“His response was to fight it with the only weapons at hand—passive resistance and open displays of contempt.” ― Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan
Evolution is a strange thing. So is shame.
The “Hybrid Man” of China explains both. Watch the video, and see for yourself.
While shame can explain science, science cannot explain shame.
How can that be? Because science frowns upon personal anecdotal observations. In fact- scientists despise personal experiences, and observations about experiences that cannot be replicated, or “proven.”
Scientists have no shame.
Being a scientist means to overcome irrational thinking, religious programming, peer pressure, political pressure, and so on- to be shameless in pursuit of, and presentation of facts, figures, and ‘hard data’ that can ‘prove’ things, empirically, and scientifically.
Science can posit, and prove gravity exists by dropping a ball, measuring its speed, and so on. By demonstrating a physical effect- like a dent in the sand, and measure that too.
Science can prove that physical properties that are described by mathematics apply to the bounce of a ball, and predict its path, or velocity.
These observations “prove” theories to be valid, or invalid. That things which can be replicated are proof of science, and the validity of scientific methods.
But nothing in hard science can explain shame, or prove that it exists, or doesn’t exist, because shame, and descriptions of shame are anecdotal, individual, and personal for each person.
Yet everyone has it- everybody knows what it is on some ‘spiritual or emotional’ level- everyone except scientists.
Because subhective shame cannot be objectively observed, quantified, measured, or tested, scientists invalidate or deny its existence. There is simply no way to prove it exists.
So, science, and scientists have no shame.
And because science has no shame, and scientists are notoriously and rabidly against unorthodox, or experiential anecdotal evidence, often, great opportunities are lost.
I think the opportunity to study the hybrid man of China was one of them, because shameful acts, politics, religions- and scientists, funded by givernments- lost an opportunity to study both in this case.
One womans subjective shame was enough to stop insight for decades about this human being- this one human outlier that had the potential to teach us about ourselves.
Another attempt to say it plain, which is, even then not simple.