@ScienceCommunicator

We have 2 important considerations regarding this topic, IMO.

One is that we are not separate from the world we study. That we must always allow for interactions we find in similar subjects external to us to be operating in similar fashion inside of our own #systems. That is, we cannot build our models separately, with the outcome of purely phenomenological & physiological perspectives. Of course, where the similarities are few, those unique views are necessary. Consciousness would be one area where our experience should be included & weighed heavy in the model.

The other comes from #reductionism, and the need to incorporate boundaries, phase changes, and other #emergent phenomena that won't agree with the #linear summation during the reconstruction of the parts we identified on the way down.

So going down the chain of molecules, elements, and atoms, for example, is not different from examining #evolution connections, or life itself. There is no reverse at some points, and even where there is time reversal #symmetry, the paths are not always direct, 1:1 increments. (see 'islands of stability', for example)

We have a bad tendency of always ending up framing it in black or white terms, like " #nature vs nurture", when the actual situations nearly always require both.

One of the unfortunate elements of the #scientific method centered on reduction is that the first impression (indeed very strong) comes in the results section, from the questions asked at the start. Those have been stripped of all #context variation & complexity, and that is where it leaves off in most cases. For the vast majority of humans, the deeper layers are never seen or explored; the simplified meme is what propagates most prolifically.

Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to layer the #complexity back in, one layer at a time, and continue our pursuit of higher #knowledge. This will require some modifications to our current system!