Science and Verification: No Instrument Means Zippola

Science as a tool does a great job with what qualifies for its attention. And I suppose it is not science's fault that we turn a blind eye to what doesn't qualify for its attention. Science didn't tell us to throw the rest in the garbage, but we do tend to do that. Feldenkrais data falls into the garbage category in so many ways—it's a systems issue so it can't be diced into convenient science packets, there's no money in it… And worst, worst, worst of all, it isn't just that the data is subjective but that in Feldenkrais subjectivity is the data. Your senses, perceptions, assessments, moods, rhythms, coordinations and even your delusions are the inputs. Your internal senses matter almost more than your external, independently-verifiable senses. And as though that weren't bad enough, when I write 'subjectivity is the data' I am referring to the constant, recursive, meta-attention Feldenkrais asks for. Not just 'can you feel your shoulder blade glide across your ribs' but 'and is it more clear now than it was before?' Feldenkrais is not (proven) wrong. It would be possible to study it with a 21st century approach that honored complexity, but that requires some deep cultural change in the medical community (and a lot of money). Feldenkrais is not wrong (and maybe it isn't right), but because it is the ultimate in subjectivity even right up into meta-subjectivity, it sure isn't a comfortable fit for 17th century science.