as Alavai and it’s constitutional types of perception.
The LOGIC science of Siddha is disclosed by the Tenfold Piramaannams (terminologies), which were under the concisedThree terminologies as,
1. Pirathiyatcham(KaandalPiramaannam)- Observation and Experimentation
2. Anumaanam(KaruthalPiramaannam) - Inference
3. Aagamam(UraiPiramaannam) - Testimony or Authority
1. PIRATHIYATCHAM (Direct perception):
Pirathiyatchamis the first typing of logic which disintegrates the indirectional perceptional observation. It is the direct and correct perception and correct perception of things without doubt and mistake and without the sense of differentiation.
The Direct perception or PirathiyatchamPiramaannam is classified into four kinds of perception in made direct.
1. External senses (IndhiriyaKaatchi).
2. Internal senses (MaanadhaKaatchi).
3. Painful pleasure senses (VeadhanaiKaatchi).
4. Seership or Yogic sejnses (IyoghaKaatchi).
1. EXTERNAL SENSES (IndhiriyaKaatchi):
The Indhiriyakaatchi arouse when the soul’s intelligence coming contact with light and perspiration precieves correctly form, sound, etc without being misled by difference or similarity.
2. INTERNAL SENSES (MaanadhaKaatchi):
The MaanadhaKaatchi arises after the IndhiriyaKaatchi(External senses), a mental impression is produced freed from doubt and mistake, involving the operations of retention and reflection and the sense of difference and similarity.
3. PAINFUL PLEASURE SENSES (VeadhanaiKaatchi):
The VeadhanaiKaatchi (Painful pleasure sense )arises after the external and the internal sensations that can give pleasure as well as Pain in order to get the perception in that feelingness, giving the perceptive sense.
4. SEERSHIP OR YOGIC SENSES (IyoghaKaatchi):
The IyogaKaatchi arises the perception that made things to be in the same manner for a prolong time in the state after the VeadhanaiKaatchi (Painful pleasure sense). It leads to the perception of the body and soul towards the eternity.
2. ANUMAANAM (Direct Inference):
Anumaanam is the second typing to infer things hidden from certain data by knowledge of their inseperable conjunction by succession or coexistence.
The Anumaanapiramaanam has Five invariable concomitants floaing form the basicof SuvathaAnumaanam (Inference for oneself) and PararthaAnumaanam(Inference for others). They are five kinds, and they been defined about their aspect with an example: Fragrance.
1. PIRATHIGNJAI(Qoute): - Flowers have fragrance.
2. YETHU(Reason): - Cause of fragrance.
3. THIRUKTAANTHAM (Instance): - All Flowers have a fragrance.
4. UPANAYAM (Comparison): - Feeling different types of fragrance.
5. NIGAMANAM (Conclusion): - Concluding the flower with itsfragrance.
By the Logic of Pirathiyatcham(perception) the Anumaanam(Inference) has three kinds of,
1. POORVA DHARSANA ANUMAANAM (Recognize): - Recognized Inference
3. AAGAMAM:
Aagamam is to be told as Urai that will guide us to the knowledge of things unattainable by the forgoing two Piramaannams. It is the holy presentations of the formers that has to getfold in eight directional perceptions and was in the hardword documental phrases and they will be inturn non-detail formats.
The Aagamam Logic is the third typing which has the three kinds where they have been indesiding contemporary phrasing by threefold kinds.
1. MAN THIRAM (Way of Dignity).
2. THAN THIRAM (Way of Discipline).
3. UPA DESAM (Way of Decorum).
References:
1. Schrenk: Metaphysics of science: a systematic and historical introduction. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2017.
2. Cristian Soto,Departamento de Filosofı ´a, Universidad de Chile, Av. Capita ´n Ignacio Carrera Pinto, 1025 N ˜un ˜oa, RM, Chile march 2017).
3. Kaivalliyanar, KaivalliyaNavaneetham, Gardian press, Madras, 1870
4. Uththamaraayan.C.S.,Directorate of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy. 1978
5. Deva AasirvaathamSamuel.Dr.,Directorate of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy.