Why mainstream science contradicts itself

[Blackandblue]

Dear all psychonauts

Science frequently has contradictory implications, because humans form them.

For example, since my field of interest is geobiology, I study the origins of life resting on the ASSUMPTION that life evolved from non-life, not by anything magic.

Earth is a biological planet, but not a planet formed (pace
Lincoln) by the biota of the biota and for the biota. Rather we
live on a planet that was habitable when life first emerged and
which has remained habitable through the complex and
incompletely understood interactions of biological and other
components of the Earth system. That is not quite the world
that James Hutton envisaged. In our modern worldview,
biology is no more static than the land and sea in Hutton’s
conception. But it is certainly in the spirit of his Theory of
the Earth. This being the case by a scientist called Hutton
(1785): “There is little understanding of how long it
took for reaction cycles to develop from local...
Although we can gain some idea of the relative quantitative importance
of different types of energy metabolism, we do not
know the order in which they evolved. Indeed, the
origin of life and the first reactions in energy metabolism
probably never will be known with certainty.
These events took place before any geological
evidence of life, and while phylogenetic trees and
structural analyses provide clues regarding key
motifs, so far they have not provided a blueprint for
how life began. Stable-isotope fractionation has
provided evidence for sulphate reduction and methanogenesis
in 3.5-billion-year-old deposits (28), but
these metabolic processes are presumably older.

The fact is, that there are 'greater things on heaven on earth' than we were ever 'meant' to know, by the harsh formative factors that are and where the environment that has predated us.

The absurd is born out of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world.
This view, which is shared by Sartre, is that humanity must live in a world that is and will forever be hostile or indifferent towards them. The universe will never truly care for humanity the way we seem to want it to. The aethist view of this statement is that people create stories, or gods, which in their minds transcend reality to fill this void and attempt to satisfy their need.
The philosophy that encompasses the absurd is referred to as absurdism. While absurdism may be considered a branch of existentialism, it is a specific idea that is not necessary to an existentialist view.

In other words, mainstream science contradicts itself because it can't do any better, and neither can you, or anyone, or anything.

We are a helpless existence with nothing to do, except occasionally digress into delusion and obsession, and hope to get the combination right enough.

I like to pray that I might transcend one day this...