Every scientific instrument that has ever been created has a common component that is usually overlooked; telescopes have this component; microscopes have this component; particle accelerators have this component. This common component of all scientific instruments is the one who is looking, the scientist, the assumed entity that observes and interprets what appears to be happening on the other end of the instrument.
It’s actually impossible to remove the scientist from science. There always has to be an observer for there to be something that is being observed. There has to be an understander for there to be something to be understood. There has to be something that knows for anything to be known.
The separate supposed entity, which we call a scientist (or even a consumer of science), is an integral component of the whole scientific endeavor. The very purpose of science is to increase knowledge and understanding through observation. There’s nothing wrong with any of this, although it usually doesn’t receive this level of scrutiny.
But what if the whole of the scientific endeavor was based on a single, incorrect axiom? What if the assumed subject does really exist at all? “Of course it doesn’t!” I hear you cry, “Science is completely objective!”
It’s very easy to slip back into the belief that there is no subject involved in science. It’s the superficial default assumption: “there is no subject.” But at the same time implicitly (and fundamentally) there is an assumption of one. There cannot be any objective measurement without a subject. There cannot even be an object without a subject.
The root axiom of science is that reality is itself an object, filled with smaller objects, and that we too (our bodies) are objects that can also be the subjects in a subject-object relationship with reality. The belief is that out of this subject-object relationship we can accrue knowledge and understanding about the objects, even when the objects are what we think of as ourselves (e.g. our bodies).
The problem is that reality does not actually contain subjects and objects. Reality is one seamless whole. It’s one with no second. It includes everything, is included in everything, and also is everything. The viscerally-held illusion of separation that we humans have been able to construct with our advanced neocortices, and all the basic claims it makes about reality, are completely false.
The self claims that “I am here,” “I am real,” “I can know,” and “I can understand.” All of these claims are false because they’re wrapped around a lie, which is the “me.” It’s not that “I think therefore I am.” Thinking happens, but there is no thinker. There is no “I” that can be anywhere, that can be real, that can know, or that understand. Yes, there are bodies, but there is no real “me” in them.
At some point our brains became complex enough that they could recognize what seemed to be a pattern of “me.” The concept “me” could be abstracted by the neocortex and believed to be real beyond being just a concept. This kind of false-positive pattern recognition may have been useful when defending against apparent physical dangers (“phew, that rope looked like snake”), but it serves no useful purpose when it becomes the root of a general misperception of reality.
The mission of science is to understand this reality “objectively,” with as much confidence as possible. It’s on a mission to dissect and inspect, to partition and categorize. Science, as a system of belief, is another expression of the illusory viscerally-held sense of self (separation) seeking to understand and know something that is fundamentally not understandable or knowable.
Science is wonderful, and I love it. I have performed some scientific research myself. However, science will not, and cannot, ever know and understand the fundamental nature of reality because science is based on a the false axiom of subject-object separation, which is the self.