Love

There is an old thesis about humankind and survival: love will save us all. I can't quite understand the difference between a thesis and a hypothesis. They both state something that hasn't been proved yet (my current science standards are based upon the premise that all knowledge is probabilistic). The difference, if any, is a time-based one. A hypothesis that can't be proven false for a long period of time becomes a thesis. A thesis that survives its critics can become a theory. A theory that happens a lot can become a law (evolution happened a lot, but it will take too long for us to consider it a law).

There is a relatively new hypothesis about love: it will save us all. I can't quite understand how such a hypothesis can be stated without knowing every human being in this big world. A lot of people, all around the world, all around the time, have been trying to understand human nature.

It is a cyclic thing, nature. Science is a human activity which tries to uncover the truth about nature. It is a cyclic thing, science. John B. Watson spent a lot of time trying to find out how to read people's mind. He thought (I read) that when people were thinking, they unavoidably used their vocal folds. He invented a device so sensitive to people's vocal folds that he decided, later on, to create behaviorism (quite the opposite of reading people's mind). My guess is that behaviorism will be reborn in a few years, taking the best of brain and cognitive sciences (that's what new sciences do, ask Skinner).

What about love? Is love a thought, a feeling, or a behavioral pattern? I don't know quite yet, but there is this relatively old law: love is a subjective experience.