Essay:“Those who have knowledge don’t predict. Those who predict don’t have knowledge" (Lao Tzu)

“Those who have knowledge don’t predict. Those who predict don’t have knowledge’ (Lao Tzu). Here I evaluate the paradigm in relation to specific areas of knowledge.

When we examine the ways of knowledge generation, validation and assimilation across specific areas of knowledge we observe that the means of discovery can have different paths. Natural science follows a process of the empirical method where observation of a set of phenomena leads to the postulation of a theory. The theory itself leads to a set of predictions that are then put to test through experiments by the community of scientists that sets out to prove or disprove the theory through experimental evidence. Natural science would not have become an important cornerstone of human knowledge and progress if it did not have prediction at the core of its method.

Similarly, indigenous knowledge that has been accumulated over centuries of observed phenomenon like treatment of an ailment through natural remedies does not have the scientific knowledge of the ‘why’. However, through shared knowledge it is able to alleviate the human condition through the use of prediction.

On the other hand, however, astrologers and palm readers make predictions but their knowledge when put through the test of the ‘scientific method’ will fail. The same can be said about Nostradamus’ predictions and many of the theological and mythological predictions in various scriptures.

Therefore, it is a complex question.

Many of the great discoveries in natural sciences, most famously in theoretical physics, were based on imagined predictions and then worked towards propounding a theory, or body of knowledge that could be put to the scientific test. Conversely, mankind has a body of ‘knowledge’ especially in the areas of mythology and theology that make predictions but that does not lead to furthering understanding or knowledge or stand the test of empirical evidence.

Thus we must investigate the areas of knowledge, how they make predictions and gather and report evidence, one way of the other, whether the statement is heuristically valid. We must also report our impression of the philosophical aspect of the statement – those who predict may have insufficient, and not inadequate, knowledge and through predictions they are pushing the boundary conditions of discovery.

Natural sciences are founded on shared knowledge that has been developed and assimilated over centuries of collaboration amongst, often highly dispersed, group of discoverers and researchers who put each other’s predictions to test and discover the ‘temporary’ truth.

These predictions have motivated new investigations and new ways of thinking. As an example, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity predicted that light must bend near large celestial masses like the sun. This is because mass causes the spacetime curvature which is felt as gravity.

This prediction drew the interest of an English astronomer, Arthur Eddington who took advantage of a solar eclipse in 1919 to set up an experiment. He postulated that if ‘gravitational lens’1 effect was indeed true, as predicted by Einstein’s theory, then some known stars, that would be in the line of sight of the observer but blocked by the sun should be visible as their light would bend around the sun and reach the observer. Of course, the solar eclipse was helpful in blocking out the glare to aid the experiment. As predicted, the star was visible and found displaced by the exact distance that was predicted by Einstein’s theory. This led to a revolution in astronomy and new discoveries like ‘red shift’ or the change in the color of light when passing near a massive object in space. A more accurate picture of the cosmos can now be built on the basis of Einstein’s predictions.

Natural sciences, following the deductive method, through experiment and evidence create new knowledge based on predictions. This is indeed a laudable triumph of mankind in using prediction-based knowledge to create new, and often unrelated, new discoveries.

Thinkers have also proposed another way of knowledge discovery – the inductive process. In this process a theory is treated as the prevailing truth until it is proven otherwise. Thus, scientists should spend their energies on disproving their theories rather than proving it.

In my culture, in India, the healing powers of turmeric* have been used for centuries, indeed millennia, through indigenous medicinal systems commonly known as Ayurveda**. Even today, in remote villages in India, turmeric paste is applied to a wound to prevent infection and quicken healing. Turmeric powder mixed with milk is a ‘home remedy’ that grandmothers will insist on if the child has a mild infection.

Much of rural India doesn’t brush their teeth with dental paste and toothbrush – they chew sticks cut from the neem* tree. These are examples of indigenous knowledge developed inductively and passed down through the generations.

This knowledge system does not conform to a deductive science method but indeed the prediction that such remedies will offer relief or cure leads to the ‘why’ and discovery of the chemical nature of these herbs, finding molecules that can fight and resist diseases. Even native knowledge makes predictions, through an inductive process.

This knowledge and prediction model served us well enough before the scientific revolution and we should use, and expand, this wealth of indigenous knowledge through the application of natural sciences instead of discarding it.

It was a moment of triumph for Indian indigenous knowledge when US patents office withdrew the claim by two US scientists that they were the first to discover the healing powers of turmeric.

