When or where did I say that science should be reduced to an anything-goes theory of the universe?
My mistake. You never claimed science should be "anything goes". You merely suggested it should allow ontological philosophy to infuse with it, which practically speaking, amounts to the same thing, in the end.
In fact, my rationale is quite implicit with regards that science should stop doing such things - as it currently does - and ONLY deliver theories which are consistent with 'the world' being an experience - which is the truth regarding the universe that we experience.
You are mistaken, here, about the current nature of science. Science does NOT currently allow "anything goes" theories. They already only offer theories that fit with what was experienced. More accurately, they offer theories based on the collective experience of all scientists.
Sometimes, scientists make mistakes, or sometimes intentionally massage data to fit with what they want. The neat thing is that these inaccuracies are eventually uncovered by further observations/experiments/investigations, etc. Thus, science can only build provisional models.
Science should seek to offer theories which equate the order of the experienced-universe with The originator of that experience. This, it does not do. In fact, science currently delivers theories about the [experienced] universe which equates the origin of everything within experience, with something-else that is experienced.
For example, the experienced-brain causes the experience of 'thought'.
What do you mean by the "Originator" of that experience? Do you mean the scientist experiencing his or her results, or God, or something else? I don't think you make this clear.
Incidentally, if you meant "The scientist", then science already does this. Reform is unnecessary, and perhaps I might have been mistaken assuming that you meant arguments outside of that, such as "god".
If, however, you meant God as the originator, then you have to have some serious empirical evidence to provide, before we accept the concept of God into science.
... No greater example of 'realism' bias exists, other than those theories which seek to explain the orgin of the universe to something outside of the Self that provides that experience for Itself.
It's so bad it's laughable.
Those theories about the origin of the Universe are provisional models only. They are the best guesses scientists can make, based on what they have observed so far in the cosmos, in their particle accelerators, in their equations, etc. No sane scientist is going to claim they are anything more than that.
By the way, what credentials exist within the educational system of 'The West' (or anywhere) which would qualify oneself to expose the bias of science and demand a reform of that practise?
Answer = 'none', since the establishments which hand-out 'credentials' are as blinded by science as is everybody else.
Well, first of all, the education system of "The West" is pretty freakin' lousy, when it comes to science education. If it was any better, fewer people like you would have such a misinterpreted view of it.
Secondly, "The West" as a style of philosophy, has nothing to do with science. Science is the same all over the Universe (assuming there is life on other planets - if there is, and they developed science, then science would be exactly the same for them).
There was a time when the world (ruled by religious politics) wouldn't even accept science.
We now live in a world ruled by scientific and realist politics.
The point is, that times change. Slowly, maybe... but they change.
Read some history.
I've probably read more history than you, it seems. The world is actually ruled more by ideological politics, rather than science and "realist" politics (whatever "realist" means).
This, of course, is not a good thing.
Perhaps, politics needs to reform to accept more science and provisional realism (which may differ from "realist"), and fewer appeals to absolute morality and "faith-based" values.
Times do indeed change, of course, but history indicates that if the world is going to continue becoming a happier place, it will need to base its policies more on empirical science.
Ask yourself why it is meaningless to science as to whether the world is an experience or real in itself.
If an experience, the origin of everything experienced is attributed to 'The Self'.
If real, the origin of everything experienced must be attributed to something that is not the self.
I'll let you in on a little secret:
I once asked myself very similar questions. (This was a few years before I became a real skeptic) The answer I eventually came up with is this:
There is real value in keeping science based purely on empirical evidence, without regard to ontological distinctions between "experience" and "real in itself". There is value in keeping the scientific method pure and distinct from philosophy and other related methods of thought. That value takes many forms: It is in the medicine and treatments we have for disease. It is in developing our understanding of the planet, which enables us to foresee impending disasters. Its provisional models of the origins of the universe help explain and predict what we observe in the cosmos and in our physics experiments.
All of this value could be lost when science decides it is more important to offer meaning to ontological arguments, such as distinctions between "real" and "experienced". Such distinctions could offer value only to philosophical thinking.
... Clearly, one's opinions about the essential reality of existence must affect the causal theories of ~things~.
Bleedin' obvious. Yet few here can see the bias exhibited by science regarding current theories relating to the universe.
This is why our theories relating to the Universe are only provisional. They are only models. They are only "best guesses" based on collective experience. No sane scientist would think otherwise.
Hence, few here recognise the need for scientific reform.
However, that is the fault of the majority here... and not the fault of the logic presented here, by me.
I beg to differ. Your logic, unfortunately, has been less than impeccable. In other posts you talk about spirituality as a scientific concept, without providing empirical evidence than spirits even exist. So, there are two possabilites:
1) Few recognize the need for reform, simply because you, personally, can not communicate the idea well. OR
2) More likely, many of us have already recognized the limits of science. But, instead of reforming science, we relegate such outside-science concepts to philosophy. And, philosophy is not science.
There is a whole fringe industry of postmodern people writing essays on exactly the sorts of things you are babbling about. But, of course, postmodernism is not considered science, either.
Seriously, I would suggest reading some of the Popper and other books others have suggested in this thread.
You have an enthusiasm not found in most people. This is a good thing. You need only learn how to apply your enthusiasm more constructively.
