See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348976931
Stupidity in Science
Conference Paper · February 2021
CITATIONS
READS
0
1,734
1 author:
Emilio Gomez
University of Granada
234 PUBLICATIONS 1,471 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
El rompecabezas del cerebro: la conciencia View project
Thermorisk: Preventing suicide with emotional thermography View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Emilio Gomez on 04 February 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Stupidity in Science
Emilio Gómez-Milan
egomez@ugr.es
Mind, Brain, and Behaviour Research Center (CIMCYC), University of Granada,
Campus de la Cartuja, Granada, Spain
Abstract
After my first essay about Stupidity (The meaning of Stupidity), now we apply the idea of stupidity like an attitude
to Science (essay 2). Not only persons but also cultures and systems can act with automatic stupidity. Science
practices deliberate ignorance of its ignorance. The big blind spot of Science is without self-criticism. We need
empirical meta-science (SciSci), the option of slow Science, alternative versions of Science, evidence of the peer
review system, better definitions of good Science and reputation, better statistics to measure individual
differences, and real ethics to avoid neuromania and better divulgation communication. We also need to evaluate
the leviathan's premises to find a long way to science home: curiosity, knowledge such as intrinsic motivation.
Keywords: Science of Science (SciSci), stupidity, fast Science, peer review, reputation, neuromania
Note: thanks to Germán Gálvez García for his help with this essay
|1
I love Science. I enjoy reading Science. Science could be the consciousness of the world, but it is not. Today,
Science is a production line of papers, a lot of them unrelated to experience. There are two main types of
Science about the inner world and the outer world. Both worlds are real, and both are subjective and objective
at the same time. There is not a one-dimensional line between objectivity to subjectivity. A feeling is a
subjective experience studied objectively by scientists or an objective experience studied subjectively?
The inner world or mind is about the emotional and cognitive representations of the external world. It is
about meaning such as feelings, cognitive maps, emotional memory. All sciences are about meanings. Without
"scientific feelings" there would not be Science. Sciences is built on shifting sands. We study COVID-19
becauseit can kill us. Imagine Martians not affected by COVID-19. Martians' Science probably would be different
from human beings' Science. Then, Science is not entirely objective.
The frontiers between Inner Science and Outer Science are diffuse. It is not the same thing, outer Free Will
(FW1) than feeling of Free Will (FW2). The possible relationships between FW1 and FW2 are multiple. It is
possible to imagine that FW1 does not exist, but FW2 is real. Or FW1 could exist but FW2 no. Any
combination of options between FW1 and FW2 would produce different results. Both are real (in terms of
mental representation at least, in the inner world), both are chained, and both can be considered independent in
thought. It is not the same a city than the cognitive map of a city; it is not the same the self than the mental
representation of the self (all combinations are possible. Thus, for example, an animal can have self but not a
mental representation of the self. An avatar is a mental representation of the self without fixed outer self). It is
not the same thing, action-behaviour (outer world) than intelligent or stupid or good or bad behaviour (inner
world). In Science, perhaps we can not avoid it, both worlds are confused all the time. A metaphor is a tool of
the inner world. Any science is built with the tools and capabilities of the inner world. One main characteristic
of consciousness is limited capacity. Then, we are ignorant all the time: when my attentional focus is engaged in
one aspect, simultaneously, I ignore the rest of the world. Of course, even the dichotomy between outer and
inner world is false (a product of our language and mind: the main tools of Science). Like any other dilemma,
the dilemma about the subjective nature of inner world or Science –like psychology- against the objective
nature of outer world or science-like biology or chemistry- is also true and false at the same time. We can name
Science of the external world like consciousness and Science of the inner world like self-consciousness, but we
play games with words. However, today no one works to build up Meta-Science (Science about Science: SciSci),
that is a different thing that philosophy of Science. SciSci can not be an algorithm to improve the number of
publications but a test for science practice based on self-criticism. We need data and ideas, but there are no
unintentional data, and there are no pure ideas. Data can not speak by itself. Blind Beliefs are not suitable
premises for Science. The worst option is to sometimes follow data and beliefs when convenient for me
(wishful thinking) instead of critical thinking.
2
The microworld of Science
Probably, I am mistaken in my critics to real Science. A concept (like Science) can be (even more, it should
be…) romantic and pragmatic at the same time. Perhaps, old Science was too romantic (and it used to think
globally, to understand mind or nature with theories) and new Science is too pragmatic (it thinks locally,
focused in a small piece of the puzzle of nature, brain or mind with data). But we need both: theory and data,
global and local thinking. The science object of study has been deconstructed (it is a puzzle), everyone works in
a piece of the puzzle, and no one knows how to fall the local-part into the global space of Science. We have lost
the aerial perspective of Science like a method, like an everyday human activity or Science goals. We need to
think about it. We need to doubt about science premises. We can accept the microworld of Science like soldiers
in the army with a strict hierarchy based on Curriculum Vitae, where authority (moral and legal) must show a
high positive correlation with the number of publications and with impact index of publications. However, we
can also think that this is a wrong conception of Science. Perhaps I was born in a place and time misplaced.
Today's Science is against new ideas, originality or creativity. In this vein, new ideas are exciting but
challenging. The educational system and the science system kill creativity. Some years ago, I remembered new
little scientific concepts that I had when I was a young scientist, but they vanished rejected by the peer review
system. It is supposed that persons with synesthesia are more creative, and they are artists before than scientists.
Perhaps, Science does not need new ideas or creativity, because it is driven by the spirit of the times (zeitgeist)
like ethics.
¿Stupid Science?
When I try to write this chapter after 30 years like a scientist, the ideas in my mind are: Science community is
a system or a microworld based on class prejudices. Peer review is based on rejection (more than 90% of the
production rejected) and the rejection arguments are frequently simple opinions. Then, Science is founded on
ignorance and stupidity (ignorance of their ignorance). Even worst, Science is based on authority. But is it
possible? How can anyone be an authority, for example about consciousness, brain or universe? (we know
almost nothing about them but we have experts and wise leaders). We should recognize that Science's primary
goal is to produce ignorance (the most details we learn about nature, the most we ignore about it and the
original ideas or metaphors must be changed). Then, the main trait of scientists should be humility and not
arrogance. This is the origin of Science (its motivation and goal was the ignorance about the world, life, brain or
consciousness origins and evolution). Still, it has been forgotten: just a method to test ideas about nature ormind.
Pseudoscience is more related to absent experiments than to ideas. Of course, no all ideas can be tested
with the scientific method. But science mistrust of new ideas. Today, William James' Principles of Psychology
(full o new ideas in 1890) never would obtain a grant. Science has been a hobby, a calling but no a profession
(in Spain is not easy to research: no grants, no money, funds, labs, equipment..). I have practice free-science (in
both senses, free will and free of charge). Today's real Science is well described by the metaphor of "a donkey
|3
pursuing a never-reach carrot": From one side, researchers are incited to publish all the time (to be at the top of
rankings). From the other side, there is a force or un-natural bottleneck (journals limited capacity of publication
and no money to develop projects). This is one of the contradictions of real Science: no time to think but stress
to produce disposable products. It is time to evaluate Science's evaluation system independently (peer review is
not one). Real Science can be developed in alternative forms. Science is not today's Science. We can do it better,
but for that the starting point is self-criticism. Maybe, there is no free-will, but the feeling or subjectiveexperience
of free will exists. And the feeling makes a difference (to see alternatives, to avoid automat researchers).
¿Intelligent Science?
Today, a researcher is underestimated all the time and must listen to thousands of times sentences from
reviewers like the following ones: "Your CV is not competitive. Your new idea is naïve. Better do X next time.,
I do not believe that you can do it. It will not work. The results will be not useful. The experiments' premises
are not strong from a neurobiological standpoint". .Reviewers must be mind-readers or fortune-tellers.
However, we know that predictions almost always fail and they are not scientific maybe science-fiction.
Reviewers opinions are just opinions, based on authority, not in scientific evidence. Other usual critics: Why
have you been without new publications for a couple of years? (Life crisis, I need time to think about what I
am doing in Science, no grants, no money, no projects accepted…). The background idea is that you have to
follow the mainstream all the time and with high stress to be in the future a member of the elitist club (a
winner).
It is accepted (wrong premise) that Science is based on intelligent behaviour. Still, at the same time, Science
is unable to measure in a valid form the intelligence (no one knows what intelligence is, intelligence test do not
measure intelligence).
Human beings (even scientists) can not differentiate a fool from a clever one, or truth
from lies. Then, how can Science guarantee that the peer review system is founded in rationality? Maybe that a
researcher capacity is evaluated in a continuous form with arbitrary criteria, opinions and prejudices? The
scientific community believes that bad researchers are out and the good ones inside. Still, this selection process
is far from perfect even in Formula 1.Science must evaluate science practice (meta-science: SciSci). Nobody
evaluates peer review system, journals bottleneck, reviewers behaviour…The same selection process happens in
any order of life, in nature, in arts, for singers, politics… but Science has declared itself to be unique, objective,
not affected too much for human capital sins. Even more, Science analyzes religion, sport, art, politics or
economy but not itself. The social image of Science is an altruistic behaviour made by "sapiens" with not too
much money or power. Will be the world a better place if the scientists take control? Of course not.
From inside, at least researchers' behaviour, Science is just another microworld where young people are
poorly treated. It is full of narcissists egos with kafkaesque bureaucracy, based on nonsense criteria, without selfcriticism, with a rigid hierarchy, and affected by insane competition, cognitive biases and without mental
4
flexibility. Science can show that investing in the stock market is an activity based on fortune or privilege
information, but it is not an ability (Kahneman dixit-Fast Think, Slow think). Science could analyze its activity
(cv, reviewing process) to discover if it is an ability or not. Imagine that a country offers 100 grants for best
scientific projects. From 200 hundred projects, half of them are accepted. The only form to discover if the
selection process works is to fund 50 projects selected randomly from the pool of accepted projects and 50
projects rejected chosen randomly from the pool of rejected projects. After some years, you can compare
results (not only publications but also knowledge produced or practical tools…). It will never happen. The
selection process is a sacred one based on ideology or false beliefs about Science, research, or reviewers'
attitudes. In political parties, the selection process is based on fidelity, not in ability. In Science, the selection
process is supposed to be based on ability. But real Science is not very different from other human
microworlds. Even "at random" selection could be a better system that the peer review system. We must think
what type of political system is Science (a dictatorship, a democracy, a religion, other?) Scientists must practice
self-criticism and science system must be evaluated (Not in a ranking of Universities but also the own system,
the premises).
Like a small pilot experiment, all these questions described below were formulated in Researchgate one or two
years ago. The result were not optimistic; around 150 reads without any reply. No comments. Conclusion: NO
interest at all. If my critics to Science are true or false, they should have produced a positive or negative reaction
such as you are wrong, stupid, I agree with you, we must do something... What means silence? Maybe just bad
English (excuse me about that, dear reader).
1. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND TRUTH
Some scientists seem to think that truth is Science's heritage. Other persons think that truth belongs to religion,
politics (left vs. right wings), nations or nature (truth more related to natural laws than with social norms). The
first question could be "What is truth?"" Can we recognize truth ?"
In the case of Science, does the application of the scientific method produce truth like output? For me, it is
clear that no. I have heard that there are two types of analphabets: 1. Those who can not read or write in
his/her mother language. 2. Secondary analphabets, that can not discriminate useful information from rubbish
on the internet. But now, I can see a third type, followers of the mainstream. Scientists without culture (history,
philosophy, humanities...) and with little minds that believe Science (imperfect and limited as it is, a human
product full of biases ) produces truth related to a feeling of moral superiority. Probably baffled truth in human
beings is associated to forced dichotomic ethical dilemmas (good or bad) and implicit absent justice like starting
point (not similar starting points in the competition, like the default value even in F1-Formula 1 cars
championship: different machines to different pilots-, nature or societies, even scientific ones). But today's
Science has changed in a cheap ploy the real complex world for the labs' controlled context. It is not Science
|5
about reality but Science about a simplified model of reality. There is the same relationship between Science and
its origins than between milk directly from the cow and the industrial product you can buy in a supermarket
bottle. Here in Spain, when something is clear evidence, we say "white and in a bottle, it must be milk" (i.e., no
brainer). But the truth is not so easy (what kind of milk (Science)?). This is the new dictatorship of Science
concerning life (real life is plenty of unknown variables). But Science should be based on falsificationism, not in
verifications. There is a mortal jump from labs to real life. Nothing can guarantee that Science is the best
guide for life, happiness, health or truth. Overall, because there is no unique solution valid for everyone, and
Science in the lab is based on group differences, not individual differences. In the real world, there is not a
mean human being. Overall, Science only produces provisional "truth". Science is a useful guide (for
example, for health maintenance and illness treatments, like the fight against COVID-19). Still, it is not the only
one, and sometimes it is not the best one (for example: for family relationships). Science can not be imposed or
subordinated to any other microworld (Religion, beliefs, tradition) in all areas. Sometimes, Science is just one
option; others can be an obligation.
2. SLOW SCIENCE VERSUS FAST SCIENCE
Darwin's evolutionary theory or the Principles of Psychology of W. James are good examples of slow Science.
We can apply this dichotomy to any domain: think fast or slow (Kahneman book about systems 1 and 2 in any
daily life domain, business, homework, family...), fast food versus slow food, fast sex versus slow sex, fast
education versus slow education, fast vs. slow reading, task network versus neurological default network,
automatic versus controlled ... In all domains, it is crucial to find a right balance (different balance in different
domains) between systems 1 and 2. The importance of the question is their function to distinguish good versus
bad Science or sex or education... The problem is not so easy that the solution is only to choose one of the two
systems, even if it may be a dimensional line and not just a dichotomy. But what about today's Science? Is it
dominated by system 1? Is it just an algorithm biased with prejudices?
3. SCIENCE BASED ON EVIDENCE. WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
Is it another idea of persons (with the need for cognitive closure) who want to extend the wrong experimental
science model to real life? Science is about "a without ending research", not about truth. There is not an ending
point. It is all the time about uncertainty and temporary conclusions. The scientific method, and the hypothesis
contrast, implies to evaluate data against ideas. Then, what means Science based on evidence "? Is it another
type of Science? And what type of evidence? Again statistical evidence? Group comparison evidence? Clinic or
experimental evidence? Material or subjective evidence? In the case of a clinical psychology context, what
means "well being"? An opinion? An objective test? Must the clinic psychologist attend the mental problems of
their patients under the scrutiny of "an objective scientific method (an experimental psychologist with a pre6
post-test or electroencephalogram or cerebral image)" different from the therapist who is part of the
conversation and the awareness of the problem? In experimental psychology, we have a lot of evidence and
unstable replicability of the Stroop effect and other micro lab-effects, but is it useful knowledge? Nobody knows
very well their utility, they are even not easily replicable, but they are frequently offered like models of Science
based on evidence. What about the evidence for happiness? Again, the problem of definitions. We can have
Science of happiness but not the evidence. If you follow Science of happiness, will you be happy? Perhaps a
scientist can tell you that you are happy, but you ignore it because he/she has the material pieces of evidence even
if you feel sad or bad. We need metaphors to guide our way under uncertainty. Can you put together metaphors
and evidence? Maybe someone thinks that evidence speaks by itself (another form of inductivism or bottom-up
Science). That Science can be purely objective, without a place for beliefs, personality traits, metaphors or
deductions, imagination… What about evidence in favour of X versus evidence against X. Is itjust a matter of
weights? There is a low correlation between the questionnaires of executive function and the experimental tasks
of executive function. What does it mean? Does it mean something wrong about the tasks or the
questionnaires? The correlation between evidence, replicability and meta-analysis is also low. What does it
mean? What are the limits between Science and pseudoscience, just evidence? or prejudices? What about metaevidence: where is the evidence about the need for evidence in Science? Is it just a belief? We need open minds
and different perspectives, intrinsic motivation, purposes, freedom, skills, and not a closed script. The Principles
of Psychology of William James offers a lot of ideas and little evidence. You can burn most of today's
journals and mislay nothing, but please save James's book, it would be a significant loss.
I agree that Science must be different from religion and pseudoscience, but Science can not exist without
philosophy (of Science). Real Science (what scientists do every day, journals, peer review...) is far from the
theory of Science, and it is affected by all the human's weaknesses. In this sense, it is not far from politics, sports,
religion, business, full of liers, prejudices, cognitive biases, jumps to conclusions...
In fact, evidence is a default value of the scientific method (it adds nothing new). I understand that considering
love or happiness to science method can be viewed as a novel and useful perspective, but not the best or the
only one. In this avenue, it should be remarked that the scientific method is not magic, useful for everything.
What Science needs is some lost values (today it is not about new knowledge exploration). In a short form,
religion is in a legitimate domain of the system 1 of Kahneman (emotional) but today's Science is also a domain
of the system1, and it should be the kingdom of the system 2. At the same time, Religion and Science are
different ways to understand the mind, world... Thus, there is no moral superiority in Science. Evidence can be
used unreasonably. We can not extend the dictatorship of Science or accept superstition; there are more
options. The relationship between Science and power or life is a complex one.
There are many possible representations of some aspects of nature. From human beings' perspective, a
biological system with firm perceptive limits and a cognitive-emotional system with strong cognitive biases,
affected by affect diffusion and embedded in culture (of Science, not only culture in the anthropological sense).
|7
I wonder if Science can be objective or can avoid these limits.
Then it is about methods or evidence? What independent research means? Separate from what or who? Science
is just a method, the scientific one by definition.
4.
PEER REVIEW
The peer-review system is based on rejection (between 90 to 95% of the papers in most journals) what is a
lousy foundation for any system. It promotes envy, hate, feelings of incomprehension... and overall, an implicit
model of revision. Most reviewers behave similarly, with a unique thought, like outsiders detectors. They seem
to follow an algorithm with several steps (option A): Step1: your goal is to reject the manuscript. Step 2: Layout
or format is the critical point (the manuscript follows APA rules, statistics power...). This is more important
than the idea or content. Step 3: If you smell a new idea, speculation or theory, then go to step 1. But if the
content is a repetition or a small variation go to step 2 (look at the previous references of the idea, they must
follow a recent discussion in a scientific microworld, the mainstream again).
Imagine for a moment, a peer review system that works inversely (option B): Step 1: your goal is to accept the
manuscript. Step 2: do step1 only if it contributes to a new idea. Step 3: Check the format, but it is a secondary
task because format problems can be solved during the reviewing process. Step 4: The previous CV of the
researcher does not matter; what matters is the relationship between (new) idea and data.
Science would be worse, better, equal? In my opinion, Science looks for the change, upsetting, not for repetitionverification. Even more, Option A does not guarantee replicability.
For me, the best peer review system should include both options A and B, and you can indicate your choice
before the reviewing process. But if both options can work, then perhaps any peer review system is arbitrary.
Another ethical and economic problems are the payment to publish, or that you can select the reviewers, that
the reviewers know the name of the authors...
Imagine that you are a young medical doctor. In the hospital, you are advised that two senior doctors will
supervise all your patient's diagnosis. It looks ok. But both reviewers and evaluators will have a bias: to look
for errors of any type. After some time, when you learn to avoid the negative evaluations sometimes, you are
accepted like a senior doctor. You can also evaluate new doctors, but at the same time, you will be assessed
forever. Does the reader think that it is a good system to improve medical practice? How can you acquire
autonomy? Imagine yourself 30 years after with constant monitoring of your medical acts. Is that good for
patients? Can you avoid resentment? The questions are: Who is the client (patient) in Science? To be a good
boy, is to be a good scientist?
The peer-review system is useful only if it is understood like a "replicability of research" system after some
previous conditions fulfilled: 1. A real problem must be solved (for example: to eliminate the infection by
COVID-19). 2. A new solution for the posed problem is offered. 3. The research shows useful data like a
8
solution. At this time (for example, vaccines against COVID 19 infection, in phase 3 of development -with a big
sample of patients and with an estimated effect clinically significant), replicability in real settings with new
samples must be evaluated. But peer review for any research at any time, not focused in replicability, where the
reviewers can question the relevance of the problem and their feelings (I do not think that it is going to work)
about the new solution like points to reject the research, and focused in not relevant aspects (format) instead of
some relevant ones (sample size), it is not a good idea. I have developed an algorithm to detect lies with
thermography for more than five years with no fund at all. When the Spanish system for Research and
Development, rejected several times my research, they offered the following arguments: The research is not
competitive. The researcher has no previous experience in lie detection. The topic is not exciting or with
priority. I can remember that I complained: "Really?, just have a look around you to see lies everywhere
(including Science). With no funds, I can not acquire experience. Our model has been developed only to phase1
(in lab. settings, with students and small samples). There is still a long way, impossible to run without funds to
arrive in phase 3 (real settings, like police interviews to suspects, after generalization of results to new and
significant samples and different types of lies and contexts).
Some days ago, a new project (THERMORISK, see my page of researchgate) about the use of emotional
thermography for preventing suicides was rejected. In this case, the problem was accepted as relevant, but the
solution was classified as immature or naïve. Of course, it is, we offered some pilot data (and we believe that it
will work with an accuracy of 80% and 20% of false alarms- not enough they said), but we never will know it.
They ask me to have experience and sound data to give me money to develop research. But project means "to be
developed in the next future". Then it is circularity again: You need to have developed an idea to phase 2 more
or less, to get funds to develop the idea (but the idea must be original and not previously published). But
when I look at previous publications about suicide of other teams, I can see accuracy lower than 80% and
projects funded to researchers without prior experience. In Psychology in general, I can see projects funded
where it is not clear the problem to be solved, or there is no new idea at all, or the goal is to develop phase1
(lab data in small samples
5. GRANTS AND PROJECTS
Concerning the scale to be granted by a scientific project, the answer is the content, the project itself, not the
CV. And yes, I favour open and public access to scientific knowledge like ResearchGate (RG). For example,
each university can create base data with the research of the members. It is essential to maintain the University
autonomy and the value of research and researchers (effort, results, method), a thesis's value, or a full professor.
These things are losing weight and autonomy, too much supervised, and everything depends on spurious
numbers (indexes, publications). Science is what we do in our labs. We are intelligent enough and with academic
experience to take our own decisions, not just external ones. After the open access, the selection depends on
society, media, the public, the utility, the knowledge or advance produced. Think about what would have
|9
happened with Darwin and his evolution theory in our peer review system to be granted by a scientific project.
3 to 5 in a background of 50 to 150 published papers. It means that I can feel proud of 1 to 10% of my
research (we can call these papers special ones, signals). Then, from 90 to 99% of the scientific publications are
just noise? The ratio between noise and signals is a low one. Why we publish noise?
At least in my case, it was much more challenging to publish signals that noises. At the same time, it is
important not to confound the content (the research) with the continent (the journal and its impact factors),
the correlations between the quality of the content and continent can be weak. In my opinion, frequently
Projects finances and grants applications are not able to make this discrimination. They value noise over
signals. Accepted definitions of Science, knowledge, quality, signals are bad ones (at least debatable), but it
looks like nobody cares about too much to do something. But It is supposed to be Science, not religion, army,
politics... or other human development affected by cognitive bias, irrational beliefs... It is assumed that Science
can analyze it and produce a system not too much affected by them. These "human sins" are more accepted in
other domains, but they should be under control in the context of Science (if Science pursued knowledge over
other goals).
6. ARE GROUP DIFFERENCES USEFUL IN REAL LIFE?
Science is based on statistical group differences. We all know that a statistical difference can be an artefact with
no clinical or real significance. Vaccines against COVID are based on clinical relevance not in minimum
statistical difference. Frequently, a ratio or percentage says more than a sophisticated statistics analysis. And the
rate is related to the measure of individual differences. The X vaccine works with an effectiveness of 95%.
Accuracy and false alarms are more useful in lie detection than statistical group differences.
At least, social Science is based on statistical group differences (men are more X than women). I am going just
to put an example from psychological thermography. Anyone can add examples from other topics or for
different dependent variables. Imagine in an experimental set, a group of ten high anxiety participants (the
experimental group). After a video related to fear, 5 showed higher forehead temperature and five lower
forehead temperature. The control group, ten low anxiety participants, showed no thermal changes. The group's
difference is null or non-significant for experimental psychology. Still, for applied psychology, any thermal
change in the forehead is a good marker of anxiety with 100% accuracy and 0% false alarm when confronted
with the fear stimulus. In medicine, for thermography, they employ a cut point to declare a thermal change
significant of 0.5ºC, but what happens for psychology? we can imitate medicine, but we do not know if a
thermal change after a psychological stimulus is significant. We need new base data to discover that this
change depends on the psychological context (e.g., the cut point can be different for thinking that for emotion).
Moreover, it is possible to find further changes for different face areas (ROIs)(e.g., the cut point can be
different for nose than for forehead). In other words, we know that group differences conduct to contradictory
results (previous research) for new research. In this regard, we can not imitate Reaction Time analysis (it is a
10
new dependent variable, a different one) or medicine, and we are not in a lab but real settings. We must learn
about the direction (higher or lower) and the magnitude (bigger or shorter) of the thermal change under
different conditions (anxiety, thinking, lying) and for different ROIs, person by person. It means to look inside
the group for the different thermal changes and their size. Suppose I wish to develop an algorithm for lie
detection based on "Higher forehead temperature (associated to mental effort or thinking) and lower nose
temperature (associated to anxiety)", useful for different natural contexts and types of lies. In that case, I must
discover the % of persons that shows higher forehead temperature (70% for example) and the cut point (e.g.,
0.7ºC is the mean change of these persons) to declare that this point is fulfilled. But for the nose, the % ofpersons
that show lower temperature can be different, and the cut point can also be different (imagine 65% and 0.4ºC).
Then I have two criteria and a prediction of accuracy of false alarms when confronted with a new casein a new
situation. If this new person is deceptive, it is expected higher forehead temperature (at least about0.7ºC) and
lower nose temperature (at least, -0.4ºC). If the person fulfils both criteria or just one, I know that
my conclusion is strong or weak in terms of expected accuracy and false alarms. To develop this algorithm, we
need to analyze for the components of lying, the direction (higher or lower temperature) and the mean and
standard deviation of both possible thermal changes (higher or lower), for each ROI, and also the % of persons
that show these thermal changes. If we run just formal group differences, we have nothing but an empty
statistical analysis. We investigate the mind, the world. Statistics is a tool, not a God. The same happens with
neural basis (brain; the sacred neuron) of any psychological concept (lies, intelligence, creativity). Neural basis is
not the only one type of knowledge or the best one. Mind is not brain. Brain is not mind.
The problem is when most of the research (e.g., Experimental Psychology or Reaction Time like a dependent
variable) is based on group differences (experimental group versus control group, or women against men.),
considering (false belief) that the group is homogenous or uniform inside. If you focus on women's health, you
recognize that the women group is not uniform (better or harmful health factors). For example, in lie detection,
it is well known that there is a cost in Reaction Time when lying (but it is a group difference). Thus, it is not
useful to catch a particular or new liar (you need ten or twenty subjects in the experimental and control groups,
statistical power, and hundred of trials per participant, to reach the effect).
7. IS NUMBER OF CITATIONS A GOOD CRITERION TO DEFINE GOOD SCIENCE?
First of all, any measure of anything is subjective. Any norm is arbitrary by definition, which implies no
objective measure of good Science but only social conventions. However, the measure that has been selected for
whatever reasons (economic, politics…) in the case of (good) Science must be analyzed to study its collateral
effects (bad Science like product) or costs. And in the case of being ridiculous norm or that it produces too many
distorted results, it should be rejected. It is not different from the Euribor or IRPH for a mortgage. The cost of
the housing credit can be double depending on the index selected by your bank. Whatare the collateral effects
|11
of many citations for Science and research? Has someone studied it? But before, we can think about the
axiom or underlying logic of a number of citations like criterion: a) the belief that researchers must compete
between them and b) improve science products (good products).
In the case of a) someone, philosophers of Science and scientists, must analyze if this non-natural selection is a
good idea or cooperation can be a better science system. It depends on our metaphor of Science like microworld.
Is it like sport or religion, as a company, like a service to human beings, as a culture: Is Science based on intrinsic
motivation for learning or altruism to improve life…? Or, is it based on extrinsic motivation (rewards and
punishment)? In the case of b) the products of Science are associated with the metaphor of Science. What should
be science products? papers, knowledge, tools. Because they are not the same things, many peer-review
papers are a wrong product of Science. It says nothing about quality. Just think in any other product like
tomato or cars, the number of X (any product) is not the best goal. We know that the definition of intelligence
(what is measured by intelligence tests) is a case of circularity. The purpose of Science like the number of citations
or papers (that correlated between them) is another case of circularity. Nothing is guaranteed here, except a bias:
The displacement of knowledge like the product for an abstract index without real meaning like the number of
citations or papers. The importance of the number of citations could be that "people (scientists) are talking
about it". But is it a good criterion, or is it only a social interest, rumour, conversation in a microworld, just
mainstream again? How on earth can be a rumour or conversation a "good science" definition?
In any case, what are the collateral effects of these imposed definitions of good Science? They operate against
novelty, creativity or flexible cognition. For example, the government office for Development and Innovation
of Science in Spain, is (in my opinion) a disaster. There is no transparency in the criteria or the feedback, but
the number of citations affects the resolution. No funds, no science. Then you need a lot of citations to pass.
We change the internal motivation of the scientists (learning) for an external one (scores). Because of that, you
can not be innovative or change your topic. This would imply re-starting your research career with the
consequent obstacles (more difficulty to publish the first paper in a new topic – the reviewers reject your
research or project because you have not previous experience/publications - and less citations from the persons
dominant in the field because you are not following them). You must belong to a big team, not to a small one,
you can not play slow Science but fast one, you must focus in a tiny piece of reality (Inhibition of Return, the
hippocampus…) without the perspective of the system (the human being, the brain). You lose perspective, you
can not look back (to the Greeks philosophy ) or ahead (is it the right way?), outside (to other disciplines)or
inside (how I feel with my research?, what is my perspective? what am I doing?). The consequences are ignorant
scientists or secondary analphabets, the reward of mediocrity. Criticism is out of the system (you can not stop
your prosecution of papers and citations) or you are out. You do jumps bigger than the mind-body gap to
defend "the big importance" of your little lab research (e.g., Inhibition of Return and Simon effect) concerning
reality or the world (science-fiction: Inhibition of Return is supposed to be very important in real life for
12
crime scene analysis. Really?). The test or evidence is the number of citations. But in fact, you just produce
papers, not knowledge; they are about science fiction, not real Science. What is the real meaning of the Academic
ranking of World Universities?
8. IS THERE AN INORDINATE NUMBER OF GUIDELINES IN SCIENCE?
When you teach kids, you know that a vital part of learning (education) is to establish limits, but only a few or
you become an authoritarian father. Then you kill intrinsic motivation.
Excessive control is against freedom, creativity, an open mind, development. What happens today with the
standards in Science, with the script that we all must follow to avoid punishment? (APA rules, peer review
rules, journals specific rules, ethics committees rules, rules to fill forms in projects or grants, regulations and
supervision to develop a thesis, statistical power rules...). Is now Science better than ever or just a script, a habit
where criticism, different perspectives, or just thinking by yourself (to select a research.) is impossible? Is
Science an automatism with its original sense lost? Who analyze science scripts and their effects? In what
evidence are they supported? Just more regulations against researchers autonomy and ability?
