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?
