We all owe so much to science.
Science generally comes with only positive connotations: genius, intuition, stubbornness, organisation, knowledge, application, determination, and any number of other virtues.
Science, with its own language, mathematics, is the true champion of humanity's recent evolution.
The discoveries of science have given rise to all of the wonders considered "indispensable" today, but unthinkable before science itself brought them to light and the applied sciences brought them into our lives.
Imagine being able to travel through time and visit one of our distant relatives who lived a couple of centuries ago, and try to explain the most taken-for-granted item in our lives today: the electrical light. Our relative would never believe us if we told them we could come home in the evening and light up every room with a simple flick of the wrist!
Science should be the admission of ignorance, awareness of the limits of knowledge, and the continuous search for the best answer with the latest available knowledge[7].
Although the concept of science is extremely positive, supposedly intelligent individuals who perform science, that is, scientists, are often guilty of immodesty. Although some important representatives hold up their hands in admission that science is (still) powerless to explain certain phenomena, other scientists persevere, defending scepticism in some cases, or antiquated physical-mathematical models in others, even when such models have been proven wrong.
An obvious example where obtuse scientists defend scepticism is when talking about lunar phases in agriculture: there are no physical models or mathematical definitions; the idea that lunar cycles affect agricultural crops appears blasphemous in their eyes.
The inexplicable effects of the moon phases are part of those phenomena of nature that human beings have learned over the millennia, but that official science looks upon with scorn. For millennia, human beings have cultivated the earth according to the lunar cycles because, using purely empirical methods, they observed that better results are obtained by following the phases of the moon.
Official science says no: this is all false because it is not scientifically explainable! As if human beings, over millennia, from the most scattered areas and diverse cultures of Planet Earth, have drawn the erroneous conclusion on the lunar cycles, having been deceived by an improbably fortuitous series of results on crops lasting millennia[8].
There are, however, cases where science still fails to provide an explanation for certain phenomena, but, because it has become comfortable, it continues to use its practical aspects.
One example among many is antimatter. Over the last twenty years, much research on cancer drugs has been carried out using PET systems (Positron Emission Tomography), whose supposed physical principle is based on the annihilation of a free electron with a tracer positron (antiparticle of electron)[9].
It is a shame that antiparticle and antimatter are not yet scientifically well defined; many question marks surround the subject and is still currently a subject of research.
This means that PET systems are based on a phenomenon that is still partially a mystery to science, but science is careful not to advertise this, given the large amounts of money circulating in oncological and pharmacological research.
In other cases, science recognises that it does not yet have an adequate explanation for the phenomenon, but still continues to use outdated and incorrect models for the simple reason that they work in many cases.
An example is the force of gravity, that phenomenon to which we are all subject which "pushes us down". In 1687 Newton defined the law of universal gravitation as a force that is created between two masses placed at a certain distance, but to this day it is not known how the gravitational attraction is created and on what it physically depends.
To make up for the weaknesses of Newton's theory, Einstein developed a new theory in 1915, where gravity was no longer a force, but a property of matter to deform space-time. In more recent years, string theory has proposed another physical model for gravity, introducing the graviton, a sub-atomic particle which provides the property of gravitation.
Science admits that we are not yet there: conceptual doubts, discrepancies and gaps remain.
Nevertheless, the applied sciences allow satellites to orbit and perform fantastic space missions by implementing complicated calculations-based projects using approximate physical models of gravity.
In some cases, science invents non-existent theorems, paradigms, or models, simply to return calculations or experiments that would otherwise be incorrect. Take the invention of Hidden Variables, for example, which could just as easily be called "Invented Variables", or the physical model of Wave-Particle Duality in quantum physics, mentioned in the paragraphs The Wave-Particle Duality in Brief ⇒ and The Invented Variables ⇒.
In other cases, science admits its limitations and its inability to understand phenomena, but persists in retaining erroneous models even when they do not produce effective results. The example most closely concerning us is the brain, to which we refer to the next chapter (⇒).
This text has no intention of discrediting science, which has given so much to the modern world. Rather, it hopes to encourage the reader to form a certain mental flexibility, to question anything that challenges common logical sense, and not to blindly believe what one hears or reads, instead always evaluating other theories and possible alternative explanations.
A developed Individual Consciousness is, by definition, the source of free and independent thought, even if it sometimes collides with established beliefs such as religion or science.
Independent thought is the opposite of what societies want: the objective of society is to shape the thoughts of the people, that is, to control the thoughts of a multitude of people.
Some theories will be proposed in this text; some new, others less so. Many of these theories are unsubstantiated by science due to various limitations, both comprehensive and methodological, as we will see later. There will of course be obtuse people who will point the finger, expressing scepticism, forgetting that science itself uses approximate physical models and that we live in a reality regulated by inaccurate physical laws.