We are used to think of truth as linear truth, i.e. one truth existing alongside of other truths and these all adding up to the truth.
This article highlights another aspect of truth, hierarchical truths…

and the consequences of their marriage for society
Going down into the microcosm of sub-atomic particles we find that one electron is just like another electron and no individuality is apparent. This means that the electrons are pure quantities that have no differential quality. Even molecules of a particular variety, unlike humans, cannot be distinguished from one another.
What could differentiate one electron from another is position in space. But as the quantum physicists have found out even the precise location cannot be found without losing momentum. It can be estimated and assigned a certain probability. This means that we have to have a group of electrons – to even calculate a probability – before one can find one. This could lead one to question if electrons even exist as individuals.
Quantity increase we know does not mean that the quality increases proportionally; higher mortgage payments do not automatically increase the quality of your real estate. Nor does it mean decrease in quality. So what is the relationship between these two similar sounding words? Total quantity with no quality is impossible, I will show later. Total quality with no quantities involved would be the quality of one single whole.
For our purposes we define quality as the essential character or the intrinsic, indispensable properties that serve to identify something. One could say quality is what makes something to what it is. Thus quality creates identity.
The word identity derives from Late Latin identitās, from Latin idem the same. Any number multiplied by one is that number, as one is the identity for multiplication. Identity can be represented by the number one.
That one cannot conceive of any quantity without quality can be proven mathematically. We take the number two, we see it is an abstraction, so we say two what? Okay.
Let’ say two cars. Now we have something to count and we cannot deny that these two are different cars and that both of them have some quality. However both are cars and as such they are identical, because counting them we only take their car-ness into account. From this, one can easily see that two or more cars can only be counted as such by virtue of the fact of the oneness of car-ness. A car as a concept is a whole, a unit and to count we need the concept not the individual qualities of those cars.

In this article I will argue that it is urgently necessary to discard the phrase in the title. When we speak of the scientific method in this day and age, we mean the following:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge and obtaining the necessary permissions and financial support for the whole setup. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidencesubject to specific principles of reasoning.
The first italicized part of the above definition is usually omitted, but is the actual context of modern scientific inquiry. This means that to evaluate scientific results means that the policies of sources of university funding, corporate funding, government funding as well as specific research project funding have to be taken into account.
Another even more important aspect becomes visible once we examine the key concepts which are the empirical and the measurable. In other words objective. If empirical and measurable are defined within the context of the human senses and the conceived three dimensional reality, science could never advance beyond these artificial limits.
Since the emergence of quantum physics we know that the results of ‘empirical’ observation and experimentation can only be interpreted in the context of the observer, which introduces a certain subjectivity. It has even become scientifically questionable to assume the very existence of an objective universe.
A generalization of the scientific method therefore would have to include evidence in a broader category. Consciousness for example is something that cannot be proven to exist in the former scientific sense. This is based on the fact that consciousness itself is part of the proof.
Let us assume the following definition of science:”Science is the consideration and action of forming conceptual systems of comprehension of different aspects of reality. Sciences are systematic conceptualizations.”
Taking off from this definition of science any reality could be the subject of scientific inquiry. Therefore I propose to include anything that can be experienced as reality to be a valid domain of inquiry and therefore evidence that can be experienced and shared should be taken into account.
So let us stop using the extremely provincial phrase, “The Scientific Method” realizing it is just A scientific method and instead opt for many scientific methods. This would do more justice to the very definition of science itself which means – etymologically- just knowing.
Therefore what is known as official science can now officially be suspected of being, slanted by the context of financial interests as well as the self-imposed limitation of only accepting evidence from a viewpoint that does not even include consciousness itself.
As has been said many times ‘Context is the key’.