Reply to thread

The more one pushes into particle physics and frontier science, the more one finds that science describes the objective experience of things, but struggles to describe subjective experience. With frontier science, just the variety of metaphors scientists and science communicators use to describe their work should be telling enough. That is, we might not have a definite account of "the real." It is not a puzzle that can be solved, and if it's solved, what then? For instance, science asks what is wind? what is fire? And a scientific account of wind would say wind is what's caused by differences in temperature between different parts of the Earth's surface. It won't deal with how one might "experience" wind. A scientific account is one way to describe things/phenomena; we can't ascribe total authority to it; it's ok to be "wrong" to; falsifiability is after all key to the method.