I let my imagination play with the science that I can grasp, and go ahead and create new hypotheses (coming from the social sciences, I like to think of them as theories) as I go. I understand that this may leave my ideas to be lambasted and labeled as pseudo-science, and that’s fine—it doesn’t mean their existence has less relevance for me anyways. Besides, I like to think that in my arsenal I have a shield and its name is Feyerabend, not to mention the larger philosophical tradition standing behind me and at times—when it’s honest—against science. Early Einstein was a pseudo-scientist, and it was only social acceptance of his ideas that allowed them to be considered and later tested and proved to have “scientific validity” by the “scientific community.”
What an impossible trek it would be for me to take the years of advanced science and physics classes and learn their method to be considered one who has the legitimacy to draw hypotheses? Further, to climb this cliff and not drop the imagination along the way as the shards and distances wear my mental muscles down into something utterly unrecognizable from the me of today. I would have gained the respect of others but have lost my self-respect.
I generally take the science (most often physics/cosmology) and push them to the ad absurdum extremes so they form a sort of unconditional, universal totality, or cease to exist. None of the major religions have ever satisfied me and so by creating a philosophy that fuses science and imaginative theories and hypotheses gleaned from other facets of reality, I like to think that I have sort of evolved a personal religion, an existential explanation. I am not claiming that my theories will always go so far, but at times they do.
I’m sure I had more to say, but time has eroded it away.