Something that bothers me with science is that when they think they’ve proven something, they become very dogmatic with their views on that subject, restricting perspectives by confusing assumptions with absolute fact, thus refusing to backtrack.
The example that inspired this is the ancient Greek idea that sight is a projection of the eyes, as in eye beams traveled out of the eyes and produced the images that we “see” (known as Emission Theory). But as we know from science, that’s actually backwards. Light bounces off an object then into our eyes (Intromission Theory).
But the thing is, science also says something else. Science says that observation effects outcome (Observer Theory). But if light is only going into our eyes, how does our eyes perception go out into the world to effect it? If eyes were purely receptive and not emitting, shouldn’t their presence be a non-factor?
I’m kinda disorganized right now. I don’t know if I actually got my point across or if I’m just rambling. Without going into more rambling, I’ll leave my final thought as a bookmark for my self:
“Concurrent mechanisms”
♡Sugar☆World☮ 