Abstract: The impotence of philosophy as an epistemological tool leads to a critique of the status of man, and the restructuring of the latter’s ontology leads to the introduction of two new terms: MAN and SCIENCE. The fundamental relationship between these, highlighted by the explication of the interest and especially the necessity for MAN to know SCIENCE, will be complemented by the first scientific results, the idea of the computer, and a reflection on the role of MAN. And it is the synthesis of all these considerations that will generate the concept of HOMO SCIENTIS.
Philosophy is the art of problematization, with questioning as the essence of its existence. Let us pay it homage, and following its teaching, let us question its contribution in the field of knowledge. We then witness a very rare phenomenon in philosophy: our problem admits a solution, and that solution is simple—the contribution is negligible. Indeed, at present, philosophers ask themselves the same questions that the Greeks already asked in antiquity. Philosophy, the pinnacle in matters of language, has had 2500 years to act, and what has it done with them? However, let us not blame it too much, for it is merely the reflection of a reality, the language of a thought. It is this thought that is at fault, or more precisely, the one who generates it: man.
Man must be humble, certainly, but not what he thinks! He must proceed to the emancipation of his intellect from prejudices and social constraints before he can elaborate a thought that is truly his own; for this, he must show eclecticism, but remaining at this stage would be insufficient. From what exists, he must seek, through the synthesis of knowledge, a creation whose contribution must constitute a fundamental element of the edifice of human knowledge. Yet reflection on models of thought that are not renewed—even if it consists of restructuring existing knowledge—can only lead in the long run to a sterile conformism of thought, and above all, without the creation of new concepts. But this is only possible in science. The time is over when only philosophy set out to conquer knowledge; now it is science that takes on the role of torchbearer to discover, within the darkness of our ignorance, universal objectivity. Science must modify the definition of man: he must no longer simply be; he must become a thinking being in search of truth. With a view to this transformation, we will henceforth use the following definition: MAN := thought of man.
Man must seek without yielding anything. Freed from considerations of form, he must express himself without adornment and without luxury of words; nudity is beautiful when it is made of purity. Let MAN shock—little matter—only the truth of his words and actions counts. This pure search lives on reflection and questioning, not only in a closed domain but across the entirety of knowledge. MAN must continually ask himself questions about the world around him and about the one he creates through his abstraction; however, these questions, not being ends in themselves, are only the bases from which a thought will develop whose goal is to reach answers. Yet the current framework of science is not capable of supporting a structure like MAN, because only the emergence of ethical problems leads science to question its rights: the few peaks of epistemology regarding its value have not yet been able to awaken the intellectual conscience of science. The consequence of this situation is the disjunction between science and reflection on science; since this is due to the pressure society exerts on man, without being in any way natural, we are led to posit the following definition, thus allowing the unification of two modes of thought that have been separated for too long:
SCIENCE := concept encompassing science and reflection upon it.
SCIENCE justifies the existence of MAN, and it is the only thing that can do so. It has allowed him to acquire a new status, that of representative of his civilization. Even the bomb, which allows humanity to self-destruct, is a contribution to MAN; indeed, he is now responsible not only for his own life but for the entire fate of his civilization. God is no more! MAN no longer has a mentor; he must realize that he finds himself in a Universe where everything is permitted. He is alone! And it is up to him to define what is good and what is evil. Each of his gestures is an act that can save or condemn. Yet he does not face nothingness, but the Universe; consequently, every experience he produces to know it will in turn act upon MAN. This interaction, far from being a mere epiphenomenon, reveals a complex reality: for while it is true that man is a singular accumulation of energy-impulse in space-time, what then of MAN? One thing at least: only MAN changes his destiny.The Universe was meant to become intelligent, and it now is. Its destiny is intimately linked to the development of intelligence—this singularity that must not evaporate, but breathe into the Universe its reason for being, by creating the cosmos from chaos. MAN can understand the Universe in two ways: either by studying it or by studying himself. In both studies, SCIENCE is indispensable; it is therefore fundamental for MAN to know it. In the past, MAN took a long time to acquire written language; however, once acquired, it enabled him to develop reflection from it. The quality of this reflection is superior to that which MAN can produce without the written support. Similarly, by extrapolating this quantum phenomenon, one can now envisage the enrichment that SCIENCE will produce in MAN.
But the integration of SCIENCE into MAN represents not only an interest but a necessity—a primordial necessity; for MAN is in permanent struggle against entropy. Every simple physical system—that is, one not constituting a being generating thought—evolves to achieve maximum physical stability. This stability is not without drawbacks, as it is by definition linked to an inexorable loss of the initial information that characterized the system in question. The very existence of MAN demonstrates, by exhibiting the solution, that there exists at least one system that locally in space-time perturbs the aforementioned evolution. MAN, in order to respond to his ontology, must structure his surrounding universe in a lasting way; this character of permanence depends on his meditation—the more developed it is, the greater his predictive power, which allows him to free himself from circumstantial practical operations that are not reusable later. However, the value of this meditation is itself dependent, as it stems from the structure of concepts, and the latter, without a criterion of scientificity, ultimately becomes a superfluous assemblage.

