Science is Great, but not the Scientists

Science great, save for the speculation. Speculation is great if there is intent to research, investigate and data gather and to analyze and quest to understand. Academics have said to me, essentially, "there is nothing that is unknowable." Which was a response to my assertion of Castaneda's three levels of knowability: the known, the unknown and the unknowable. To (some) science-oriented there are only two levels - the known and the unknown - and all that is unknown will eventually be known. Will eventually be known. That's the assumption that all that is can even be known which is itself an unknown. What I'm saying is that assuming that all can and may well eventually be known without the possibility that there may be things that are simply unknowable is a biased belief about something for which there is no evidence (only theories and in this case, conflicting theories); it is therefore a prejudice.

This prejudice precludes scientific inquiry.

The other side of the argument, that there are things that are unknowable is likewise a prejudice, but one that allows for something other than the idea that there are only uknowns, not unknowables.

A problem that I come across when reading things like The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is what I've come to recognize as a disbelief in any paranormal reality. Dean Radin talks about this sort of thing.

What is exciting is the possibility of scientific inquiry into paranormal - that's where my interest lies!