The scientific method is undoubtedly the best tool we have for understanding the nature of the universe. But is it the only method, and should it be the sole criterion for distinguishing fact from fiction? Is it really the only worthy approach to uncovering a truth? While scientific study is a timeless pursuit designed to transcend our current understanding of reality, the field of science itself has only existed for about 200 years—a mere blip on the cosmic scale.

​

Has science amassed enough evidence to confidently assess how the universe truly operates or the limits of technology? Furthermore, has humanity evolved enough to genuinely understand the true nature of reality? Are the technological tools we've developed since that time advanced enough to provide adequate answers about the universe's structure or what is and isn't possible within that framework?

​

Could scientists benefit from integrating additional truth-seeking methods to supplement its current findings with other ways of assessing the probability of mysteries science may not unravel in our lifetime, if ever? Or should we remain patient and let science progress naturally, accepting our perpetual ignorance? Perhaps we could introduce a level of probability based on available evidence without claiming scientific truth or fact, allowing us to explore or contemplate such mysteries while suspending ultimate judgment.  The next section, S.P.E.C.I.A.L., offers a first step to such an approach.

 

Regarding the UAP phenomenon, is there enough available evidence to deduce a likelihood of any part having merit in non-human origins? Is there a method of discovery able to deduce such probabilities now?  Or will strict adherence to scientism hinder our openness to even exploring such possibilities?