I read some questions and answers on our meta site to get an idea on scientific speculation. But did not get the whole idea.

My current ideas are as follows:

  1. Any statement that completely belongs to science with no backup from scriptures.

  2. Or any statement from science that is under speculation with out any evidence or proof.

I feel that second one is more apt for scientific speculation. But not sure about the actual definition for our main site.

So, please provide a proper definition for science speculation.

If I wrote an valid scientific interpretation for a scriptural statement, then can it be a scientific speculation?

  • valid scientific interpretation Any example? Here is the meta post link
    – Mr_Green
    Dec 21 '20 at 7:29
  • hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/43683/… @Mr_Green
    – hanugm
    Dec 21 '20 at 7:37
  • The above question link seems off-topic to me. If you mean valid by making sense interpretation then that is clearly off-topic. (it might make sense to you and some but not to everyone)
    – Mr_Green
    Dec 21 '20 at 8:04
  • I mean, how can one say that it is invalid @Mr_Green because it is consistent with both science and scriptures! Although, if someone thinks that it is the wrong interpretation, but it is still a valid one right?
    – hanugm
    Dec 21 '20 at 8:09
  • Valid in the sense: allowed/possible interpretation...
    – hanugm
    Dec 21 '20 at 8:12
  • I agree with it but such interpretations could open doors to other possible interpretations of other stories/incidents that even you might not be comfortable with. It is not like you can't ask it on the internet - you can ask this anywhere (maybe other SEs) but not just here. It is better to respect such boundaries which define and keep the site goal-oriented and keep the community together.
    – Mr_Green
    Dec 21 '20 at 8:17
  • People often feel lost if any post of their post is off-topic here but they should just move on and ask it wherever it is possibly welcomed.
    – Mr_Green
    Dec 21 '20 at 8:18
  • @Mr_Greek yeah, I (partially) agree with it. But I feel, if it is not a good place to make such things, then there should be a closing mechanism, but scientific speculation may not be a correct tag. Else there should a strict guideline regarding it. So I asked this question
    – hanugm
    Dec 21 '20 at 8:25
  • IMO, it does fall under scientific speculation. Also, there is a strict guideline regarding this: hinduism.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic. if you mean strict guideline by something else, please explain.
    – Mr_Green
    Dec 21 '20 at 10:08
  • @Mr_Green In my example, why do you feel that the question is scientific speculation? I never asked for scientific interpretation, it is any valid scriptural interpretation. If you have issues with my answer, then it can be slightly agreeable.
    – hanugm
    Dec 21 '20 at 10:51
  • If I understand correctly, you need/welcoming all modern interpretations like the one you already provided in the question. First of all, this seems too broad here as this is welcoming all modern speculations of gurus (which could include different opinions - even scientific). And also, the answer post is clearly concluding the behavior of the physical nature of the bodies you specified - which is actually scientific speculation. I would have no problem if the question was like "What are the effects of Indra's sin?" or asking for particular gurus interpretation maybe or something similar.
    – Mr_Green
    Dec 21 '20 at 12:45
  • In other words, the answers you will get will be correlation of nature/behavior of bodies (science) with scriptural interpretations (speculations). I might be wrong but this what I sense.
    – Mr_Green
    Dec 21 '20 at 12:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .