Understood. I agree on difficulty with rigour, but then when you and I use “rigour” we mean it in a particular sense informed by the current philosophy of natur

Understood. I agree on difficulty with rigour, but then when you and I use “rigour” we mean it in a particular sense informed by the current philosophy of natural sciences. I suspect a possibility for rigour in other approaches, even if it looks not very rigorous to us in the framework of that philosophy. > I think it perilous to try to integrate them under the guise of science I may disagree on this somewhat, since physics can well be interpreted under monistic idealism where consciousness is a first-class citizen. The resistance may stem from it causing natural sciences (physics, etc.) to become subordinate to philosophy, which can be explained as an artefact of how science is done in our society (note how this anchors us again to humans and therefore consciousness): natural science allowed a lot of progress that benefitted our well-being (along with some consequences that potentially do not, cf. advanced weaponry), it gained certain status and many people don’t want it to lose that status for various reasons (maybe on occasion selfish ones). The resistance strikes me as misguided, natural sciences were in fact informed by philosophy, and philosophy may be evolving. It’s like there was a healthy competition between different maps, natural sciences had won, but other maps are still useful (e.g., cases where modern medicine fails yet meditation/mindfulness do the trick are frequently mentioned even on HN), and competition would still be healthy. Perhaps I don’t need to be concerned and the conflict I want to remove via some universal philosophy is in fact evidence of competition keeping on and the plurality of maps. Maybe I in fact lament the lack of rigour that could benefit those other maps if modern science treated them seriously.