In the recent article published in Express Pharma titled ‘De-mythifying ayurveda’, 
the comment of a Senior Consultant of a prestigious Hospital in New Delhi, on Ayurveda discloses the incomprehension of what Ayurveda truly is, as perceived by the so-called modern scientist. The opinion which goes in his terms - "Ayurveda may not be termed a science in modern scientific context, as it did not develop in a test tube or a laboratory. Nor do its concepts change frequently, as it happens in modern scientific allopathic medicine."
What is that science these people are talking about? Let’s look at true perspective of science. The word science derived from Latin scientia, meaning knowledge. For many the term science refers to the organized body of knowledge concerning the physical world, both animate and inanimate, but a proper definition would also have to include the attitudes and methods through which this body of knowledge is formed; thus, a science is both a particular kind of activity and also the results of that activity.
The scientific method is described in terms of a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps. First, information, or data, is gathered by careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. On the basis of that information a preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed, usually by inductive reasoning, and this in turn leads by deductive logic to a number of implications that may be tested by further observations and experiments. If the conclusions drawn from the original hypothesis successfully meet all these tests, the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory or law.
The word Ayurveda, which has life (Ayus) and knowledge (Veda=vid meaning to know) component in itself pronounces that it is not any other pretending way of healing, but with sound scientific approaches to health, healing and help for the life and living in its entirety.
In Caraka Samhita, the author emphasizes the importance of scientific approach to practice of medicine. It is quoted that the peers recognize and appreciate those who undertake (prescriptions/therapies) only after a prior knowledge. Further it is said that well informed physician also when acts without investigation will face the complications or will not be able to help a patient with bad prognosis, for it is said that only he who acts after investigation will be an expert.
If one looks at the description of scientific method in medical practice in Ayurveda, it is absolutely analogous with the description that is made in contemporary times. There are four steps to analyze. They are the first being a careful observation (Pratyaksha), followed with development of hypothesis (Anumana), then quoting the bibliographical references (Apthopadesha) and concluding with deductive reasoning (Yukti).
the comment of a Senior Consultant of a prestigious Hospital in New Delhi, on Ayurveda discloses the incomprehension of what Ayurveda truly is, as perceived by the so-called modern scientist. The opinion which goes in his terms - "Ayurveda may not be termed a science in modern scientific context, as it did not develop in a test tube or a laboratory. Nor do its concepts change frequently, as it happens in modern scientific allopathic medicine."What is that science these people are talking about? Let’s look at true perspective of science. The word science derived from Latin scientia, meaning knowledge. For many the term science refers to the organized body of knowledge concerning the physical world, both animate and inanimate, but a proper definition would also have to include the attitudes and methods through which this body of knowledge is formed; thus, a science is both a particular kind of activity and also the results of that activity.
The scientific method is described in terms of a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps. First, information, or data, is gathered by careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. On the basis of that information a preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed, usually by inductive reasoning, and this in turn leads by deductive logic to a number of implications that may be tested by further observations and experiments. If the conclusions drawn from the original hypothesis successfully meet all these tests, the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory or law.
The word Ayurveda, which has life (Ayus) and knowledge (Veda=vid meaning to know) component in itself pronounces that it is not any other pretending way of healing, but with sound scientific approaches to health, healing and help for the life and living in its entirety.
In Caraka Samhita, the author emphasizes the importance of scientific approach to practice of medicine. It is quoted that the peers recognize and appreciate those who undertake (prescriptions/therapies) only after a prior knowledge. Further it is said that well informed physician also when acts without investigation will face the complications or will not be able to help a patient with bad prognosis, for it is said that only he who acts after investigation will be an expert.If one looks at the description of scientific method in medical practice in Ayurveda, it is absolutely analogous with the description that is made in contemporary times. There are four steps to analyze. They are the first being a careful observation (Pratyaksha), followed with development of hypothesis (Anumana), then quoting the bibliographical references (Apthopadesha) and concluding with deductive reasoning (Yukti).
The term science with its equivalent word in Ayurveda, called Shastra is characterized by the author of 800 years old Rasaratnasamucchaya as – “there exists no science without an order and no order without a science and one who learns that science systematically becomes successful in all endeavors”. In order to achieve this perfection and acquire knowledge, this book describes the importance and establishment of a laboratory (Rasashala) for conducting experiments. 
For Ayurveda scientist the whole world was the laboratory, because the observation and experiments were all in real settings. Thus all the theories and principles were developed in natural location. There was extrapolation of the observations on this miniature life (human, plant and animal), which were linked to universal phenomenon. Thus the observations and postulates although developed at that time and in the language prevalent then, but the approach to learning stands still true today without any dispute. However the only expectation of the modern scientists is to see the data for trust, which is not available for the obvious reason for want of storage devise of such vast amount.
When such being the case that the scientific process in Ayurveda have their congruent modern version, how can it be termed not scientific even in the modern scientific context?
For Ayurveda scientist the whole world was the laboratory, because the observation and experiments were all in real settings. Thus all the theories and principles were developed in natural location. There was extrapolation of the observations on this miniature life (human, plant and animal), which were linked to universal phenomenon. Thus the observations and postulates although developed at that time and in the language prevalent then, but the approach to learning stands still true today without any dispute. However the only expectation of the modern scientists is to see the data for trust, which is not available for the obvious reason for want of storage devise of such vast amount.
When such being the case that the scientific process in Ayurveda have their congruent modern version, how can it be termed not scientific even in the modern scientific context?
