It is useful in the social sciences to clarify your hypothesis/hypotheses prior to a study. Following this point as a guide to methodology, I will list out the hypotheses I am studying. (Update (July 29, 2:25 PM)): I have decided not to publish the actual hypotheses being used to prevent people from gaming the system. Instead, I have sent in my set of hypotheses to two professors. This is the usual methodology for the social sciences).
One of the main hypothesis in the theory of Hinduism I outlined earlier ("The End of History and the Last Hindu") is that Hindus after the Age of Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution fundamentally different from the Hindus before them. A theory is only useful insofar as it has predictive power.
This leads us to directly to a prediction of the theory : the ideas proposed by the Alternate School scholars of Hinduism (Wendy Doniger and Paul Courtright) are likely to be rejected by the majority of Hindus. This is for the following reason :
- Wendy Doniger and Paul Courtright study the writings of Hindus prior to the Age of Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution and make predictions about Hindus today. This is bad methodology. According to this theory, the ideas proposed by the Alternate School scholars of Hinduism will be rejected by most post-Enlightenment Hindus.
Now, If you think are a 'Rich Scholar' of Hinduism, but have your name listed here as a 'Poor Scholar' (Wendy Doniger & Paul Courtright), I have three tasks for you:
- Solve the puzzle I had posted in my previous post and send me the solution.
- Take a look at Krishnan Shankar's research agenda and summarize in your own words how long it would take you to start taking a shot at solving the mathematical problems there.
- tell me how much you made last year. No, just kidding. Just tell me how much you think the people who talked about the link between Hinduism as a religion (and this is important) and sex made by way of income and if they had incentives to project it that way.
Update (August 6): Changed the name of the hypothesis to the "Rich Scholar/Poor Scholar" hypothesis. Added some supporting text. Personally, I am just surprised that anybody would think of sex as anything other than an act of biology. Exchange of fluids between individuals, flow of hormones, et cetera. Nothing to do with religion, folks (and this, of course, follows Kant's reduction of religion to morality). Nothing at all.
What does sex have to do with it?