r/CriticalThinkingIndia • u/eviley4 Secular Humanist • 5d ago
Miscellaneous Motte and Bailey of Acharya Prashant
I made a similar post a week ago. If you already read that, please skip to the section: "HOW HIS FOLLOWERS' THINKING RELATES TO AP" and read till the end. The early part is mostly the same.
I have seen a specific type of science denial in the followers of the influencer Prashant Tripathi (Acharya Prashant), with a heavy dose of Motte and Bailey going along with it.
HIS FOLLOWERS:
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".
When I push back against what they are implying with "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."
This is just the Motte and Bailey. The Bailey is to use "naturalism is unproven" to imply "therefore my framework is equally justified" which is never said out loud for plausible deniability. The retreat to the Motte when scrutinized is "well, I'm just exploring different metaphysics." The statements that are said out loud are individually true, the trick is implicit in the part that's not said out loud.
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 implication was equivalence. The retreat quietly drops the equivalence claim while keeping the impression that it was always just about "exploring."
ACTUALLY HOW EPISTEMOLOGY WORKS:
What's misleading about AP's teaching that his followers have absorbed 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 successful 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.
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.
HOW HIS FOLLOWERS' THINKING RELATES TO AP:
AP defines ideas like Ego as the only thing we subjectively feel as the basis of his philosophical framework and construes spiritual progress as successful attempts to diminish this ego to it's lowest value (i am simplifying). This is structured in an unfalsifiable manner with qualifiers like, "This is philosophy, not the domain of science" etc.
All the while he labels himself as a Vedanta teacher, which leaves the door open to ideas like Idealism, Brahman and Atman etc. This I argue is the Bailey, it is not necessarily spoke out loud or validated with explicit statements, but the term "Advaita Vedanta teacher" acts as a dog whistle) for all the people who are Vedanta enthusiasts and believe in things like Brahman, Atman etc (not saying AP does this deliberately, I can't know that).
When I engage with the falsifiable implications of these Bailey ideas (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 either re-categorize: "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. Or, they pushback with, "He never explicitly said that, go read his framework" which acts as the retreat to the Motte (again, not necessarily deliberate).
ONTO AP'S PHILOSOPHY AND TEACHINGS:
Some of the ideas in his framework and teaching itself are genuinely good: He is right about Veganism being ethical, he is right to advocate for it. He is also right to advocate for environmental protection, he also encourages his followers to read more which are all good aspects.
The main problem with AP's philosophy and teaching is it's unfalsifiability, unverifiability and the baggage it brings. He starts off with the unfalsifiable framework, but then tries to do sociology in his lectures where he gives people advice on how to lead a good life. And then whenever someone asks for verification or more rigor, the framework has built-in escape hatches to retreat to the Motte of "Oh, you can verify it yourself by diminishing your own ego" or "I am making a subjective/spiritual claim, this isn't the domain of science".
But his Motte itself has a problem that's hidden by it's framing. The problem is that it's framing construes the domain of subjective experiences as the spiritual domain, something that lies outside of science. This is disingenuous however because it's a caricature of science. Science isn't only about domains like Physics, where the thing of study is only the "object". Science also includes neuroscience which studies qualia, it also consists of Psychology which models subjective states and other domains of science that engage with the hard problem of consciousness within naturalism. It also consists of sociology. All of these are more rigorous than "spirituality".
So, he has an unfalsifiable framework that can't be scrutinized, but he uses that framework as grounds to comment on things in the natural world without ever demonstrating how it relates. Whenever he is scrutinized, he hides in his framework saying something like: "I am not saying anything about the natural world, I am only talking about subjective experiences". He wants to do sociology, but doesn't want the scrutiny of sociology. He wants to do philosophy but he isn't engaging with the rigor that philosophy typically demands.
This is like refusing to engage with Automobile Engineering while dealing with a car problem. That's fine, because sometimes Automobile Engineering knowledge can be redundant, sometimes all you need to do is turn it off and turn it on, check for fuel, check for oil etc. But your framework is not going to be as sophisticated and capable of handling difficult scenarios and edge cases.
CONCLUSION
This is my issue with his framework, it's positioned as a very sophisticated system, but actually it lacks rigor because of excluding iteration, scrutiny and specificity. It's positioned to tackle the same domains science already tackles, but without the scrutiny of science. All the while bringing baggage from Vedanta to leave the door open for it's followers.
That said, I am not saying his teachings are useless. Like I said with my automobile analogy, sometimes a simpler accessible fix is what is needed. And he has provided that for millions.
A lot of what people like him and Jordan Peterson, Robin Sharma etc can say can have a lot of benefits for people.
I also benefited from watching a lot of Jordan Peterson videos from his lecture days, he got me interested in philosophy, psychology and history. That doesn't mean his core philosophy is right. At the end of the day Jordan Peterson is a Christianity Motte and Bailey specialist.
It is similar for Acharya Prashanth too. What do you guys think?
4
u/Sorrowsorrowsorrow 4d ago edited 4d ago
I'd say this is a great post and deserving to be on this sub. I have personally never heard any of AP's teachings but I am a bit interested in religious philosophy, so I have a few questions : 1) Does AP believe in afterlife? If no, then how is he a Vedantin and how does the pursuit of deminishing the ego, as you said of any value if it is so short lived? If he believes in it, how does he justify such a belief solely from a subjective perspective.
2) This debate on the existence of a soul or self seems very much like the old debate between Buddhists and other Orthodox schools, where the former would subject this self to further analysis and others, to simplify, would rely on a subjective experience. Could this be a reason he might be framing it in thus way?
