Movement Inc. Official Home Page
Here's how a conversation about these things goes:
Person A: It makes no sense that the Indian team won't train during an eclipse or during an inauspicious time.
Person B: That may be. But maybe there was sense to it when it was being practiced? Maybe the context or evidence for why an inauspicious hour or not going out during an eclipse exists but we just lost the evidence?
Person A: Sure there is always going to be uncertainty over why we did what we did. But knowing what we know, does it make sense. And what are the odds that we had an advanced framework for solving scientific problems that extended for centuries but lost all the evidence we compiled for making the choices we made?
Person B: The Brits and Mughals pillaged and destroyed everything.
Person A: But if the evidence was self-evident and sound and scientific reasoning was clear, why wouldn't the Brits and Mughals have adopted it? Much like ideas in math, science, astronomy and trade were clearly exchanged all through history between major civilizations?
Person B: Indigenous systems would have threatened the very foundations of their civilizations and what they were building.
Person A: But if it was such a threat and the ideas were so robust, why were they so easy to destroy or lose? The durability of ideas and their capacity to endure is a function of how deep our understanding is. If we don't understand something, practicing it and justifying the practice by saying if my ancestors did it, they must have had good reason and evidence for it is intellectually lazy.
Person B: You have a colonial hangover.
Person A: Cheers to that (clinking sounds of glasses of Indian Single Malt).