GROUND 2: AGAINST COMMON SENSE!

The problem at issue here is with how Science is perceived in the country of India by different stake holders. 

First stakeholders are people who do science professionally. There is already a split in the deed of science and as an appearance of science. What I want to say is, A doer of science, one who performs scientific experiments, approaches the subject not as a field of common sense, which is the popular view of science, but it appears as a completion attempt to the erstwhile incomplete reality there is. Whereas the popular notion of science as a common sense is a flawed one. Obviously, we can guess that, but we need to concretely analyze that. 

The appearance to science as common sense is anti-thetical to the notion of scientific temperament which is viewing science as a science doer. A science doer of course approaches reality as a story unfinished in itself and this piece of reality might complete it a little more. 

Second Stakeholders are people, who are mostly anti-science, as people I consider of religion. People of established tradition, who critique rational approach to reality as being a limiting approach, as if approaching reality with a rational lens will obviously obfuscate reality and hence some things will automatically disappear from its view due to the particular lens of scientific method. 

Here also, one thing is common, which is common sense. An approach to reality through a doctrine, be it religion, or be it a spiritual dogma, is to ascertain one dogma as a common sensical postulate and then proceed to develop its theories. These attacks of scientific temperament try to use a mix of inductive reason and empiricism to counter the reasonable way to approach reality. They try to ask the following problematic, "Is the total of reality reasonable, that is, graspable by the prism of reason?" Kant comes to their support with his transcendental idealism. Some reality remains unapproachable even through reason is what Kant says. I am neither defending nor attacking Kant here. 

In fact, It will be quite Naive to attack Kant, Like Ayn Rand tried to do. It is similarly quite improper to try to save Kant. Rather, I remain a Hegelian to subvert Kant. 

The obvious way to do the sublation task of Hegelian dialectics, that is, to try to subvert the assertion, is to fit the argument in the paradigm of "Of course.... but..." and then add an additional layer to it. 

So, "Of course, Reality is not fully graspable by reason alone, but then of course, Reality is already not graspable through a fixed static prism of common-sense spirituality, religion or for that matter any static dogma." 

Reason as a tool and empirical evidence as a tool to approach the inconsistencies in our stories to reality is the only valid dynamic way to proceed. Which leads us to our crucial point where I think people who do science do not realize. 

That is, Science is really not common sense. Scientific method might be common sensical, strictly, it is not reducible to common sense. Rather Common sense is an extremely conformist category which tries to fit reality in an approximate and often incorrect fiction. 

To be rational is to not be common sensical. To be rational and reasonable is not at the same time be a rationalizer. In a spectrum of idiocy here, there is a middle path which is the path of scientific temperament. The path of ever curious, ever incomplete perspective of reality. On one extreme you have indoctrinated spiritualists and religious people, who view reality as a complete out there truth, and try to explain their doubts with the continuous framing of rationalized stories, on the other hand, you have so called, Scientific bent of mind people, who are actually non-scientific, who view reality as a common sense, Reality as something which is already explainable through a series of deductive reasoning, and there is nothing that remains outside the purview of common sense. 

Common sense, or the prejudicial view, the view of viewing reality through an already filled basket of knowledge and trying to fit and reduce reality to this basket, is an attempt of an already dogmatic person, religious or otherwise. 

So, doesn't matter whether he is scientific or not, religious or not, if he operates in Philosophy as a person of common sense, he is bound to be a pervert, someone who is too overwhelmed by the incompleteness of reality and he thinks he already knows everything. 

A rational man is one, who is aware of this ontological incompleteness inherent in reality itself. And his attempts are to unravel how much the reality is really capable to appear in front of him. This is the path of science, this is the path of authentic spirituality even. This is not the path of common sense. 

A man of common sense, is a man of dogma, never mind if he is a liberal, or an atheist, or a religious man. Common sense, already is a superstition he believes in. To be precise, the superstition he really believes in is, every phenomenon, new or old, has an explanation in my basket of common sense, or if not his, in the common collective basket of common sense of all of humanity. 

To be rational, is to be philosophic per Execellence. To be rational is to be spiritual authentically. To be rational is to be scientifically curious all along, even view as scientific method as a potential incomplete background to be able to describe reality. 

An ontologically incomplete reality is apparent to the man of reason; it is invisible to the man of common sense. A man of reason does not use reason as a tool in the production of process of reality, rather, keeps reason also as a potential product of the production process of reality as knowledgeable. 

"In itself", is really the question of science. "In itself", is really invisible to the common sensical man. In itself, is apparent to the spiritual man, but often ridiculed even through common sense as subjectivity. 

Subjectivity is an inadequate description of "In itself". In fact, transcendentalism, even is not appropriate to describe things in themselves. 

In Itself, in fact, is a reality mediated by a transcendental supplement, and rather than its inaccessibility, which Kant proposes, we should talk about the appearances being able to be multi-faceted through the usage of subjectivity. 

How does subjectivity arise out of a reality which has some transcendental supplements? To answer this question, we need to ask a more fundamental one, "How is reality so apparent to itself?" or "How much reality is really apparent to itself?" "Is subjectivity an inability or a constituent of a collective objectivity?" 

Or to propose the radical, Subjectivity, as an incomplete and inconsistent description of reality arises because the objective description of reality itself is ontologically incomplete and not fully developed to be graspable. 
To put it in a naive religious way, how to have complete knowledge about the Universe, if the Universe is not completed by God, and is in fact in process of building reality as it is and it will be. If God himself does not know the truth, even God can be merely a philosopher and not a man who constantly repeats the statement, say an Apostle. 

To put God as a Philosopher in an ontologically incomplete reality as his Philosophical masterpiece, would be a radical attempt at Philosophy which could rejuvenate our hopes in Philosophy, curiosity and Science altogether merging like ancient times, to be decoders of the question, how much of reality and to what degree is accessible. 

Just, one more thing, Replace God even, with an ontologically incomplete creator, which is of course, a no-creator creation, that too incomplete. A process, without a processor, that too, in the middle of happening. This will be an authentic, modern day, Materialist description of Reality.