The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.
― Isaac Asimov

The primary objects of science should be its subjects: the scientists themselves.

If you are a scientist and you yourself are not the first and foremost object under your microscopes, probes, sensors, and detectors; if you’re not exposing every single theory, assumption, belief, conviction to hardheaded scrutiny; if you don’t see how you’re in denial of your socially prevalent delusions; then you’re not a scientist. The number of titles and books you’ve written is irrelevant.

I don’t belong to the scientific community. I won’t ever attempt to write a scientifically correct thesis. I find that rigidly structuring scientific papers stiffens the science, makes it hermetic and boring.

Still, I consider myself a scientist …

I’m not into trends. I represent the traditional science of the commons, open-sourced, easy to replicate, approachable, comprehensive, timeless … Such science grows from first getting rid of cumbersome clutter in the head, heart, and gut.

The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
— Nikola Tesla

I firmly believe that the primary objects of all science should be its subjects: the scientists themselves.

I don’t mean spiritually or psychologically or quantum-physically. Scientists should first understand the genuine nature of their own bodies.

I’ve met scientists who were not even aware they have bodies. These bodies are so covered you can’t recognize the person beneath…

When we know, we all know the same; when we don’t know, everyone doesn’t know differently.
— Duško Radović


Barefoot science

Shoes are so much part of your everyday life that you never think of them being in any way harmful. Being without shoes in any typical social situation is kooky and even offensive.

Our entire civilization is embarrassingly biased when it comes to bare feet and no matter how much science I pack into an ideally written thesis, it wouldn’t change a thing. Actually, I don’t need to write, most of it has already been written by William A. Rossi in his article: Why Shoes Make “Normal” Gait Impossible.

To sum his writing up: there is no healthy shoe. All shoes are harmful. The only healthy way to walk is barefoot.

Even the best scientists, 100% committed to the “objective” truth, will read this text but they won’t change. They will go on wearing shoes despite objective, unbiased proof against shoes. They might—detachedly—agree with the scientific evidence, but they’ll never risk their scientific carriers, being judged, mocked, even ostracized.

He must surely be either very weak, or very little acquainted with the sciences, who shall reject a truth that is capable of demonstration, for no other reason but because it is newly known and contrary to the prejudices of mankind.
— George Berkeley

When I see that kind of narrow-mindedness I cannot but doubt the objectivity of “scientists”. How could I not doubt them? Can they really be committed to truth, realism, goodness, service to humankind?

A prejudice related to shoes is a sign that they have many other prejudices. And a prejudiced scientist can’t pass as a real scientist.

I’ll keep on being barefoot. Yes, most “normal” people will see me as a wierdo. Even “scientists” will.

I don’t blame them. I know how social biasing works.

I’ll keep asking a simple question: “Have you delved deeply into studying the anatomy of the human foot? Have you tested both barefooting and wearing diverse shoes? Have you observed your reactions critically? Have you, ultimately, made a rational choice: the best, the sanest, the healthiest option?”

No, you haven’t!

I’m the only one who’s done it. And I’m the only one barefoot.

I’m inviting the scientific community to prove me wrong by sticking to the scientific method. But my subject of scientific study—barefooting—has little value in the current world.

Such subjects are brushed off the table, marginalized. The study of human essence is treated the same.

Scientists look at the world through a defective lense of culturally conditioned “objectivity”. I don’t expect truly objective findings from them.


Subjective objectivity

I’m both a scientist and the object of my own scientific research.

I have to be a 100% observer and a 100% participant to be true to myself.

In reality, I’m trying to be 100% objective observer of myself—while being 100% subjective.

My scientific work, therefore, necessitates awareness of my prejudices, presumptions, judgments, reactions, urges, socially conditioned behaviors, and inner “programs.” I don’t shy away from truth just because it is unpleasant or unpopular.

Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.
— Thomas H. Huxley

That’s precisely why I’ll see myself as a scientist even if no other scientist acknowledges me as such.

I don’t need the approval of the scientific community to do science. Truly innovative scientists have always been black sheep in the flock, often shunned and ridiculed. Often, their true genius was recognized posthumously.

As a barefooter, I’m a physiologist, psychologist, sociologist, ecologist—all at the same time. Plus a poet and a clown. I can’t take myself overly seriously. If I did, I’d lose the capacity to perceive myself clearly.

Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all—the apathy of human beings.
— Helen Keller

I learned long ago that expecting sanity from humans is unrealistic. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I’m dancing my dance, singing my song. If you benefit from it, fine, if not, fine.


In a few decades, I hope people will be mature enough for real science …

So, at the end, let me list two excerpts on science.

First, the amazing Anthony de Mello:

The great masters tell us that the most important question in the world is: “Who am I?” Or rather: “What is ‘I’?” What is this thing I call “I”? What is this thing I call self?
You mean you understood everything else in the world and you didn’t understand this? You mean you understood astronomy and black holes and quasars and you picked up computer science, and you don’t know who you are? My, you are still asleep. You are a sleeping scientist.
You mean you understood what Jesus Christ is and you don’t know who you are? How do you know that you have understood Jesus Christ? Who is the person doing the understanding? Find that out first. That’s the foundation of everything, isn’t it?
It’s because we haven’t understood this that we’ve got all these stupid religious people involved in all these stupid religious wars—Muslims fighting against Jews, Protestants fighting Catholics, and all the rest of that rubbish. They don’t know who they are, because if they did, there wouldn’t be wars.
Like the little girl who says to a little boy, “Are you a Presbyterian?” And he says, “No, we belong to another abomination!”

… and finally:

Scientists are complaining that the new Dinosaur movie shows dinosaurs with lemurs, who didn’t evolve for another million years. They’re afraid the movie will give kids a mistaken impression. What about the fact that the dinosaurs are singing and dancing?
— Jay Leno

All I want to say is: I love SCIENCE!