Faith and theology based knowledge systems present us with the other end of the question. Abrahamic religions are based on certain immutable truths contained in their holy books namely the The Quran, The Bible and the Old Testament. In other religions like Hinduism, the system is based on an orally communicated code, mythological stories and rituals that are metaphors for the prescribed religious code. Over time these faiths have evolved into beacons of ‘absolute knowledge’. While these knowledge systems propose the concepts of heaven and hell or even a personal and social conduct that

defines ‘believers’ they result in ‘static knowledge’ they don’t allow room for challenging the norm, making predictions beyond those already contained in the codified rules. For example, the question of evolution, which is a scientific theory and treated as a fact, or even a tautological truth*, is in conflict with the idea of the ‘Garden of Eden and the Forbidden Fruit’ or the fable of ‘The Ark of Noah’. The guardians of this article of faith summarily reject a debate or engage in prediction-based enquiry. If indeed these stories were true, the world should have ended up quite differently.

For example, geologists calculated that if all of water on earth evaporated, and condensed at the same time uniformly, it would cover the earth by 0 to 70 mm. If the great flood did indeed happen then Noah’s Ark would be in pretty shallow waters. Creationists, since they claim absolute knowledge, reject this prediction on the ground that science has an inherent bias against the supernatural.

Renowned philosopher Karl Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory: "I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological' ... I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation."

From the creation-evolution debate above I would like to deduce that those who claim absolute knowledge, for example the scriptures, don’t predict. They treat the theological knowledge as indisputable and hence not worthy of predictions. Thus those who have knowledge don’t predict – the second part of the question – leads us to static and blind acceptance of faith-based knowledge, which is detrimental to the progress of human knowledge.

Coming to the philosophical aspect of the question. Perhaps, Lao Tzu is being euphemistic – what he really wants us to question is: only those who are thirsty for knowledge make predictions, invite other knowledge seekers to prove or disprove the predictions, and in the process create new knowledge. Thus, they have delved deep into their chosen area of knowledge, have reached the boundary of the knowledge - or in the words of Lao Tzu: “don’t have knowledge” - are forced to make predictions to explore the next frontier.

On the other hand, those who have absolute knowledge, like the creationists, do not entertain the idea of enquiry of assumptions and predictions.

Lao Tzu perhaps wants us to understand the deep meaning behind this quote. Here I draw a parallel with the Socratic method* of debate where Socrates is believed to have said – “I am the wisest man alive. And there is one thing I know and that is that I know nothing”.

Indeed, those who predict are wise because they know that they have insufficient knowledge. They try to predict where the next fountain of knowledge may be found.

References: Gravitational lensing works in an analogous way and is an effect of Einstein's theory of general relativity – simply put, mass bends light. Source - https://www.cfhtlens.org/public/whatgravitational-lensing

Turmeric and especially its most active compound curcumin have many scientifically proven health benefits, such as the potential to prevent heart disease, Alzheimer's and cancer. It's a potent anti-inflammatory and antioxidant and may also help improve symptoms of depression and arthritis. Source: Healthline (evidence based):US patent office withdraws patent on Indian herb. Source: Nature: International Journal of Science.

https://discovermagazine.com/2015/april/12-putting-relativity-to-the-test

https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html

Ayurveda is one of the world’s oldest medical systems. It originated in India more than 3,000 years ago and remains one of the country’s traditional health care systems. India’s government and other institutes, throughout the world, support clinical and laboratory research on Ayurvedic medicine, within the context of the Eastern belief system. Source:

https://nccih.nih.gov/health/ayurveda/introduction.htm

Azadirachta indica, commonly known as neem, nimtree or Indian lilac, is a tree in the mahogany family Meliaceae. It is one of two species in the genus Azadirachta, and is native to the Indian subcontinent, i.e. India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Maldives.

Johnson, Phillip E. (1998) [Originally published 1995]. Reason in the Balance: The CaseAgainst Naturalism in Science, Law & Education. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1929-0. LCCN 95012620. OCLC 705966918.

The Socratic method, also known as maieutics method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions.

Bibliography:

Rajamanickam, Subapriya & Siddavaram, Nagini. (2005). Medicinal Properties of Neem Leaves: A Review. Current medicinal chemistry. Anti-cancer agents. 5. 149-6.10.2174/1568011053174828.

Hewlings, S. J., & Kalman, D. S. (2017). Curcumin: A Review of Its Effects on Human Health. Foods, 6(10), 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6100092

Chitre, S. M., Saslaw, William C. Diagnostic properties of moving gravitational lenses Nature, 1989/09/07/online. Nature Publishing Group https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/341038a0

10.1038/341038a0