I.2. Scientific knowledge vs. personal knowledge

An element of personal knowledge is the methodological doubt, since it is healthier to understand things than to learn them. But, of course, one has to place certain limits on personal knowledge as there are things that we don't understand but we accept them because they are generally accepted. To this extent our personal scientific knowledge is more limited than general scientific knowledge.

What I want to express is the distinction between general beliefs, although they are of scientific character, and what one thinks, believes, or accepts as solidly valid; so solidly that it cancels out the possible contradiction with the generally accepted scientific knowledge.

On very rare occasions throughout my student life, I had reasonable doubts about the veracity or correctness of what I was studying when the subject matter made up part of generally accepted scientific knowledge.

The first thing that I remember was Darwin 's theory of evolution due to random mutations and the theory of the dominant and recessive genes which are referred to as the Laws of Mendel. Luckily, I have been able to develop a structured set of alternative ideas in line with my personal knowledge and my reflections about life, and present them in the book on the General Theory of the Conditional Evolution of Life.

The second time I doubted generally accepted scientific knowledge, which, due to its characteristics, is very similar to the previous, was the supposed non-hereditary character of intelligence defended by the official doctrine of psychological and economic sociology. I, on the contrary, have always thought that there is a great influence of genetic inheritance on intelligence due to my education, experience, and nature.

Also, in this second case I have been able to write a four-part series on my knowledge about thought, titled the Global Cognitive Theory, in which a statistical work is included in the annex which, in my opinion, scientifically shows the fundamentally hereditary character of the relational intelligence or intelligence in the general sense, and the very existence of a theological or finalist evolution.

Albert Einstein's relativity of time has been the third element that wasn't clear to me when I studied it, and even less clear when, subsequently, I tried to comprehend basic explanations in other books about Modern Physics. The problem is not that it wasn't clear to me but rather that what was clear to me was that it seems that they don't know what they are talking about. Excuse the expression!

Finally, besides perfectly understanding the concept of time relativity of Modern Physics, I don't like it, and they seem more like an attempt to complicate the unknown. I say problem because other ideas occurred to me which I think can be interesting to express and, logically, it socially has its psychic integrity risks due to dealing with physics of an area of knowledge with very special characteristics; although we must keep in mind that biology, genetics, and neurosciences have progressed their technique a lot as well lately.

Nevertheless, I should recognize that my problems with relativity, when I didn't understand it, were much more common than what I possibly expected from a theory supposedly based on scientific knowledge.

Now that I have discussed the doubts that have emerged during the  search for personal knowledge in my youth, I don't want to finish without mentioning one more, given that I think that there have been four doubts of great transcendence for being linked to essential concepts of our life, such as love, time, evolution, intelligence, and inheritance.

The tree of knowledge
The tree of knowledge

The last great methodological doubt refers to the famous expression of the Golden Age of Castilian literature; in my opinion it never made sense thinking that the Castilian literature that followed was inferior. I would say that the famous golden age corresponds to an adolescent stage and of rapid growth, but not of maximum splendor.

Better said, I hope I won't have the urge to write a book about growth and basic characteristics of languages as vital impulse systems.