Examining the self, science vs philosophy

[D_Flip]

Hi!

I've just finished my exam in biochemistry and got a little bored, having nothing to do (not wanting to throw myslef into new studies right away) I thought I'd vent some thoughts on the self. The reason for me posting this is because so often there are discussions of science vs philosophy and so on that I can't make sense of. My point is that science is empirical and all that is not is not science. Please tell me if you think you have anything to add that I missed or if you disagree on anything.

When in science observing any given system, in an emprical manner, I am always restricted by myself. I could never examine myself from an objective point of view, and any attempt to do so from outside of myself would have to be perceived by me to make it known to myself. In this, it is impossible to get a full understanding of things as I can never know what would be without me. The only way to do this would be to eliminate my ability to make assumptions. If I cannot assume, everything I sense is what there is.

Let me give some examples: If I assume I cannot assume? That is an assumption, failed. Can I determine if I can assume? To do so I would have to know something I'm not aware of, then test myself to see if I can answer it anyway. That would also be impossible. So is everything I assume correct then? Well no, because assuming some things would have
to say that what I perceive is false and that all my assumptions may be wrong. If so, my assumed truth is no more true than it is false. That makes tossing dice about it better, because then I would get a probability distribution that's probably better than my biased assumption right?

So I can say that some things are true, yes of course I can say that. I can say that from my point of view, this will always be true. I could also assume that anyone else capable of assuming would be subject to this truth. Now,
there will of course be things I can't make good assumptions about. Namely, what I said in the beginning, truths that don't go outside of myself. The second paragraph in this post explains that.

The conclusion, therefore, is that you shouldn't mix your terms up. If you want to anyway, be prepared to toss dice!

[Bokks]

Mmmm, the irony of assuming...
The question is, though, what is the question? the science of assumption, which demands that no assumptions be made; only rational, empirical and testable truths, or exactly what the self is? For the self is more than merely a word, it is our entire essense of being, something that holds so many secrets science may never unlock them all, and philosophically requires untense mental concentration that--still--amounts to nothing before the self experiance of a traumatic event.