Science says phenomena must be independently verifiable by minds. I ask you Science, please verify mind; and then mind independence…
Science says that some-thing exists if it can be independently verified, over time.
- Some-thing exists means knowledge/truth/existence.
- Independently means by more than just one mind.
- Verified means ‘confirmed’ by said minds
- Over time means the verification is repeatable/reproducible in time.
Wait wait wait; I smell ‘self-validation’, self-reasoning or perhaps circle reasoning here. Is Science saying that some-thing exists, because Science? Because of Scientific substrates? Thatis, Science produces knowledge and knowledge is produced Scientifically or pointedly, some-thing exists because it…exists??
Lets discuss the predicates of Science above; or perhaps more aptly named, the Science Dogmas:
- Knowledge/truth or existence is a thing. Or a thing is knowledge/truth or existence. This is a declaration, a decree of objectivity/finality/corporeality/a conscionable or decree of form. Thus, in this case, Science is taking the predicate position of form progenitor. There is no issue with this position; however, there is if it is an exclusive – tyrannical – position. Thatis, Science can be, A , ‘narrator of form’, of truths though not the sole narrator.
- Independently implies mind sovereignty, mind finiteness, a discretised mind. It also assumes that mind is explicit to a body (person), thus independent minds exist within body. There is no knowledge to prove the geography and location of mind let alone mind independents. What if mind were dependant; that is, mind were dependent on other bodies? Is the dichotomy of mind and body false? Science does not know.
- Verified means confirmed/validated/existent by the notion of mind of predicate 2. Given we don’t know what and where mind is (2), how can we state that using It for verification/confirmation/validation will form knowledge? What if mind was all one? What if this one mind was shared or cohabited by all that bes or all that is with existence? In this case, Independent verification would be undistinguishable from independent thoughts (occurring in this one mind) and this one mind would always therefore be certain of ‘independent verification’; that is, self-verification. Perhaps more appropriately expressed ‘verification by consensus of thought(s)’. (the Rick and Morty episode “Auto Erotic Assimilation” is a the illustration of one mind inhabiting multiple bodies)
- Time is a notion of mind, ‘verified’, animated by, and is a construct of mind to which, Science does not know yet catalogues knowledge verification on.
So Science decrees that knowledge bes (1.), if independent minds (2), verify knowledge (3), over time (4). Quite an elaborate and biased tool for viewing existence/reality through.
I ask, does all knowledge exist in the corporeal reality and, exist in form only (1)? Are minds confided to body, the brain (2)? Can knowledge be therefore ‘verified’ by the combination of notions (1) and (2)? And what about time to which is a product of notions (1), (2) and (3) combined!! I say this all reeks of self-validation…one ponders, can knowledge be, conceited?
What we know is that Science, with its above predicates is certain of producing biased knowledge/truth or existence ‘above’ its dogmatic axioms or predicates – and this is ok! Science is a lens, a framework, a thought tool to view the world through but like all handymen, one should not have only one tool on the shelf, but many. Science should be thought of as one of many tools, but not the only tool. For example, pickup the tool of Science when you would like Knowledge of the coorpereal, material, the physical. Place the tool of Science back on the shelf when you want knowledge on how to behave socially at your kids mother’s new husband’s 14 year old daughters funeral; or perhaps whether you should attend at all…
If we continue to seek truth and knowledge solely through the lens of Science, Science will – of coarse – increase in reverence and our reality will consequently become more Scientifically construed. Simply put, Science will burgeon more Scientific phenomena to which we will look at more Scientifically and so forth. A self fulfilling prophecy, much like existence to which it will nourish itself and Will to, nourish itself exponentially through time – a true perpetual proclivity.
We must remain impartial with our tools for knowledge, we must resist the urge to cling to form, to shelter in orthodoxy, to pathologically extend the path of least resistance… Science is one of many ways to narrate reality though today, it has gained orthodoxy. Generally, the frontiers of orthodoxy is animated with humanities lust for novelty, hubris and credulity and by the nature of orthodoxy, its roots are left unattended, forgotten with bore and general disinterest. This is the case here!
We turn to the wonderful quality of a child in his/her lack of proclivity, there ability to point out ‘the obvious’ and in this case, the child is pointing to Science’s said orthodoxical roots, that is it’s ‘obvious’ dogmatic axioms of mind…Science certainly does have new clothes and we, the people are all cheering.