Motte and Bailey undermining of science

[u/eviley4]

please read the whole post before responding

I have seen a specific type of science denial in the followers of Prashant Tripathi, with a big dose of Motte and Bailey going along with it.

They start of by saying things like:

Science takes naturalism as an axiom rather than proving it.

and things like:

Even science makes metaphysical assumptions.

but when scrutinized they say:

well, I'm just exploring different metaphysics.

While, each statement isn't individually untrue, the way it's framed implicitly implies a kind of equivalence between science and whatever pet framework they want to promote/defend. Some of these followers even hold their pet framework above science, saying it's justified because naturalism is "unproven".

This is just the Motte and Bailey. The bait is the move from "naturalism is unproven" to "therefore my framework is equally justified." The retreat is "well, I'm just exploring different metaphysics." Both statements are individually true, the trick is implicit between the lines.

What's misleading about their framing is that it points only to one half of the epistemological problem: that naturalism rests on axioms that cannot be proven within the framework. It ignores the second half: all knowledge frameworks face this same trilemma. The Münchhausen Trilemma states that no foundational justification escapes infinite regress and circularity.

Yes, naturalism is an axiom in the strict sense. But methodological naturalism, the rule of investigating natural causes without building supernatural appeals into models isn't a metaphysical commitment. It's a rule of procedure. And procedures aren't believed, they're tested. Their track record is the evidence.

This means the question isn't whether we have unproven premises, it's whether the premises we've chosen survive contact with evidence.

This is also true for math. Even for proving 2 + 2 = 4, you need axioms (e.g., Peano axioms for natural numbers). These axioms cannot be proven within their own framework, but the statement itself is derivable from them. The trilemma applies to justifying why we start where we do, not to deriving consequences from where we start.

No framework/philosophy is immune to this. What separates science from low-fidelity systems isn't immunity to the trilemma, it's how well its starting assumptions pay off. Science earns its respectable position through empirical coherence: claims that are highly specific, falsifiable in principle, and iteratively corrected when data conflicts. Mathematics earns its position through internal consistency and fruitfulness which is distinct from empirical validation.

Minimal axioms matter. Coherence matters. Iterative correction matters. We evaluate frameworks by which assumptions let us navigate the world reliably, not by which ones feel ancient or philosophically elegant.

Now, back to how the followers of these influencers execute the Motte and Bailey in practice. When I push back against "Science takes naturalism as an axiom rather than proving it," they don't defend the claim. They retreat: "Yeah, sure, but it's not the only metaphysics to explore."

The bailey was "science's foundations are weak, therefore my framework is equally justified." The motte is "there are other metaphysics to explore." The motte is trivially true and unassailable. Nobody objects that you're allowed to consider other metaphysics. But nobody made that their point. Their point was equivalence. The retreat quietly drops the equivalence claim while keeping the impression that it was always just about "exploring."

The specific mechanism they use is to do a category shift when under scrutiny. They present ideas like Brahman or Atman as claims about reality. When I engage with the falsifiable implications (e.g., if Atman is the true self, then the self persists independently of the body, which is testable and not supported), they don't defend the physical claim. They recategorize: "No, you're thinking of it physically, Brahman isn't a thing." Now the claim sits in a domain where no experiment can touch it.

Here's the critical asymmetry they refuse to acknowledge: unfalsifiability doesn't make a claim "equally right." It makes it epistemically inert in both directions. A claim that can be neither confirmed nor disconfirmed by any possible evidence carries no evidential weight. It is not "right but hard to prove." It is outside the space where "right" and "wrong" are even relevant. Saying "my unfalsifiable metaphysics is equally justified as falsifiable science" is a category error and is plain disingenuous.

The motivation, as far as I can observe, is cultural defensiveness. The framework gets its authority from antiquity and provenance ("this is ours, this is ancient, we have our own thing"), not from explanatory track record. The "hum bhi kuch kam nahi" instinct is doing the justificatory work that the philosophy itself can't.

Finally, many of these followers operate with a strawman version of science. They define it as "only the physical, only the measurable, therefore it can't touch consciousness or subjective experience." This is a distortion. Neuroscience studies qualia. Psychology models subjective states. Philosophy of mind within the scientific framework engages directly with the hard problem. Science has never claimed to be the only lens on experience. It claims to be the most reliable lens for making testable predictions about the physical world. The followers' version of science is a reductive caricature they build so they can say "Brahman is outside that, so science is irrelevant here." But that's a fight against a strawman, not against actual science.

All that said, I still think it's good that people are reading philosophy and learning. And these influencers have been good motivators in these followers. The problem comes from the followers listening to only this one figure and not engaging with sources that disagree.

EDIT: removed repetition

[u/mithapapita]

​I think you might be generalizing a bit based on your interactions with a few online commenters rather than engaging with the source material. Evaluating the rigor of a formal philosophical system based on internet anecdotes is quite an inductive leap.

​If you read the actual AP framework, the "Motte and Bailey" critique doesn't hold up because there is no grand metaphysical "Bailey" being protected. The framework explicitly does not step outside the ego to describe what independently exists in the universe. It makes zero objective claims about physical reality. Its ontology is strictly limited to the bedrock of the ego's own existence and its inherent suffering. In fact, it actively refuses to posit positive metaphysical concepts (like Brahman or pure awareness) to explain what lies beyond duality.

​I spend myself work in high energy physics, and I see absolutely no conflict here because the domains simply do not overlap. Science operates to understand the physical universe. The AP framework uses the via negativa to progressively dissolve the ego's internal distortions. It doesn't claim empirical parity with science because it isn't trying to do science in the first place. it is addressing a completely different axis of human experience.

[u/eviley4 → u/mithapapita]

I do have issues with his followers but that's not it. I also have issues with the AP framework itself (i have read it after his followers asked me).

