Acknowledging the unavoidable subjective element in observing and interpreting the world, due to the very fact of consciousness in the interpreter, is easy; it is practically a sport. Such an existential attitude is rampant here. One becomes a scholar of moods, and a master of irony. But believing that this same, personal, puny consciousness– harbored in the situation of the observer (yourself!), actually changes reality, that is a more fatal step. One pauses at the edge of the pond, and looks at the leaves, reflected in black water. We can know we are never be sure of what is happening, and devise a suitable personality, based on the apparent fact–that there are no facts. But that we are a part of what is happening, and the facts are created right where we stand, with our help or our denial, that is a further story. I say, doubt is never possible as a final word–because a doubtful situation must change, and the next time you look it will be different. Because the very doubt you had is going to influence the succeeding reality.
This, I say, is certain: reality is not stable when put in the crucible of our doubts and fears. Neither is it impervious to our hopes. Science, the scientist in everyone, must instinctively back away from the accusation: that it isn’t neutral or anyway objective. The kid scientist knows better than the sentimental reader, that agreeing with the notion of a shifting reality, a change in the ground of being, or conscioiusesness itself, especially historically–this questions not just the techniques of their method, or the flaws in procedure. It means they have no method, and are every minute meddling and destroying. What is wrong in the view of reality that says we do not participate in it, is that it absolutely wrong. Not just approximately wrong, or wrong in the details of what it observes by thinking it can stand back from reality–but downright deluded, by reason of ignoring the obvious. (Need I repeat myself?) The scientific view is the one view that is totally childish. All its conclusions are wrong, by definition. All it knows are symptoms! Attributes! Science preens itself on objectivity, but it is only rigorous as a discipline of denial. On the other hand, I have some serious questions about this tone of voice I have insensible adopted.