Sriram,
1. The fact is that there are many private insights that people are privy to that Science cannot with its current methods, verify. That is a fact.
No it isn’t. There are many private
beliefs – about all sorts of things – but if you want to claim them to be “insights” then you need a method of some kind to validate them.
2. It is also true that most such insights are common around the world....though their interpretations may vary.
No it isn’t. There’s a bewildering variety of personal beliefs, some of which become embedded at the tribal level. The only commonality concerns the human experience – we all for example grieve the loss of loved ones, so the wishful thinking that (say) they are reincarnated is comforting, and so finds traction with those unconcerned with logic or evidence.
3. There are now attempts being made to bring all such insights together to formulate a common foundation. This will gather steam in coming generations.
I’ll take your word for it that there are such attempts, but item one on their agenda should be to establish a method to distinguish their claims from woo. That these attempt will supposedly “gather steam” is just your assertion on the matter.
4. Getting such insights tested by science, while desirable, is not essential. No one is losing any sleep over the fact that science has not tested these insights.
And nor does the world of science lose an sleep over the fact that it’s all indistinguishable from woo – in other words, it’s not
even wrong.
5. Many individuals understand these experiences & insights... and there are very many groups all over the world that confirm and add to such insights. There are literally billions of people involved.
There might be “billions” who have unsupportable beliefs but an
argumentum ad populum doesn’t help you, not least in this case because those beliefs vary so hugely.
6. Science has its own little playground where it is useful. It is not useful everywhere. This is something a few wiise scientists of today are beginning to realize....and most normal folk have known for a long time.
“Science” claims only to address that with which it can engage – ie, the investigable. If you want to call that “its own little playground” that’s up to you, but I think you do it a disservice when you do that given the remarkable record of success and importance it's had in all our lives – which is you why you’d (presumably) take medicine to cure a serious illness rather than set fire to a bunch of sage leaves..
7. There are some areas where science could possible do some testing....but due to hardheaded materialistic views among many scientists, these opportunities are being wasted away. But that does not mean that people with these insights will lose confidence and buckle down.
Again it’s “beliefs” and not “insights”, and they probably won’t. And yes, science is “hardheadedly” materialistic because that’s all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable. If you think there’s another method to investigate your claims, then tell us what it is.
8. Science is not the be all and end all of life and the quest for knowledge. Science is only a very small peep hole into reality.
That may or may not be true. Absent the methods of science though, what method would you propose instead to investigate your claims about this supposed “not science apt” reality?