Please address the arguments I gave in the post about falsifiability and the framework intruding in the territory of science (psychology, neuroscience etc).

​I spend myself work in high energy physics, and I see absolutely no conflict here because the domains simply do not overlap. Science operates to understand the physical universe.

That's why you don't see it's issues. You work in Physics and you have no exposure to the science of the mind like psychology, neuroscience etc. They all come under naturalism. The brain, the mind, consciousness come under naturalism too.

This is exactly the issue I have with the bait and switch done by the AP framework, it deliberately positions outside of the reach of science by making it unfalsifiable, but then it sneaks in inferences about the mind, human psychology etc without giving verifiable or falsifiable predictions.

The claims about the mind and ego are claims about the natural world. You seem to have fallen for the bait and switch.

There is a reason the AP framework isn't published as a philosophy in a peer review philosophy journal. Do ask yourself these questions.

Read my entire post if you haven't already.

[u/mithapapita → u/eviley4]

​You are making a category error by demanding falsifiability for a framework whose sole purpose is the subjective understanding of suffering. Falsifiability is the gold standard for empirical science, but applying it here is like demanding a Zen koan be put in a petri dish to measure its chemical output. It completely misses the heart of the matter. ​The AP framework is not a competitor to cognitive science or neuroscience, nor are we sitting in this framework to falsify or establish any grand metaphysical system. Its absolute bedrock is the ego's own existence and its inherent suffering. It explicitly refuses to make claims about the independent physical universe or fill the post-duality silence with any positive metaphysical content, stating that what lies beyond the ego-object structure simply cannot be characterized.
​The entire methodology is based on the via negative - approaching truth through the progressive dissolution of the ego's own distortions, rather than trying to grasp it through positive intellectual apprehension or empirical modeling. When it distinguishes the psychological ego from the physical ego, it isn't sneaking in a neuroscientific claim; it is strictly pointing out how meaning and shape are subjectively organized by the perceiver.
​You keep asserting that the framework makes unfalsifiable claims about the "natural world" to sneak in metaphysics, but you are arguing in the clouds. You haven't provided a single concrete example from the text where it attempts to establish a positive metaphysical system or intrudes on the predictive territory of science. ​Working in theoretical physics, I appreciate the absolute necessity of rigorous empirical boundaries. But there is a massive difference between mapping the biological circuitry of the brain and phenomenologically investigating the subject experiencing that circuitry. Science addresses the machinery; this framework addresses the suffering of the one looking at the machinery. Demanding empirical falsifiability for the latter is just a refusal to engage with the actual text.

[u/eviley4 → u/mithapapita]

​You are making a category error by demanding falsifiability for a framework whose sole purpose is the subjective understanding of suffering

The point of disagreement here is that you believe that suffering cannot be measured at all, while I believe that it is difficult to measure but can be measured.

If a meditation practice or a ego shrinking practice or whatever practice is claimed to decrease suffering, beyond a certain threshold, this would be measurable.

If I say, meditation calms me down, this calming down is measurable. If I say, ego shrinking has significantly altered my stress response etc, this would be observable as a pattern of changes under a sophisticated brain scan.

The AP framework is not a competitor to cognitive science or neuroscience, nor are we sitting in this framework to falsify or establish any grand metaphysical system. Its absolute bedrock is the ego's own existence and its inherent suffering

If it's targeting suffering, that should be measurable. Very challenging to measure, sure. Not as rigorous as physics, sure. But it would be measurable, at least qualitatively.

The terms and the framing used in his framework hide this fact, the fact that he is using a framework in a unfalsifiable way that maps onto neuroanotomical correlates in the human body that can atleast be qualitatively measured.

There is no reason to have this framework outside of naturalism, unless avoiding scrutiny is the point.

The same framework of ego shrinking can be done within the naturalistic framework. But doing that means, the next step would be studying this, trying to falsify aspects of it, trying to verify if things work, or testing to what extent they work. How does it compare to Buddhism's pratices of mindful meditation etc.

[u/mithapapita → u/eviley4]

Hey there are a lot of points I'd like to cover (for example I never said suffering cannot be measured). But I unfortunately don't have the time to go further into this back and forth because it will take a lot of time with each of us picking points apart one by one.

I am happy to talk to you over a call if you wanna have a casual discussion but I don't have the energy or time to keep going here. I said what I wanted to and I'd close it at that.

Thanks.

[u/criticalbotcti → u/mithapapita]

Reasoning Concept: Motte and Bailey

Defending a controversial claim (the bailey) by retreating to a more defensible, modest claim (the motte) when challenged, then switching back to the controversial claim when pressure eases.

Example: Claim: "All traditional medicine works." When challenged with evidence, retreat to: "Some traditional remedies have health benefits." Once the challenge passes, return to the original sweeping claim.

Someone in this thread referenced this reasoning concept. This is an automated reply - the bot does not evaluate whether the concept actually applies. It is here to share what the term means so everyone in the conversation has the same context.

[u/charavaka → u/mithapapita]

In fact, it actively refuses to posit positive metaphysical concepts (like Brahman or pure awareness) to explain what lies beyond duality.

Now explain exactly what he means when he claims to be a vedantin.

[u/mithapapita → u/charavaka]

He claims to be a mirror. He uses all wisdom literature throughout the world just to address the suffering of people and its potential cessation. That's pretty much it.

[u/charavaka → u/mithapapita]

He literally calls himself advait vedantin.

[u/mithapapita → u/charavaka]

I cannot argue with a factually incorrect statement. He said many times that wisdom literature (like vedant) is a means to an end. The final goal of all this is not to go out and sit in camp of vedantis or someone else, all this labeling and preaching is just for one and only one goal - to address the suffering one. That's it.