Advisor: This is my blog, hence everything thats written here are my thoughts. You have the job of separating the wheat from the chaff.
Logic: The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
Reasoning: An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence
Scientific principles rely on logic and reasoning for their support. Throw away those two, and the entire structure crumbles. The term logical sense in the definition of reasoning is important here. It means what appears logical to us, what seems to be common sense. But, as we know from a century (or more?) of upheaval of our understanding of physics, what appears to be common sense need not be true.
A couple of thousand years ago, common sense dictated that the earth was flat. Till about a hundred years ago, common sense told us that speeds of two objects approaching each other should simply be added to each other to obtain relative speeds. Einsten proved that it is only an approximation at low speeds, and the correct equation is a little more complex.
Many a times, a radical approach at thinking, which does not confirm to common sense, fits our observations better. Quantum physics is a continuing example of this. The point I am trying to make here is that simply because certain ideas do not appeal to common sense, one must not disregard them as ridiculous. They might just turn up to be one of the more profound ideas that have been tought of. Science, as it describes the universe, is not perfect. It is not wrong, rather it is incomplete. There are still huge gaps in observable phenomenon that have not yet been explained. But science will get there, one baby step by baby step. Eventually.
Unobserved phenomena. If it's not seen, it's not true. Right? Not necessarily. Consider these examples. The so-called "primitive tribes" have a very close association with nature (in my opinion, that in itself is enough to make them more advanced than us modern beings, considering our near total lack of understanding of how nature works). Some tribes claim that they "talk" to animals, other claim that they "talk" to plants. Of course, it is a silly notion, how could we ever talk to plants or animals? Or can't we? The point is that we do not know. It may well be true, and in our arrogance and belief in our supposed superiority, we cannot believe that the "primitive" people have a more intimate knowledge of nature. These people have entire belief systems that worship nature, and make the best use of what nature has to offer to make their lives easier. The Hindus have a religion that has a very close association with nature as well. Consider the neem (tulsi) for example. Some Hindus worship the plant. I do not see what is wrong in that. We know that the tulsi has many medicinal properties that the medicinal community has acknowledged. But these properties can be easily verified. The practices of many tribes are, at worst, obscure, but that is no reason to dismiss them as superstition.
The Dogons are a tribe in the Republic of Mali that worship the star Sirius. They are believed to have been in existance from about 3000 B.C. Every 50 years, they celebrate a festival and pray to God (the star) that it be freed from the clutches of evil (I am not sure about the exact details of the celebration here). Superstition, you say! In fact, Sirius has a companion star, Sirius B, which orbits Sirius every 50 years, and the timing of their festival coincides with (you guessed it!) the eclipse of the companion by the main star. And we advanced people obtained this knowledge only in the 1970's.
On a more grandoise scale, Hindu stories are full of descriptions of warfare using weapons that can be initiated with a mantra. The ancient people had weapons that had nuclear radiation (sic) in them, weapons that could accurately track their victims (by following the energy signature of a person, which as a concept, is absolute magic to us!), and three-storied vehicles that could fly, and resembled entire cities, with vertical lift-offs, an invisible mode, et al. Today, we are quick to dismiss these stories as mythology*.
But remember that in those times, humans had a much closer association with nature. Today, we are almost hopelessly out of tune with nature (although that is changing for the good). We cannot believe that such claims by the tribes and such things as described in the texts are possible. We have imagined technology (and our intellect) to have always advanced as time progressed.
Have you even entertained the idea that our paradigm of technology progess may not true, that mankind once possessed such knowledge as we can only dream of today? That perhaps, at some point in time, something happened and a whole knowledge system was lost, save in bits and pieces that we see as practices by primitive people? We should step down from our high pedestal, and objectively look into the reasoning behind practices of the tribes. There is a whole wealth of information in there, more than you can imagine. And yes, this includes Hindu scriptures, whose knowledge we have been quick to disregard with the advent of the colonial conquest of India.
Give "primitive practices" a chance.
* Mythology means "A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes." (again, from dictionary.com) I believe it is really unfair to call Hindu stories mythologies, especially when Christians call theirs as history! (or am i getting paranoid?) Of course, not all Christians call it history, those involved in scholarly research call it mythology, but the difference is that all Hindus call their stories mythology (another colonial initiative).