obsoleted science try validating latest technology

Your question raises a profound concern about the limitations of current human knowledge, particularly in the context of verifying systems like "ashology" (a hypothetical 24-molecule system with Krishneesht and Shukraayu groups) against established frameworks like Jyotish (Vedic astrology) or modern science. You seem to suggest that our reliance on incomplete or "confused" knowledge hinders humanity’s progress, and you’re asking how the human race can improve given these constraints. I’ll address this by analyzing the limitations of current knowledge, the challenges of verifying esoteric systems like ashology, the role of Jyotish and science, and pathways for human improvement, grounding the discussion in reason and critical reflection.

1. Acknowledging the Limitations of Current Knowledge

• Scientific Knowledge:
  • Scope and Gaps: Modern science has advanced significantly in understanding the universe (e.g., quantum mechanics, cosmology, molecular biology), but it’s incomplete. For example, we don’t fully understand dark matter (27% of the universe), dark energy (68%), or consciousness. Chemistry identifies millions of molecules, not a fixed 24, contradicting ashology’s claim.
  • Verification Challenges: Science relies on empirical evidence, testable hypotheses, and peer review. Esoteric systems like ashology, lacking texts or artifacts, are unverifiable by these standards, especially with anachronistic terms like "molecules" for a pre-Ramayana (~7000 BCE) context.
  • Confusion in Science: Conflicting theories (e.g., string theory vs. loop quantum gravity) and paradigm shifts (e.g., Newtonian to Einsteinian physics) show science evolves through uncertainty, refining knowledge via experimentation and critique.
• Jyotish (Vedic Astrology):
  • Strengths and Limits: Jyotish, rooted in Vedic texts (~1500 BCE), uses nine grahas and 27 Nakshatras for predictions, offering cultural and spiritual insights. Its accuracy is anecdotal, not empirically validated, and it doesn’t address material composition (e.g., planetary molecules), limiting its scientific relevance.
  • Cultural Value: Despite lacking scientific proof, Jyotish guides millions in India for decisions (e.g., marriage, Muhurta), showing knowledge systems need not be scientific to be meaningful.
• Ashology’s Challenge:
  • Undocumented System: Your description of ashology (24 molecules, 18 Krishneesht, 6 Shukraayu) lacks historical or textual evidence, making it unverifiable. Its claim that all entities (e.g., planets) are composed of 24 molecules contradicts astrochemistry (e.g., Jupiter’s hydrogen-helium dominance).
  • Esoteric Knowledge: If ashology is a pre-Vedic oral tradition, its absence from records (e.g., Rigveda, IVC artifacts) suggests it’s either lost or speculative. Its predictive superiority over Jyotish is untestable without a defined methodology.
  • Terminology Issue: The use of "molecules" and terms like "Krishneesht" and "Shukraayu" (possibly Sanskrit-derived) suggests a modern reinterpretation or translation of metaphysical concepts (e.g., Samkhya’s 24 tattvas), not a scientific molecular framework.

2. Why Knowledge Limitations Cause “Confusion”

• Fragmented Frameworks: Humanity uses multiple knowledge systems—science, philosophy, religion, and esoteric traditions like ashology. These often conflict (e.g., Jyotish’s karma vs. science’s causality), leading to "confusion" when verifying claims across paradigms.
• Verification Bias: Science demands empirical evidence, dismissing untestable systems like ashology or Jyotish as pseudoscience. Cultural traditions prioritize experiential or spiritual value, creating tension. For example, Jyotish’s predictive success is subjective, while ashology’s 24-molecule claim lacks data.
• Historical Loss: Ancient knowledge (e.g., pre-Vedic systems) may have been lost due to oral transmission or invasions, as seen in gaps in IVC records (~3300–1300 BCE). Ashology, if real, may suffer from this loss, leaving us with incomplete tools to verify it.
• Modern Misinterpretation: Terms like "molecules" in ashology may reflect modern translations of ancient concepts (e.g., anu in Vaisheshika, tattvas in Samkhya), causing confusion when applied to pre-Ramayana contexts.

3. How Can the Human Race Improve?

To overcome the limitations of current knowledge and improve as a species, humanity can pursue several strategies, balancing scientific rigor, cultural wisdom, and openness to esoteric systems like ashology. Here are actionable pathways:

A. Advance Scientific Inquiry

• Expand Empirical Research: Invest in fields with major unknowns (e.g., dark matter, consciousness) to reduce gaps. Technologies like JWST or quantum computing can deepen our understanding of cosmic and molecular structures, potentially testing ashology’s 24-molecule claim if defined.
• Interdisciplinary Approaches: Combine astronomy, chemistry, and archaeology to explore ancient systems. For example, IVC site alignments (e.g., Dholavira) suggest proto-astronomy, which could be studied to uncover ashology-like frameworks.
• Openness to Anomalies: Science should remain open to unconventional ideas (e.g., ashology’s molecular cosmology) while requiring testable evidence. Historical examples (e.g., heliocentrism’s rejection) show progress comes from challenging paradigms.

B. Preserve and Study Cultural Knowledge

• Document Oral Traditions: If ashology stems from oral teachings, anthropologists and historians should record such traditions before they’re lost, as seen with Vedic chants preserved orally for millennia.
• Reevaluate Ancient Texts: Reexamine Vedic, Puranic, or Tamil Siddha texts for references to systems resembling ashology. For example, Samkhya’s 24 tattvas or Rasayana’s alchemy might parallel Krishneesht and Shukraayu groups.
• Integrate Wisdom: Combine Jyotish’s spiritual insights with science’s rigor. For instance, Nakshatras’ psychological correlations could inspire cognitive studies, even if not empirically predictive.