9. THE SCIENCE KING IS NAKED: A GAME
Hello, I am Mr Nobody, and I feel a bit alone (fortunately I have a sense of humour and some fans). It is time
to express what many people know, but nobody says (to mention the ghost in the science atmosphere): The
king is naked. For what? Just to speak, for conversation. Where on hell are the ideas? I read scientific papers,
but I do not see ideas (good or bad). Where is the new knowledge? What is the advance useful for Human
development produced by psychology? At least in my field Psychology, but I know that these questions are also
unsolved in other fields. Today Science is "much to do about nothing". It is a system far from perfect, but is it
the less bad one of the possible science systems? I do not think so. There is a war inside the labs, Universities,
science Institutions…between explorers (people who want to explore the space, the mind, nature) and
normative (staff against any change that believes that to build knowledge is like to build a wall, step by step,
stone by stone following the method). Both personalities are incompatible: rules against creativity, extrinsic
motivation against intrinsic one, boring and false predictability against uncertainty. The normative have
developed a science system based on extrinsic motivation (with punishment and rewards, directed to our
mammalian brain if you follow or unfollow the rules -if you fill the forms, if you behave like a good boy…).
But Science needs rebels with a cause (to explore), to go inside the blind zone we need metaphors not thousands
of administrative acts. Scientists today behave like philosophical zombies without alternative.
There is an immense pressure to copy the empty model (the young students believe there is just one option, the
empty model or you will be rejected and in any case all the time supervised). Then you follow the wrong
rewards (big CVs about nothing). A joke: Four scientists around a table discussing "who is the best": I put 85 on
|13
the table. Here you are my 100 publications. Then, I win. You have a limited international impact; your
influence is modest, your publications are of medium impact. I am more global, with a bigger influence and
high impact publications. Ok, but I ask you to tell me: What is your significant contribution to Science, your
best discovery? No answer. Mr. Wonderful is very important because he has a lot of citations.
We can describe a long list of significant science problems: There is not self-criticism (where is meta-science,
the Science of Science; self-consciousness, philosophy of Science, the pragmatics of Science)? The peer-review
normative prejudices; the dictatorship of journals; the principle of authority. Absent replicability. The relevance
or irrelevance of dependent variables like Reaction Time; the Neuro-mania; The absence of author rights. The
abuse of postgraduate students. The narcissism of scientists (vanity). The automatic and biased long way
between the idea and its publication in a journal: idea, scientific method, experiments, statistical analysis,
scientific writing, peer review…
At what point in this timeline an idea becomes Science? At the end? Then unpublished research is not Science?
Are journals the bottleneck of scientific ideas? Imagine any other real domain (police, cooks, hospitals,
sports…) where you must wait until at least two peers tell you that your work is well done. When did Science
forget its origin? Its relationship with real life, with people, with well-being, consciousness, reflection,
knowledge, and a real product… And It becomes just a way of life, an ornament, business, religion, politics, a
microworld, a club or an army? When did scientists forget to think by themselves? We need a profound change,a
revolution. We need to escape from the spiderweb, but who can stop the big machine in the wrong direction?
The game: We can play a game (a youtube video-game) if you wish (it would be a good idea if Researchgate let
videos in the web). This is the game: Anyone of us (the researchers) can indicate in a video their primary
contribution to Science, knowledge or humanity in just a couple of minutes, in an informative form (to be
understood by anyone, like a friendly conversation). Please not science-fiction: say what you have done that is
useful for world-space-mind- sea-society knowledge. It is not what you wish to do or study a microlab effect
that it is supposed to be related to an essential thing one day. Good sentences would be: I have done X (I
discovered an excellent treatment against X illness). Probably after my death, I will be remembered by that. Or
perhaps your main contribution is just your CV, your impact index, your list of publications. Your indexes that
nobody understands and are weakly related with microworld importance of some type.
10. WHAT IS THE NEW AND BIG CONTRIBUTION OF NEUROEDUCATION IN
NATURAL SETTINGS (SCHOOLS)?
I wonder if neuroeducation is another case of neuromania (the wrong soul of the times. Read the book
NEUROMANIA). Education is related to play, learning, creativity, critical thinking, practice, errors,
expression, motivation and passion (from children and teachers). In my opinion neuroeducation in wrong
hands is a terrible idea(like a protocol pathway to formal education). It can be focused on uniformity, tedious
14
evaluative tasks, nonsense objectives, lab results, speculative norms, fool ideas of happiness, with too much
emphasis in emotional regulation and control. We all know that in society, conflict of interests is in the air at
any time. Neuroscience (Science in general, scientists) must think "for who are we working?" It is ok to fight
against pseudoscience, but Science can no explain everything. It is a false belief the moral superiority of lab.
Science for real life, concerning philosophy, individual differences, motivations, consciousness....and a lot of
variables that are out of the scope of Science. As all we know, the dreamings of thought produce monsters.
What is the new and significant contribution of neuroeducation in natural settings(schools)? Please let me know
the basis of this supposed revolution that produces only evidence for old teaching ideas (verification): massive
learning is worst than distributive learning…
11. CAN SCIENCE OVERCOME OUR RANDOM ACCURACY IN OUR (BAD) ABILITY TO
ASCRIB MENTAL STATES TO OTHERS?
Even with Science, we (human beings) cannot go beyond random accuracy in lie detection, consciousness or
intelligence attribution to animals or machines. We read minds, but we are wrong readers. Probably our starting
point is idiosyncratic or based on our temperament. Our decisions are egocentric and based in heuristics, facial
expressions, intuitions, empathy and cognitive biases. Even within Science, we cannot agree in the definition of
mental states, we can not define with words or mathematics the meaning. What is reputation? If you follow
Reserachgate is RGB score. But we know that there is not a correspondence between the number and the
meaning. The same happens for intelligence, level or type of consciousness, truth, lying, or any measure of
good or bad: who is an excellent scientist? one with X publications, XX RGB score, XXX number ofcitations...
No, we use these scales, but we know they are not real. You can say any new nonsense thing, and almost half of
the readers will agree with you, and the other half are against it. The agreement is better than random only with
arbitrary social convention (based on power criteria, and prejudice axioms to delimit who is in and out). And
Science can not solve it, this subjective point of view. Even more, Science is based on it. Then the question is bad
scientists or bad Science?
The reviewers believe that they can read your mind, but they are terrible in mentalization.
12. WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE LEVEL OF EMPATHY OF SCIENTISTS?
When you study in the arts faculty, from the first course to the last one, your creativity will increase (what is
good). When you learn medicine, from the first to the last course, your empathy will decrease (what is bad and
a problem). What happens in the field of Science with empathy? We can compare your empathy before thePhD
and after a long CV.
There are a large number of theories of personality. If we consider the 5 big factors, a prototypical scientist is
expected to be: introvert? open to experience? Conscientious?, agreeable? Neurotic? For sure: open to
|15
experience (but again it is a myth).
