Simple Argument

Because you investigate problems/issues/phenomena using a systematic scientific process designed to transition from the raw state of an observation for a specific phenomenon/problem to a meaningful information state that interprets the observation, answers questions, solves problems related to it, and furthermore; enable us to simulate the phenomenon if necessary.

In humanity’s quest for the existence question researchers use science, and scientific methodologies. If during this quest, a researcher searches for answers to this question presuming this existence is a result of coincidence, this means the researcher defied the basic hallmark of a researcher character and contradicted their scientific mindset, since:

1. This presumption will lead them throughout their research process biased towards finding a specific result “coincidence”, and the researcher should remain neutral during the research process
2. A systematic existence and coincidence are two completely different and opposing beliefs; how can a well-organized system be a result of mere coincidence, and how can coincidence produce a well-organized system?

While point 2 has been elaborated in the above visual, we’ll dig further in point 1 below:

If we believe that our scientific research will lead us one day sometime in the future to one single theory that explains everything; and at the same time we presume that this theory will lead us to one specific finding in our research and we run our research focusing on accumulating and formulating evidence that corroborates and supports this one specific finding this would be an indicator of an inherited and deeply rooted bias. A true researcher would refrain from bias if they are to be truly scientific in their research and application of scientific methodologies, and one reason is –> During testing hypotheses unexpected data, observations, and findings might arise, opening the door for other/alternative hypotheses/explanations that didn’t cross the researcher’s mind earlier. Being biased in favor of a specific finding/result might drive the researcher to turn the blind eye from exploring alternative probabilities and possibilities proposed by the data, observations, and findings that arouse. An example of this are researchers who strive to find an answer to the question of existence presuming their research results will refute creationism and the existence of God. In this case we can say with confidence that the goal of their research was to prove a specific point of view they believe in; the non-existence of God, rather than answer the question of existence. It is common sense that the researcher bias undermines the reliability of the research findings.

One of the most interesting news in 2013 I heard was:

After fifty (50) years of hard work and scientific investigation the scientists were honored a Nobel Prize for Physics in 2013, because “the researchers’ mechanism would contribute to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider””.

Fifty years of the hard work of 2 devoted scientists combined resulted in a contribution to the understanding. This made me wonder: how long until we formulate an understanding beyond the least doubt? If achievable at all.

Think, there’s a reason why the mind is not a common ownership and why each one of us has a mind of their own.

This reminds me of parts of 2 verses in Quran from Surat Al Isra and Surat Yusuf:

“… وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّن الْعِلْمِ إِلاَّ قَلِيلاً” سورة الإسراء (85)

This part of the verse is translated as: “… of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men!)” Surat Al Isra (85)

“… وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِي عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ” سورة يوسف (76)

This part of the verse is translated as: “… but over all endued with knowledge is one, the All-Knowing.” Surat Yusuf (76)

Personal Observations about Humans Series (9)

If I were the type of person who continually criticizes others, I would be careful of what I become because sometimes we become the very individual/thing we criticize.

Man strived to improve his life and little world, searched for remedies for the unexpected and undesired side effects and found an alibi and somebody to blame, let it be nature, God, or whatever. Technology and innovation run faster than environmental and societal gap fixes.

When corruption prevails or soars it is because the aware systems surrounding the corrupted person/entity reinforce the corrupted behavior, or turn the blind eye from it instead of rectifying it.

Humans spend the money they neither possess, nor have earned and wonder why they run in vicious circles of indebtedness.