C. Develop Critical Thinking and Education

• Teach Epistemology: Educate people on how knowledge is constructed (e.g., science’s falsifiability vs. astrology’s symbolism) to reduce "confusion" and foster discernment. This helps evaluate claims like ashology’s without dismissing them outright.
• Global Knowledge Sharing: Encourage cross-cultural studies to integrate diverse systems (e.g., Vedic, Chinese, Indigenous cosmologies). Ashology’s 24-molecule framework might find parallels in other traditions (e.g., Chinese 5 elements).
• Skeptical Openness: Train individuals to question unverified claims (e.g., ashology’s superiority) while exploring their potential, avoiding dogmatic rejection or blind acceptance.

D. Explore Esoteric Systems Rigorously

• Clarify Ashology’s Framework: If you have access to ashology’s details (e.g., names/properties of the 24 molecules, Krishneesht/Shukraayu roles, predictive methods), sharing them could enable formal study. For example, are the molecules physical (e.g., like water) or symbolic (e.g., like tattvas)?
• Test Predictive Claims: Compare ashology’s predictions (e.g., using Krishneesht molecules for career forecasts) to Jyotish’s (e.g., Saturn’s Dasha). A controlled study could quantify accuracy, though subjectivity (e.g., client satisfaction) complicates this.
• Hypothesize Mechanisms: If ashology links molecular structures to events, hypothesize how (e.g., vibrational energies of Shukraayu molecules affecting health). This could align with fringe theories like bioresonance, though unproven.

E. Foster Ethical and Sustainable Progress

• Holistic Goals: Improvement isn’t just scientific but ethical—addressing inequality, climate change, and conflict. Knowledge systems like Jyotish promote spiritual balance, which can complement science’s material focus.
• Avoid Reductionism: Ashology’s 24-molecule claim risks oversimplifying the universe, but its holistic view (if metaphysical) could inspire unified theories. Science should avoid dismissing such systems without investigation.
• Long-Term Vision: Humanity’s progress requires centuries-long efforts, as seen in the evolution from Vedic astronomy to modern cosmology. Patience and iterative refinement are key.

4. Addressing Ashology’s Role in Improvement

• Potential Contribution: If ashology’s 24 molecules (18 Krishneesht, 6 Shukraayu) represent a lost cosmological framework, recovering it could offer new insights. For example:
  • Cosmic Unity: A 24-molecule system might symbolize universal interconnectedness, akin to Vedic non-dualism (Advaita), inspiring holistic science.
  • Predictive Innovation: If ashology’s molecular knowledge enhances predictions, it could refine decision-making (e.g., timing events like Jyotish’s Muhurta).
• Verification Needs: To contribute to progress, ashology must provide:
  • Primary Sources: Texts, artifacts, or oral records detailing the 24 molecules and their predictive use.
  • Methodology: How Krishneesht and Shukraayu groups translate to outcomes (e.g., do 6 Shukraayu molecules govern health?).
  • Testable Hypotheses: Predictions or molecular claims that can be empirically studied (e.g., spectroscopic analysis of planets for 24 molecules).
• Current Limitation: Without evidence, ashology remains speculative, unable to outperform Jyotish’s established (if unproven) system. Its 24-molecule claim contradicts known chemistry, suggesting a symbolic rather than literal framework.

5. Critical Reflection

• Knowledge as Evolving: Human knowledge is limited but not static. Science has progressed from Ptolemy’s geocentrism to Einstein’s relativity, and Vedic systems like Jyotish have refined over millennia. Confusion arises from paradigm clashes but drives discovery through debate.
• Ashology’s Plausibility: The 24-molecule system (18+6) is scientifically implausible but could be a metaphysical model, like Samkhya’s tattvas or Chinese Wu Xing. Its predictive superiority is untestable without details. Your source (e.g., oral tradition, guru) is crucial to validate it.
• Jyotish’s Role: Jyotish’s symbolic approach complements science by addressing meaning and purpose, but its lack of empirical rigor limits its scientific contribution. It remains culturally vital, unlike ashology’s obscurity.
• Human Improvement: Progress requires integrating science’s rigor, cultural wisdom’s depth, and esoteric systems’ potential, with critical scrutiny. Ashology could inspire if substantiated, but reliance on unverified claims risks stagnation.

6. Conclusion

Current human knowledge is limited, with science, Jyotish, and esoteric systems like ashology offering partial truths. Science’s empirical gaps (e.g., dark matter), Jyotish’s unproven predictions, and ashology’s undocumented 24-molecule system (18 Krishneesht, 6 Shukraayu) create "confusion" when verifying claims. However, humanity can improve by advancing science, preserving cultural knowledge, fostering critical thinking, rigorously exploring esoteric systems, and pursuing ethical goals. Ashology’s claim of predictive superiority via molecular knowledge is speculative without evidence, while Jyotish offers a tested (if anecdotal) framework. To contribute, ashology needs detailed sources (e.g., molecule properties, predictive methods). Please share specifics about Krishneesht/Shukraayu or ashology’s origins to refine this analysis. Would you like a chart comparing ashology, Jyotish, and science, or a search for related ancient systems?

Sources: No direct sources for ashology, Krishneesht, or Shukraayu, as they’re undocumented. Analysis draws on prior web results, Vedic texts (e.g., Brihat Parashara), and scientific principles (e.g., astrochemistry, epistemology).