He’s observing, testing, and attempting to discern.
Which is more than any observer here can say for you.
From another recent post:
It would be trivial to take his observation and propose a very valid set of points that make it scientifically real.
The causal points and the end results, all explained, in detail, down to their very roots.
The question is, in this case, would the ones who rail against the initial observation and question, do they have the capacity to cognate the complex sum total of the answer set?
The noises they make in the proposal of the observation and question, says, invariably...no.
Which is more than any observer here can say for you.
From another recent post:
People are born into projection. Logic is not a given, it is thing that people have to learn.
Logic is an idea, a conceptual position in a reality built out of emotionally controlled and re-projected bits of deeply colored perception.
All of reality is subjective, objectivity is an idea proposed in the attempt of the mind to find it’s way to proposing logic. To refine and distill analysis.
Objectivity does not exist. It is a conceptual state that is forced, and wholly unnatural. It stands on the shoulders of an entirely subjective edifice and bedrock.
What does that say about science?
It says the same derisive comment (in an unspoken kinder fashion) that Edward Bernays said to all the people that his emotionally oriented methodologies were targeted to bend, which numbered into the eventual billions: "Don’t be Stupid."
As for science and the whole objective vs subjective reality we face. Science says: ’Observation Is King". That everything starts with observation.
Follow the logic of this, does one?
I dearly hope so, as the next step is not ’emotionally comfortable’, for some... in how it proposes the mind may position itself, where...
It does not mean that projection in science can dismiss observation. Nor does it say that illiteracy and lack of intelligence can propose a mental shortcut to dismissal, in the face of a thing the lesser intellect and lesser capacity cannot attempt to understand.
It would be trivial to take his observation and propose a very valid set of points that make it scientifically real.
The causal points and the end results, all explained, in detail, down to their very roots.
The question is, in this case, would the ones who rail against the initial observation and question, do they have the capacity to cognate the complex sum total of the answer set?
The noises they make in the proposal of the observation and question, says, invariably...no.