I like to consider two dimensions to categorize scientists' profiles: empathy from 100(high) to 0 (low). The
other dimension is the exploration from novelty or innovation (100) to closed habit (0). If we crossed both
dimensions, we would obtain a euclidean space with four quadrants. In the left-up, we have scientists with high
empathy and open mind. Right-up, we have scientists with high empathy and normative. Left-down we have
low empathy and open minded ones. Right-down, we have low empathy (narcisism) and normative
(bureaucratic power).
In my opinion, today's culture of Science promotes researchers with low empathy and normative, which is bad
new. They do not understand what they do, but they do it and force anyone to follow the script.
Science needs open mind (new methods, ideas, procedures, exploration, innovation , focus on novelty, selfcriticism and cognitive effort, analysis of motivation, goals...), high empathy (empathy is a necessary ingredient
of justice and moral and focus in the need to understand and help others). Both open mind and empathy, are
punished in today's Science. Science of details is against books or divulgation Science. You can only speak about
your research with the scientists who work in the same detailed aspect of reality (microworld). Slow Science
should be a long term effort to prevent global problems.
13. THE UNETHICAL USE OF THE ETHIC COMMITTEES: A BAD JOKE
It is a kafkaesque situation. I am going to describe to you a real or fictional case (whatever you prefer). First, let me
remind a bible sentence "Saturday is for the men, no men for Saturday". In principle, I have nothing against ethic
committees when necessary. In psychology, the % of unethical research is low and well known (Zimbardo,
Stanford, evil effect…). In my opinion (just an opinion) the ethics of research is debatable by the peers,
journals…after the research. Of course, any team is intelligent enough to know if Helsinki declaration statements
are follow or not (we are adults, responsible of our acts, we think, we are not little boys underconstant
supervision or zombies). But if the journals impose it (ethics committees) for any research, the rules must be
explicit, the date of application also… In my opinion, an ethic committee by default loses its primary function (to
be an alarm of unethical behaviour) is like be under suspect all the time. It becomes just a new nonsense
administrative act. It makes no sense to demonstrate ethics all the time. Where is the principle of innocence? You
have to prove guilt. Imagine that I try to reproduce the Stroop effect in 3d, must I askfor an ethic committee?
If you change something of your research, must you ask for a new ethic committee?You change methodology,
type of subjects, dependent variables… because research is alive being, you have to change things, you never know
next step… What happened with the research you started and developed during the last five years when
institutions did not request an ethics committee and publish it? If you ask the university staff, they tell you that
ethics committees must approve the research before running it not after (if the main idea is to avoid unethical
behaviour). But it is just another administrative act, then you can ask foran ethics committee of old research you
16
did during the reviewing process. Then you can find the answer arrives before acceptation or not. You can also see
that the ethics committee rejects your research for an administrative fault that has nothing to do with ethics (like
the participants' informed consent must be fulfilled with the main name and forename of the main researcher).
You have an accepted ethics committee that covers only part of the research because you change things during
the process… At the same time, you have a young person without grant (who has been working hard for four
years under stressful conditions: not very ethical but commonplace situation) that must wait to read his thesis.
Still, he/she needs a published paper for that, orhe needs the paper to get a position… The research belongs to
a small group without funds that survive because we love Science (a small team can't compete against the big
groups' CV). You pay research from your pocket (this is also unethical in my opinion). The research is similar to
previous research you published without problems and ethics committees. It is identical to hundreds of papers
with the same topic, methodology, and manipulations in the last ten years. You are pretty sure your research
follows ethic… Then you decide that there is nothing wrong in publishing this paper. I feel proud of this
decision because I am full professor, an older man, not a boy, not an empty mind robot. After analyzing the
situation, points "in favour" and points "against", that is what we have in our hands: 1. This research started four
years before and in that time ethics committees were not requested, however, our small team belongs to a bigger
research group (cognitive training group that at the same time belongs to NNN centre, ZZZ University). The
cognitive training group declared (a written consent) in a meeting with all members at the beginning of each new
research line if it was ethical or not (we discuss it because we are responsible for our acts). Additionally, it was
discussed if it follows Helsinki declaration or statement (this is the local committee that belongs to NNN centre
that belongs to ZZZ University, that is how we describe it in the published paper of the thesis of the young
man). 2. At the sametime we have an official ethics committee from ZZZ University (it was created last year) 3.
We asked to ZZZ University an ethic committee specific for the part of the project that changed. Still, the positive
answer arrived (with delay after a previous negative by a defect in the form) after the paper's acceptation. 4.
Today, we havethese two papers about the ethics of the research (the local committee and the last one from ZZZ
University). Here is the evil of the situation. A person, a professor of my department (in fact a co-author of
previous research with me) who is like the villain of tales, reported it against us. It is not the first time I am
preparing a list of previous denunciations because the list could show that it is indicative of a case of psychological
bullying. But this person is not an essential character of this tale. The important thing is that the journals create a
context where anyone can claim against you in principle in anonymous form like in the Venecia republic of
Casanova, where ethics was nothing more than an administrative act to control the freedom or hurt personal
enemies. Then, a process is open. My consciousness is clean; I follow my values. I am not deceptive, how my
declaration here and to the university staff or the journal can demonstrate. If I would want to lie, simply could
indicate in the paper that we have an ethics committee of ZZZ University (what was the truth, but late) and then
the vigilant villain never pop out with discrepant information "a local committee" of NNN centre" that officially
does not exist. We declared that a big research group about cognitive training that belongs to NNN centre
|17
confirms that our research has no ethical problems. I wanted to explain it to all of you, because what matter is not
the expected result. I do not care about the result for me or to the research. I feel proud of my behaviour (good or
wrong, I did it thinking in others and my conception of Science, responsibility, the less damage output…) but like
a thermometer of what real Science is today: a bureaucratic labyrinth. Note: I want to give thanks to Researchgate
because it is a space where we can speak about Science and express with freedom and respect. We also need
education gates to discuss the university and teaching atmosphere. Ethics committees can be used to commit
unethical acts.
14.
ARE WE JUST COPIES?
Are we just copies? A human being prototype, a man as many others, a role sustained or embodied (professor,
scientist, dad, man…). My feelings, my thoughts, my ideas, my family, mi desires… are mine? Or I am just a
copy of a scientist, of a dad, of a person with X ideology (identified with left or right wing), and a couple of
temperaments traits (level of extroversion, empathy and neuroticism) that produce 5 or 6 types of human
beings.. Or they (feelings, thoughts…) come to me from culture, from a group that I belong to, from my
family, from my genes, temperament, experience… but they are all similar to the feelings and thoughts of any
other human being under similar circumstances. My doubts are human, not my doubts. Am I not my thoughts
and feelings? I am just a body-box of thoughts and feelings. At any level, human beings are both things at the
same time, type and token: At the genetic level we are copies, brain structure is a copy of a model (areas, lobes,
hemispheres, functions, circuits…); at the social level, we are similar each other (shared culture and group
values). Are individual differences a matter of no importance? Are all women (and men) interchangeable?
