If it is so that humans are more inward directed than other earthlings, is it not a great wonder how empiricism came to be such a dominant and preferred ontology? Shouldn't an animal incapable of metacognition have developed such a radically outward directed, empirical science? Or since it is obvious science couldn't have developed without reflection and internally directed attention, how was the the vehicle so disrespected once the destination reached? How could not have it been realized science (empirical, mechanistic method) wouldn't exist without an anterior ontological domain that wasn't material, corporeal, or observable? In other words, the scientific method was born from something unobservable and incorporeal (the imaginative, insightful, questioning mind), but now claims there must be observable, material, measurable evidence for something to exist.

Wouldn't we have never evolved at all adhering to what the empirical method deems a requisite to its ontological posture? Were I to organize my own mind according to materialism, it would instantly disappear (since it can't be observed or measured to pass peer review) and I'd be at the level of a lower life form (or dead). And what in the hell is going to advance from this state? Serious contradictions here. Materialists need to think about this, as it doesn't even begin to stand up to reason. It appears that with the rise of positivist fundamentalism comes the death of metacognition (the core of what makes us privileged thinking animals capable of highly ordered disciplines)...baffling. Logical positivist scientists can't have it both ways, idealism and materialism, for such is to make a mistake in logical typing and to lose at their own game before it began; it was their choice to be such extremists of materialism. Even though we now know about the observer effect and how it is impossible to leave the observer/thinker out of the experiment, it appears as though, whether it's due to a dominance of applied science or what, I can't be sure, there continues to be revolting errors in reason made by the popular, algorithm driven standardized techniques of the day. If algorithms, machine learning, computer simulations, etc., can play scientist, maybe we can finally leave out the observer, right? The human programming will always be implied, and that there was once a subjective being that put the ball in motion.