The emphasis of scientific research and way it is conducted yes would operate differently ic Abrahamic religions and the ancient Greeks never existed, yes. I do not know why this is so difficult for you to understand and accept.>>59996
>claims others are fatposting
This but also it literally doesn't just work, as in the wide variety of dynamic and complicated interdependent systems, that again, is partly why we are such complete shit at actually predicting a lot of things beyond the individualist-primacy centric mode of Western thought. The basic assumption that you somehow exist as an island completely independent from any other formative factors is a complete farce that we rationally know is a farce, and yet the unconscious presumption remains and therefore helps inform the way we go about everything else, from social policy to academic research. I mean hell even our way of crediting inventors and researchers is this very corner cutting way of saying "and so here we see Ernst Septembrus, who discovered so and so through his research" while it was in fact a variety of your assistants and other researchers helping the collaborative effort to which your name is attached. Some people ironically did research on his this research and accrediting is conductedhttps://www.colorado.edu/today/2017/03/17/first-initial-last-name-could-foretell-ones-success-or-setback-life
although I think it's a different study of which I'm thinking. One of our great astronomical advances comes to mindhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Swan_Leavitt
whose historical significance tied into Abrahamic religious ordering of society, and likewise just as certainly underlying assumptions and mentalities lead to specific orderings of society so too does it inform some of the most fundamental ways we go about things stemming from those fundamental modes of operating and perceiving things, just as surely as a research project can become tainted by having the whole experiment's parameters built upon basic flawed assumptions that then taints the whole outcome of that research to begin with and create either junk data or only creates one flawed part of the bigger picture.
So I will say it again that yes certain aspects of Western approach to research are inherently flawed by failing to take fuller accounting of the fact a greater thing can arise than the sum of its parts, i.e. emergence. It is indeed very good at what it does and does generally try hard to isolate a specific thing so it is not influenced by co-factors or contaminates the research results, however even in just defining those parameters can the experiment itself become flawed, and so too do we end up horrible at understanding systems as complex as say the human brain or accurately predicting outcomes that are not
dependent on that atomistic, Western individualist approach to everything. That is exactly the kind of pants on head retarded thinking that results in say, trying to isolate "the one" psychotropic compound in Marijuana, and then simply declaring that it is THC that makes you high, and then shbsequently trying to synthesize and patent dumb shit like Marinol rather than asking and trying to understand "but what is the greater picture here? What other compounds and systems could be at play here while we try and develop our cancer drugs?"
Do you really not see what I am saying here? The very basis of our thinking and perceiving as according to those presumptions leads us in drug development to simply assume that there is one thing in Marijuana, made even worse by yet another corner cutting of universalism and expecting everything to work the same for everyone and thus getting really strange or paradoxical reactions because not everyone is wired the same because of the nature of their own biological systems. In that case it is a necessary
analytical corner to cut, however the fact remains we may totally miss a much better medical compound simply because we expect there to be primacy of "the one" chemical that gets you high and causes all those other potentially useful therapeutic effects, and going even further is partly why we had such utterly idiotic drug laws to begin with that barred medicinal and scientific inquiry.
I say Western, because we have our own unique theological and cultural concept of the self's relationship to the world, the self's relationship to other selves, and the fundamental nature and relationship of the self to itself, that is rooted partly in our Abrahamic conceptualizations of the soul, and its teleological view of nature which again informed the assumption of Signatures in medicinehttps://www.wired.com/2014/07/fantastically-wrong-doctrine-of-signatures/
If however your entire concept of the Self is that there is no true self, that you are not eternal, and that you are more the emergent property of the relationships between various things, and that you are a different "you" now than seven years ago and say "that self is dead" then yes your way of going about things like setting up research is going to be coming from a very different place. It is your basic assumptions about the nature of self and reality which can help shape and inform your very methodology.
It is partly for these reasons that something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupted_Blood_incident
would be totally unforseen by epidemiologists because they are, again, approaching it from the truncative viewpoint and so some of that mass behavior within these systems wouldn't have even occurred to them to test for and thus making the very conclusions to their research flawed. I will also say however that my view doesn't contradict the fact you could end up with that flawed disaster preparedness anyway if you do not account for the individual subsystems within those systems, i.e. the individuals.
My basic criticism is aimed at what I see as the inherent flaw and weakness to our present systems of knowledge acquisition and categorization, flaws in which they are need of hotpatches and bug fixes imo. I am not saying to throw things out, but rather vertical and horizontal integrations of other systems, for example in the emphasis on emergence. What I am saying is that the present knowledge system is like having one air traffic controller so laser focused on his one airplane operating in the weather conditions that he then loses sight of all the other planes moving simultaneously and after accidentally causing a midair collision goes the same how could this possibly have happened?!
route as usual.
I think that is partly why our system is such complete ass at predicting and preventing obvious cascade failures, from market crashes, to the OxyContin opioid epidemic, to impacts of climate change, to just about everything about 2020, and everyone going how unprecedented how could anyone have possibly foreseen this??
tl;dr you need to see the forest and the trees, not just the trees or the forest alone, and everything else while you're at it if able