A brief discourse on the 'Scientific Method'

Stating that the absence of a rational explanation for something is proof that it isn't true, is like determining that the ocean is a metre deep because my ruler has a maximum of a 100 centimetres.

The tools of scientific analysis by the west can only measure that part of reality that their particular historical experience has given them the sense to discern. Just because it works some of the time, doesn't mean it works all of the time, and especially when their particular historical experience has itself curtailed their understanding of 'all'.

All tools are invented by a particular History, nourished by all the experiences it contains, and impoverished by all that it doesn't. 

The 'reality' of the partial historical development of the west, determines the degree to which their tools of discerning reality is impartial.

All tools are invented by a particular History, nourished by all the experiences it contains, and impoverished by all that it doesn't. The 'reality' of the partial historical development of the west, determines the degree to which their tools of discerning reality is impartial.

This brief discourse on the 'Scientific Method' is not an attempt to disparage the west, but to free them from the blinkers that necessarily accompany any history.

Thus you see, therefore you don't.

edX