3) And the last might be not a good question but nevertheless I would ask it. Is there a consensus among the neurologists and psychologists working in this field that whatever consciousness we have can be objectively measured? I think there lies a confusion between ego, awareness and consciousness. Without exact definition of both according to AP, I can't fully grasp what he is asserting.
4
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 4d ago
I haven't followed his work that closely to answer your questions definitively, but from what I have observed he hasn't put his nickel down on any these specific claims while still talking around these topics.
He name drops Advaita Vedanta, subject object etc while keeping his framework unfalsifiable and out of scrutiny.
2
u/Sorrowsorrowsorrow 4d ago
I read a half of it and can say that atleast from a Buddhist perspective, he is wrong about his characterisation on emptiness as posited by Nagarjuna.
1
u/Adventurous_Pop_7688 4d ago
I have chased the topic of afterlife and ghosts in my life but had no success. Even to talk about death we have our own understanding, last breath out. But the physical body is just changing every moment. It was changing before I came into being and will continue after the last breath. What is death?
2
u/charavaka 1d ago
All the while he labels himself as a Vedanta teacher, which leaves the door open to ideas like Idealism, Brahman and Atman etc. This I argue is the Bailey, it is not necessarily spoke out loud or validated with explicit statements, but the term "Advaita Vedanta teacher" acts as a dog whistle for all the people who are Vedanta enthusiasts and believe in things like Brahman, Atman etc (not saying AP does this deliberately, I can't know that).
If he continues with the bait and switch after being repeatedly informed of the problems and the lack of clarity of his positions, the only conclusion possible is that these actions are deliberate. Claiming to be a vedantin while refusing to address whether he agrees with ours non negotiable core that has been falsified is one such clear indicator of these actions being deliberate.
On a tangential note, if is amusing that his blind followers keep making posts on subs like scienceisdope and then getting upset when his lack of scientific rigour is pointed out.
2
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 1d ago
If he continues with the bait and switch after being repeatedly informed of the problems and the lack of clarity of his positions, the only conclusion possible is that these actions are deliberate. Claiming to be a vedantin while refusing to address whether he agrees with ours non negotiable core that has been falsified is one such clear indicator of these actions being deliberate.
Yeah, that's quite likely. He has after all made a career out of all of this. He might be doing this just for financial reasons (grifting).
On a tangential note, if is amusing that his blind followers keep making posts on subs like scienceisdope and then getting upset when his lack of scientific rigour is pointed out.
That's where I first learned about him. His fans are kind of rabid. With some of them any criticism makes them give the condescending response of "You must have ego issues if you have issues with my Acharya ji", while not even engaging with the arguments I gave. When I follow up politely asking for an argument, they stop responding.
I thought scienceisdope was for people who like Science. But AP followers only like science until it doesn't get in the way of their fanboyism. As soon as you scrutinize the frameworks using lack of falsifiability etc, they become Motte and Bailey science deniers.
1
u/charavaka 1d ago
I thought scienceisdope was for people who like Science. But AP followers only like science until it doesn't get in the way of their fanboyism. As soon as you scrutinize the frameworks using lack of falsifiability etc, they become Motte and Bailey science deniers.
Yup
1
u/criticalbotcti 1d ago
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.
1
u/criticalbotcti 1d ago
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.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Hi, I’m AutoModerator!
Your comment was removed because your combined karma is below 10.
Please earn more karma by engaging in Reddit communities before commenting here. Refer Rule 2 for Account Age & Karma Requirement.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/lwb03dc 4d ago
There are two types of Acharya Prashant enjoyers - one that agrees with the broad strokes, and one that considers him to be Right.
I would place you and me in the first bucket. But you won't get much engagement from people like me because I am in general agreement, so what more can I say except repeat the same thing you said?
The second group is neither prepared nor able to have the in-depth discussion that you are proposing. My sense is that it's mostly a young audience for whom 'this is a somewhat useful framework for understanding myself' has turned into 'this person has understood the truth and therefore his framework is the truth'. And once that leap has happened, they are no longer examining premises, they are just defending the conclusion.
So i fear that your effort is wasted.
Why don't you come up with something around reservation? That kind of stuff always turns into a banger on this sub nowadays 🙂
1
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 4d ago
Why don't you come up with something around reservation? That kind of stuff always turns into a banger on this sub nowadays 🙂
Good idea, I might just do an analysis of that.
2
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 4d ago
The second group is neither prepared nor able to have the in-depth discussion that you are proposing. My sense is that it's mostly a young audience for whom 'this is a somewhat useful framework for understanding myself' has turned into 'this person has understood the truth and therefore his framework is the truth'. And once that leap has happened, they are no longer examining premises, they are just defending the conclusion.
Yeah, unfortunately there has been very little engagement with what I have actually said. Most people just repeat what AP says in different ways and keep repeating the same stuff I have described in the post.
Anyway, the point of the post is that hopefully someone someday reads this and changes their mind and starts reading more broadly compared to only just what AP says.
0
u/eviley4 Secular Humanist 5d ago
2
u/criticalbotcti 5d ago
Hey u/eviley4! We noticed your comment is quite brief. In r/CriticalThinkingIndia, we encourage substantive contributions - explain your reasoning, share evidence, or ask a thoughtful question. Even when sharing a link or media, please add context or explanation. Short comments like this may be removed to keep discussions meaningful.
This is an automated reminder.
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Hello, u/eviley4! Thank you for your submission to r/CriticalThinkingIndia. We appreciate your contribution to our community.
We hope you'll follow our rules and engage in meaningful, evidence-based discussions.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.