SCIENCE is therefore necessary to MAN. As a methodology for the search for knowledge of the future, SCIENCE must use the acquisitions of the past. This last condition clearly shows that SCIENCE is not a structure obtained ex nihilo; indeed, it is elaborated from pre-existing scientific elements, prioritizing the globalizing character of these results. All eras of humanity have been rich in teachings in the field of science—except for the Middle Ages, whose intellectual poverty is essentially due to the pressure exerted by the Church on men to maintain its power over them. Thus, just in mathematics, one finds the notion of demonstration in antiquity with Euclid, Thales, and Pythagoras; that of integral calculus in the 17th century with W. Leibniz and I. Newton; or again that of elliptic functions in the 19th century with N. Abel and C. Jacobi, and of course that of the group with E. Galois, which gave birth to the idea of structure—finer than that of number. However, the particularity of our era stems from the fact that it is the first in which non-teachings have been established. In fact, it began with Abel and his proof of the non-existence of a general solution to the problem of solving equations of degree higher than four by radicals, but this remained an exception. The real rise of this new way of proceeding in the field of knowledge began with the work of K. Gödel in logic, and more particularly with his incompleteness theorem in 1931; it was indeed following these works that in 1963 P.J. Cohen demonstrated the independence, on the axiomatic level, of the continuum hypothesis. And more recently still, in 1989, G. Chaitin exhibited an equation that could be described as incompressible in the sense that it cannot be reduced to an axiomatic that does not contain it. Another particularity of the 20th century is the appearance of extremely long proofs, such as the complete classification of finite groups, which comprises 5000 pages of calculations and reasoning, as well as the use of monstrously large numbers, such as Skewes’ number concerning prime numbers, or Folkan’s number on graphs. These considerations of size lead to reflection on the first perfect experimental tool that MAN now possesses, namely the computer.
The idea of the computer appeared to avoid frequent errors due to long and tedious calculations on the one hand, and the problem of designing a system capable of solving everything that is solvable on the other. Both approaches arrived at positive results: the first is practically realized by the performance of the computer, which is incontestably more efficient than man, while not being absolute; the second is theoretically resolved by the Turing machine, which possesses an intrinsic infinite character. At first, the computer was considered a simple auxiliary tool, but this was without counting on its power. Its entry into research was thunderous: indeed, it enabled the proof of the four color theorem in 1976. There is nothing surprising about this, since it was already used to perform calculations in certain proofs. However, in this case there was a fundamental difference because for the first time its contribution was just as important as that of MAN. It was no longer a luxury but a necessity! Moreover, this purely computational action—and ultimately elementary due to its power—has led to reflection on the meaning of a proof that is not humanly verifiable in its entirety. In this primordial example, the action of the computer on MAN can be summed up in the form of a quip as follows: it took only four to make MAN see all the colors. However, the introduction of the computer into fundamental research is only at its primary stage—even if it already helps MAN considerably, as in the field of fractals where its use has encouraged the search for results leading to general theorems, the most important representative of which is the connectedness of the Mandelbrot set obtained in 1981 by A. Douady and J.H. Hubbard—and this stage will only be surpassed when the computer is used in all its potentiality, without dogmatic prejudices. One thing is certain: its existence helps MAN to better understand himself.
And the understanding of his existence is fundamental. The solitude of MAN in the Universe is not a condemnation, it is the justification of his life. Able to count only on himself, he must do everything. Singular MAN must be; he must reduce all the structures of philosophy to dust, abolish all dogmas and, in these debris, collect only the rare valid stones that are necessary to him. The intransigent must transgress every prohibition, and touch everything considered sacred because only what he creates has value. A single feeling must inhabit him: dissatisfaction. Only the search for perfection gives meaning to his acts. Being is no longer enough; MAN must be transcended. Source, candle that illuminates ignorance and consumes the will to ignorance, MAN must want everything, right now. Nevertheless, not a simple candle, but a true cerebral bomb, a disturbing element of this world. One MAN an event, an event one MAN. Nevertheless, MAN without SCIENCE remains blind and deprived of this globalizing vision; he gets lost in the labyrinth of life filled with trivialities and digressions. As for SCIENCE, without MAN, it remains a rigid structure without dynamics. Therefore, to understand the future, it is indispensable to effect the fusion of the two concepts that are SCIENCE and MAN in order to conceive a being capable of giving meaning to the absurdity of life, capable of integrating the creations he produces, of using his discoveries in his own mode of thought. This being, this synthesizer of knowledge, is HOMO SCIENTIS.

Post to X