I am probably missing the concept of what you are saying and I apologize if I am speaking out of…
Trevor Bird
11

I don’t blame anyone for not really getting what I’m trying to say, it is not easy, especially given how deeply ingrained some scientific notions have become. What you’re essentially saying are two things:

  1. Facts can only be objective (to be real)
  2. Subjective experience cannot prove real facts

The subjective beliefs that you listed as examples belie the inability to consider subjective phenomena to be real facts, and you’re proving the subjective experience wrong by expecting it to prove something objective, which is a strawman of sorts.

What you need to consider instead are real subjective facts that cannot be observed and therefore scientifically tested, such as when someone loves someone else (beyond just being physically attracted), or a belief that something is good or evil.

Objectivist science would say that good or evil or love or similar things must somehow be made up or insignificant, when in fact they can be quite real and governed by universal laws, even if those were not material. Much like consciousness itself apparently “must be” material, despite science not being able to explain it that way. But neuroscientists believe it religiously.

The second part of this problem is that while subjectivity doesn’t work as solid basis for proof of objective facts, this whole way of thinking is a reduction. You don’t always need proof to achieve results, sometimes you only achieve results if you don’t need proof upfront, in a leap of faith. Not to mention that subjective experience can serve as proof just fine if you are trying to figure out universal laws of the subjective realm of reality.

As it is in your kind of example with bigfoot, this problem actually does apply wonderfully to cryptozoology. As I will write in one of the next critical observations, science has conservative bias against anything that sounds unlikely, and wouldn’t even bother to search to prove certain things if they appear to be too outlandish, or, technically speaking, statistically improbable.

The subjective modes of gaining insight like intuition or revelation don’t have that block or requirement and may in fact lead to results that science psychologically wouldn’t even want or try to accomplish. Bigfoot may still be a myth, but many thought to be extinct species have been found such as the latimeria fish, or in different fields things as major as the lost city of Troy.

It is similar with the search for aliens by ufologists or ghosts by paranormal investigators and other fringe lunacies. Sometimes the subject is not outlandish, but the inspiration is outright mystical, like with the benzene ring coming to Kekule when he dreamt of Ouroboros. Shouldn’t that have been discarded as “woo”? Science openly seeks to mock and shut down all such “foolish” endeavors even though they can at any time bring results.

To sum up, thinking that subjective experiences are not real facts is a misunderstanding and a reduction of what real facts are, and even then, requiring facts before proceeding is not always a good thing. But since these two points of view are unscientific, scientists consider them widely to be wrong. Because they believe nothing other than science “works”, by default.

Like what you read? Give Martin Rezny a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.