The scientific method is accepted as the most reliable way of studying anything of relevance or interest to humanity. It is based on observation, analysis, and theorising about possible conclusions. A tentative explanation can become a theory, which has to meet 2 criteria – to explain and simultaneously to predict – through the formulation of a hypothesis or two. However, the observations need to be repeatable, enabling verification. In the light of unavoidable variability in the physical and human worlds, and of the uncertainty which permeates all existence, all conclusions (one might expect) would be tentatively held.
Not so. There is, for instance, a published claim by a renowned scientist that the human mind cannot exist outside the brain. How on earth could such a conclusion be reached? Easy! In the absence of evidence acceptable within the framework of the scientific method, that conclusion can be defended.
What then happens to those human experiences which are significant in their impact upon those affected, but which are not repeatable, and are therefore unverifiable in that manner? Could one say with certainty that these experiences had not occurred? Or that they were merely aberrations of the mind; that is, hallucinations?
So, could there be any learning or knowledge anywhere which might be available to some of us in some unverifiable manner but which is beyond the scope of the scientific method? Seemingly not. But I see a distinct problem. Limited by his 5 senses, and their processor the brain, would not an honest and intelligent person admit that there may be maths out there which cannot be accessed, or that there may be processes and events in the universe of which we will remain necessarily ignorant?
While we bumble along in the dark of unavoidable ignorance because of the limitations of our senses, our brains, and the associated scientific method, could there be other means providing insight into reality? I believe so.
When I was pursuing ESP (extra-sensory perception) I was presented with the spirit of my uncle who had been sent (he said) to guide my spiritual development following certain personal disasters. At one point, there was a 3-way discussion. But it was the clairvoyant who could see and communicate with my uncle, but the latter could obviously hear me. How could I deny the reality of that experience?
RAJA ARASA RATNAM 