I am saying this because you have quoted a link for The Origins of Modern Science.
There are arguments by many scientists that all arts subjects do not even qualify for science, i.e. Arts subjects such as Sociology, Psychology, Religious Studies and Literature ... etc, they are not sciences but just studies. When you read that book in your link, have you thought about what the true scientific methods are?
Have you thought about what a red herring is ?
Ummmm .... that IS what the book is about .... how we developed modern scientific method, how it came about by 'separation' into duality of the previous approach and on what basis, belief and cosmological view the old view was based on.
Are you asking me if I thought about what modern science is while reading a book on the development of modern science ?
Do your statements and claims about minds and souls qualify as verified scientific truths? In the view of the mainstream scientists, all the issues about minds, its localities and its existence are still in the realm of faith, conjectures and mythologies rather than facts.
But you started a thread about the escaping from the Tree of Life ... now you want 'verified scientific truth' ?
all I can do is supply references for you ... and in the nature of 'soul' will not be hard science - of course ! However 'soft sciences' such as psychology, academically accept people such as Jung - who by the way had his own 'familiar' daemon, that taught him things and also played tricks on him.
Its all about the how we perceive the nature of reality. Here are two references the first is a clinically proven research by a qualified psychiatrist ( and here, I might ask , if a psychiatrist comes upon and idea and tries it, and it works, so he tries it again, under similar circumstances and it works again {the 'incurable' patient is cured}, and he does it again and the same results are had ... is that 'verifiable science' ? If I say dont think of an elephant to 15 people and they cant stop thinking of an elephant, is that 'verifiable science', even though psychology is not a 'hard science' ? )
and the other explains very well how certain strange and 'abnormal' occurrences reported in modern life ( hence part of 'human experience' ) might be considered from a 'third perspective.'
first ;
http://www.searchwithin.org/download/presence_spirits.pdf
the second ;
" With Jung, Harpur argues that these are phenomena of the psyche, but that psyche is of the world, not just of us as individuals. Indeed, our much cherished individual selves and psyches may be no more than embodiments of that world-soul (rediscovered in our age as the goddess Gaia). The phenomena in which the book rejoices may be appearances to us of its ancient inhabitants. They appear in different forms to match changing cultural expectations and concerns. An appearance of the Goddess becomes an appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary, becomes a woman with golden hair emerging from her spacecraft. The mistake, he suggests, is to deny and repress these manifestations, since the repressed returns, pathologically and dangerously, if separated from a context of meaning and belief. Harpur suggests that a function of these daimonic forces may now be to undermine a deadening and narrow scientific orthodoxy and world-view - the 'single vision' which Blake so deplored. This sounds very radical but Harpur is the first to point out that it is not very new. By drawing on a philosophical tradition that flows down the centuries from the Neoplatonists, through the Romantics, and crucially in Bake, Yeats and Jung, he shows that there is an ancient history of understanding of this daimonic, Otherworld reality. Indeed, he goes back further still by embracing the folklore and tales of the Otherworld from across the Western tradition, and acknowledges that every culture, except perhaps our own, has seen its world as interpenetrated with another, shadowy, yet powerful reality, full of wonder, beauty and terror. The key to being alert to it lies in what Blake called the Imagination, and in not allowing the rational mind to shut out what it cannot readily comprehend or control. "
http://www.harpur.org/PJCHdaimonicreality.htm
For a background on the Hermetic tradition I recommend another of Harpur's books
http://www.harpur.org/PJCHsecretfire.htm
If you are only seeking information that has " verified scientific truths" why are you even dealing with Kabbalah and Tarot in the first place ?
I am coming from a background and interest in psychology and cultural anthropology - both 'soft sciences' - but still, the basic groundwork in these studies is considered academic, papers are peer reviewed , books are written, theories are argued ... that happens in hard science too.
Quoting non critically relevant paragraphs has double side effects - it is good in a way that it widens the readers views surrounding the topic, but it could also cloud the main topic and focus in the thread.
My point and contention is that without a basic understanding of the subject then the topic of (particularly) this thread is confused in the first place.
If one asks 'how can I get out of this box' one either has to explain how their is a box and how to get out of it (or what ever made you think you were in it in the first place ), the box is an analogy for a situation that one is immersed in so there is no way out, or there is no box in the first place.
If someone wanted to get out of a box they were not in, why would I explain the escape more than the issue that there is no box ?
Plus if you bring in claims and statements in the realm of mythologies, hypothesis and conjectures as your references, and try to make out that they are some sort of universally verified truths and facts, and then reject, dispute and ignore others opinions on the basis of those references, it does not seem appropriate ways to debate.
Where are the references that show what 'others' are saying that is the opposite to what I say. All I see is a running dispute from you, from just about any idea I bring up, these Ideas I bring up are easily recognised by any one with any type of slightly deeper association or reading of hermetics.
Now you are acting like I am the only person with these ideas and they are at odds with 'verifiable scientific truth' ... considering the view of hermetics and 'verifiable science', have you looked into any of the lesser known works of Isaac Newton ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies
Honestly, you will learn a LOT more from these refs than watching that youtube guy and having some strange need to defend him and try to refute everything written otherwise.
If you want hard core science - stick to maths ... that wont wobble ...
if you want eroticism or the occult - which includes tarot, by wide definition - as wisdom or divination - and demand it be backed up by 'verifiable science ' .... well, good luck with that one !