PrefaceAs the world has laboured under the effects of a novelcoronavirus pandemic, we have been consistentlyimpressed by the confidence invested in 'science' by bothpolicy makers and the public. Having both been immersedin different aspects of the scientific world, we felt that'following the science' was not quite what it seemed. Scienceis not a single authoritative entity and scientists have widelydivergent views about the same dataset - what it may mean,how to interpret it and how to apply the implications inother areas of life.This has been particularly obvious when it comes toexamining the 'science' in diverse areas such as publichealth, virology, and economics. To protect the publicthere are some scientists who call for isolation, socialdistancing, mask wearing, and locking down of theeconomy and wider society. Others make interpretationsof the same scientific information and suggest a verydifferent approach; questioning the real value of isolatinggroups within society, questioning the wearing ofmasks by suggesting that these are known to provide nomeaningful microbiological barrier, and pointing to themental and physical health consequences of instilling fearin society. One of the possible effects is that individualswith non-COVID, acute and chronic diseases like cancer,cardiovascular, and other degenerative diseases suffer ongoingmisery and the risk of mortality, as threatening instatistical terms as an aggressive respiratory virus.Typically, the scientific evidence is not in dispute.

Thefigures are usually agreed. However, the conclusions drawnfrom those figures by different scientists can be poles apart.So while 'following the science' does appear to be a logicaland reasonable policy, especially when we have seen theamazing results of scientific development in every aspect ofour daily lives, the problem is that following the science doesnot necessarily lead everyone in the same direction.We have been aware of exactly the same phenomenonin other areas where evidence has rightly been trusted butthe resulting consensus, on closer inspection, cannot bemaintained. That is the principal reason we have writtenthis little book. People are inclined blithely to accept whatappears to be settled scientific accord when, in fact, on closerexamination, the evidence points in a different direction.It should not be lost on the reader that an importantreason for such different interpretations is hardly related tothe actual evidence at all. Rather, the assumptions and preconceptionsthat are sometimes unwittingly used in arrivingat a particular inference may be responsible.

We will lookat how these philosophical hunches can radically alter theeffects of following the science, especially in relation to thebig questions that we would all love to answer - questionsof ultimate existence and reality. Where have we come fromand what is the meaning of life? Come, follow the evidencewith us, and let us see where it leads.