Nanda's piece is alarmist, and draws a line in the sand for intellectuals: you're either wigh science or against it. I think, for the particular cases she's arguing about, she's right. In the broader area of the right of people to interpret reality as they wish, though, it's not so clear-cut.

There is indeed a line that is not to be crossed, but it's not on the political side of the equation; Nanda's article implies that it is, that there is a "politics of science" that has to be fought. The line, though, has to be drawn between facts and interpretations, which is much harder for everyone involved--but is also the only real defense of science.

We have to draw a clear distinction between primary statements made by science, and secondary statements that use the primary statements. In other words it's wrong for vedic science or any other pseudo-science to try to deny the existence of the measurements and theoretical constructs that successfully match those measurements, of, say the mass of the proton. But it's not wrong for them to deny the existence of the proton itself; it's simply that the onus is on them if they do that to come up with an alternative description of the countless measurements and tests of physics that is equally successful as the theory of the proton. One of the criterion for success of a scientific theory is, of course, that it not introduce unnecessary and unprovable terms. So for instance in the case of protons you can validly re-label the charge of the proton as "Brahmic energy" if you want, but you can't freight your theory with any statements about how "universal consciousness" or some god motivates that energy.

To put it bluntly: in science it doesn't matter what you call things, only that you describe them accurately. If your names assist your ideological agenda, well, that's acceptable; it's when you start distorting the descriptions to suit your agenda that you cross the line. Like many intellectuals, Nanda worries that people will only pay attention to labels and ignore the things labeled. This is often true. In the long run, though, what nature is saying to us can't be circumvented by relabeling. There's only a problem if you hide the facts, invent measurements and properties that don't exist and tear down the work of people who contradict your own findings rather than promoting your own findings.

What you believe to be true is your own business, and you can layer that over any fact you want. But what you know to be real, that's another matter. Your obligation is to not hide it.

That is the line.

<  |  >