In part - III of this hypothesis I concluded that the ambiguity about death in the current civilization is note worthy.
Ambiguity effect is a cognitive bias where decision making is affected.
So no way ambiguity can be welcomed for any acceptable life style.
The fact "Death" prevail as an inevitable phenomenon in our life no matter what criteria it bears for one.
So the ambiguity in case of the concept of death has the potential to alter or deviate our total view towards life.
What I assumed always is we have two main ways of perceiving or conceptualizing death.
One is to try explaining death scientifically, which is not successful till now, and another is to address death in a religious way that is being practiced, apparently, in many places.
There can be many other ways.
But these two are more rational and known processes for our civilization.
Turning towards any one of these options will at least eliminate the ambiguity, thus possibility of bias in perceiving death.
As science is always a decent evolving procedure, it can only help us after a reliable procedure has yielded a reliable inference.
So we will have to continue to research and wait for it.
But the current success in scientific procedure indicates that the waiting period might be very long, at least too long to just sit and wait for anyone not involved in any procedure for remedy.
As I am dealing with or trying to deal with scientific approach here, I will march forward with starting from science, no matter what is in my belief.
After recent condition of science being discarded from the current ways of remedy, the next and only option becomes to turn towards addressing death religiously.
As a worker in science, I can't advocate for acceptance of anything, including religion, without the fulfilling of the criteria science demands.
But for practical purpose, it can be remembered that people that are practicing religion till now without any advocating from science should not be, rationally, stopped or encouraged to stop from doing so, until and unless there is any clean cut indication for such.
The same amount of possibility remains in favor of encouraging and not encouraging them for religious practice from the part of science provided any such indication becomes confirmed by scientific procedure in the future.
I believe, the above idea will at least keep some people safe from ambiguity about death.
For the rest we will have to continue our scientific endeavor to find a better or a good way of attaining such.
So ultimately, for now, my urge is, let us not disturb those that are in some kind of harmony, and those that are lacking such harmony deserves help from us at least by scientific trials and retrials that I will be searching during the ongoing process of the hypothesis.
Ambiguity effect is a cognitive bias where decision making is affected.
So no way ambiguity can be welcomed for any acceptable life style.
The fact "Death" prevail as an inevitable phenomenon in our life no matter what criteria it bears for one.
So the ambiguity in case of the concept of death has the potential to alter or deviate our total view towards life.
What I assumed always is we have two main ways of perceiving or conceptualizing death.
One is to try explaining death scientifically, which is not successful till now, and another is to address death in a religious way that is being practiced, apparently, in many places.
There can be many other ways.
But these two are more rational and known processes for our civilization.
Turning towards any one of these options will at least eliminate the ambiguity, thus possibility of bias in perceiving death.
As science is always a decent evolving procedure, it can only help us after a reliable procedure has yielded a reliable inference.
So we will have to continue to research and wait for it.
But the current success in scientific procedure indicates that the waiting period might be very long, at least too long to just sit and wait for anyone not involved in any procedure for remedy.
As I am dealing with or trying to deal with scientific approach here, I will march forward with starting from science, no matter what is in my belief.
After recent condition of science being discarded from the current ways of remedy, the next and only option becomes to turn towards addressing death religiously.
As a worker in science, I can't advocate for acceptance of anything, including religion, without the fulfilling of the criteria science demands.
But for practical purpose, it can be remembered that people that are practicing religion till now without any advocating from science should not be, rationally, stopped or encouraged to stop from doing so, until and unless there is any clean cut indication for such.
The same amount of possibility remains in favor of encouraging and not encouraging them for religious practice from the part of science provided any such indication becomes confirmed by scientific procedure in the future.
I believe, the above idea will at least keep some people safe from ambiguity about death.
For the rest we will have to continue our scientific endeavor to find a better or a good way of attaining such.
So ultimately, for now, my urge is, let us not disturb those that are in some kind of harmony, and those that are lacking such harmony deserves help from us at least by scientific trials and retrials that I will be searching during the ongoing process of the hypothesis.