A category is nearer of an object consideration and token of a subject interaction. Our conscious experience
canfocus in just one thing at any moment. Sometimes we interact with the other like a category (the waiter,
theboss, the scientist…) and other times like a token(an individual with a specific personality and biography
thatshares some episodic memories…). Consciousness is a personal point of view. Self-consciousness is my
point of view on me. The relative importance of ego or consciousness in social interaction can be
discussed: Allhuman beings automatically produce egos and consciousness (under x circumstances). The ego
is a way ofidentifying the copy that we are (increasing its relative value). Then, again, Are we unique or are we
just copies?
The value of a human being is different under these two other points of view. We think about cows like a
category (about animals in general except for domestic dogs…). Are we just numbers? Like ants in a giant
anthill. We understand idiosyncrasies like dichotomies (extroverts versus introverts) or like deviations from
a central point (the mean). In any case, we think that these two versions (type versus token) of human beings
arecompatible (but they can be incompatible or exclusive). Like general psychology with differential
psychologythat speak different languages and assumptions(we think that there are a starting condition, a baseline,
18
areference point or copy and deviations from that). But is there a prototype of the human being? Is that real? In
mental and physical terms? All of these words are constructs, and we can doubt their existence (self,personality,
consciousness, moral…) but is it all an epiphenomenon, a culture product, are we just zombies? Of course, each
experience sustained in time builds up a unique human being (temperament, personality, gender, genetics, family,
culture, time of birth, circumstances, age…). Our feelings are real, sentient, and selfish. We all have an inner
world. We can produce errors, fantastic outputs, deviations behaviour (to increment the human repertoire) or not
(every thought, action, feeling is just repetition with a small and forged variation). I wouldlike to consider
scientists like tokens, not like types. For that, Science must evolve. We must think about its premises. Overall,
Science must evaluate science practice and system to treat ideas with sensitivity and scientist like human beings
with an open mind and not like numbers.
TO FINISH, A REFLECTION
In short, nature is like a book written in a strange language. Science is a reader. Where is the information, in the
book or the reader? You need both to produce knowledge. The immediate result of information is a feeling.
Does a feeling belong more to the inner world? Information can be true or false, but the feeling is always the
truth (a false feeling is not a feeling). However, the feeling can produce self-deception. Science is about
information and feelings. But Science denies the priority of feelings over information, and it produces selfdeception in the scientific community.
As I have said, in Science, group differences (experimental and control groups) are an extension of false
dichotomous dilemmas or hypothesis contrast –null hypothesis against alternative hypothesis-. The dichotomy is
an effect of language categorization, when a continuous line is converted in two poles (top/down; left/right;
introvert/extrovert; inner world/outer world…). At least in the inner world/outer world, the line's extremes
are not real. Any imagination is based on external reality (Pegasus is a horse with corn and wings. All of the puzzle
pieces or parts belong to the external world). Imagination is affected by language, culture or external reality. On
the opposite extreme, there is no perceived reality of first-order (It depends on the human mind, brain and
body limited capacity-weight, height, colour…-including a point of view, egocentric overall). Then, Science is
about the second-order properties of the world. The idea of a continuous line is also a metaphor. The line between
inner and outer worlds is not one-dimensional. This metaphor implies an order from left to right and a unit of
measurement. But in fact, there is no order, and we do not know the unit. For example, imagine two persons
located on a scale of 1 to 9 of extroversion in subjective positions 2 and 3. Would one of them be more
extroverted or with different behaviour than the other? Any situation located in the middle produces terrible
results and confusion because you have to shift from the inner to the outer world or vice versa. It is easier to drive
a car manually or autopilot, but when you have to change from one type of driving to the other as a function of
road circumstances, an accident becomes possible. You can perform the Finke task (to measure visual creativity)
|19
with closed eyes in your mind or with open eyes and manipulation of real geometric forms with your own hands
in visual creativity. But with open eyes in your imagination, the task is much more difficult. Science is a mixed
context. It is in the middle of the line between imagination (idea) and perception (data). This imaginary line is a
two way rute. It is then easy to see the world inverted and call knowledge what is ignorance, call inner to what is
outer, call truth what is a lie, or call information to a feeling…Maybe just opposed points of view, with different
priorities. Scientists are not good for counting anything: emotions, colours, personality traits, intelligence… Our
ability to measure is affected by our number of fingers and our limited short-term memory capacity. For example,
some of the essential/universal elements (of colours, emotions) belong to the inner world but others to the outer
world. Birth personality can be of high or low empathy, extroversion or neuroticism. Others personality traits are
constructed in social interaction like open or close to the experience. There is an interplay between the inner
world and the outer world. Human beings' intrinsic capacities can be enhanced or narrowed in this game, as
synesthesia or technology can show. Then, Science is about experience, embodiment, and ideasthesia (you can not
separate the brain and body or mind and senses. There is not pure data or pure thought. The limit between
self and world could be a language product as an ischemic stroke in the left hemisphere can show. But Science is
a language, a bad description of the experience. Experience is an analogue signal and Science is a digital output.
This analog signal is not a line or U shape inverted or not or a normal curve. These are the wrong assumptions of
Science. Then, Science can be analyzed. There are alternative forms of Science. Science can not be an algorithm or
a production line or a kingdom. The spurious limits between brain and body make impossible for Science to solve
the mystery of consciousness (there are more false limits in Science). Experience can not be deconstructed, then
Science of details (Today's Science) can not be the only way. Science is about the exploration of novelty. It
can not be done with a tourist guide or a cooking recipe or CV. It should not be a sport competition, a stupid
hierarchy of scientists or overall a business. Science should be based on collaboration, and it must be world
heritage. (just kidding?)
To find the roots of stupidity, you have to look beyond results, actions, personality traits, ideology, or wrong
moral premises (like the economy's false dilemma against health in the case of the fight against COVID-19).
You have to look for implicit assumptions related to a feeling of superiority that converts some aspect of the
inner world (intelligence, consciousness, moral, membership…) in a scale to God, in a number that affects to
rights (fewer rights in the exogroup) against privileges(more privileges in the endogroup)
20
View publication stats