I suppose you are two fathoms deep in mathematics,
and if you are, then God help you, for so am I,
only with this difference,
I stick fast in the mud at the bottom and there I shall remain.
Excavation, re-discovery, and re-evaluation with respect to historical and contemporary efforts to align the non-scientific approach with scientific interrogation and discovery, so that both are set along a parallel track to where it becomes a simple and convenient matter of choosing one methodology or the other, or perhaps an inexplicable combination of both (Francis Collins, etc), can assist in clearing away false notions seeking to make something fit where it doesn't belong.
It's not that easy. You engage the subject and offer perspective. Its subjective, yet you use the medium?
String and M theory are too far out there for the moment, which is why it becomes tempting for some of the usual suspects to begin their speculations and alchemy once again via an assortment of antiquated and discredited means of understanding, well before the theories in question have had a chance in their own right to emerge as proven, verifiable, peer reviewed disciplines.
As far as you understand string theory, or the difficulties that could inhibit a mind like Newtons to be a decent human being, while suffering from anyone of the maladies hidden in a physiological aspect of what made him to pursue relevance with regard to the introspection of self.
Chomsky signals Newton's contribution to what science is today. Of course we may accept his development of Calculus but not his alchemical roots eh? So there is trouble in what Chomsky offers as his logic about the mind body relation and what is of relevance in the usurpation of science? What science demands, and the population becomes? So you have a societal view have you?:)
I don't see that there's an issue with being vigilant when it comes to millennia of soothsayer type work, mind reading, theology, spoon benders, telekinetics, etc, who are not adverse to arriving on the scene to tell us that the new theories are really what they've been striving to explain all along using their own peculiar trial and error methods.
I do not see being skeptical as a problem just that you accept the notion that how ever you expalin Eben Alexanders experience you admit you are operating from the very same plateau. So we stand then not as an opposition to investigation but as perspective looking at it from varous angles aware of how this aproach is being done.
If science has a shot at explaining anything relating to multiple universes made from string and/or parallel membranes, and collisions between parallel membranes causing the formation of big bangs and new universes, etc; it would do well to take into account the past two millennia and more of patriarchal nonsense in order to improve the odds of effectively functioning as science in any reality. The belief structures of the past are still present, requiring no construction on my part. When some of us refer to them with caution it’s similar to being a museum tour guide interpreting the ruins and broken down altars of past civilizations as we go along.
Your view is locked in what you say mine is assumed to be? On the contrary I can give Newton as an example while showing such views on alchemy to be part of Newton's inquisitive nature as to understanding why he was the way he was. That part of history is of relevance today as it was then.
The corollary function of bits and things as a measure of reality correspondence is what science is representing today? Yet we would not say it is a foolish science, but that is what one should assumed it to be according to the example you say of alchemical nonsense. Eben accepted this notion too of a computation digital physics(Frankenstein?:) before his experience as a neurological surgeon.....but he does not believe that way anymore.
Stroke of insight:Jill Bolte Taylor
So who are we? We are the life force power of the universe, with manual dexterity and two cognitive minds. And we have the power to choose, moment by moment, who and how we want to be in the world. Right here right now, I can step into the consciousness of my right hemisphere where we are -- I am -- the life force power of the universe, and the life force power of the 50 trillion beautiful molecular geniuses that make up my form. At one with all that is. Or I can choose to step into the consciousness of my left hemisphere. where I become a single individual, a solid, separate from the flow, separate from you. I am Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, intellectual, neuroanatomist. These are the "we" inside of me.
Which would you choose? Which do you choose? And when? I believe that the more time we spend choosing to run the deep inner peace circuitry of our right hemispheres, the more peace we will project into the world and the more peaceful our planet will be. And I thought that was an idea worth spreading.
The reality parameter is limited by the brain matter perspective. Eben's notion of right/left brain was a limit of perspective about what he was experiencing. What it was like to go from a worm in the mud perspective, always assumed as a neurological surgeon as a basis of reality forming. As a scientist he did not disregard his obligation to science. He offers a new perspective by sharing that experience that knocked him out of his loop.
There was no notion of self in regard of the experience so from my perspective, experiencing a range of matter defined associations from the mud, all the way toward freedom of the environs which held him to matter. "A melody" that would inspire a freedom. Successive visitation to repeatable experience offers a way with which to embed experience. So he wouldn't forget. Offers up the notion of the stance Eben had assumed in science as an example of what is present in science today. Repeatability.