This morning I came up across a very disconcerting article entitled “Avalanche of published academic articles could erode trust in science“. I find this article disturbing for the following reason: science is not a religion and therefore should not require our trust.
Clearly, the title of the article and the statement it carries is a political one. Undoubtedly the ruling elites want to use science the same way the monarchs of yesteryears used religion: to control the masses. It is an open secret that science is being viewed as a new religion, the religion that is used to promote compliance and to pass legislation, in other words – to assert control.
However, science is not a religion and if history is any guide then almost all of today’s scientific knowledge is wrong. Just look at the 19th century: everything that we thought we knew about physics, biology, or medicine sounds naive today; the knowledge we had then was either incomplete or entirely, entirely wrong. Who is to say that the situation is going to be any different 50 years from now? It won’t.
Besides, do not forget that science is done not by gods but by people. Although we tend to elevate the authorities to the status of gods and deem them infallible, this is just another pattern in human nature. Somehow we crave for idols to adore and every generation has a favorite list of theirs. But people are mere mortals. And mere mortals are frequently wrong, flawed, and let’s not forget – corrupt. Therefore, science is no different from any other human activity, be that politics or organized religion. Science is practiced by the same people one finds everywhere: ordinary people with all their of shortcomings, moods, nearsightedness and flaws. If anything, academic field could be actually worse since it is teaming with narcissists, and god knows that nothing good can ever come out from the multitude of grandiose narcissists that tend to occupy vast swaths of high-ranking academic positions.
How can then anyone trust science? The correct answer is you probably shouldn’t. But I believe in freedom of personal choice and therefore every adult can decide for themselves. What I strongly appose to is the push to be compelled. I as a scientist do not trust my own results and therefore even much less compelled to trust the results and conclusions of others. After all, the science is fundamentally about perpetual and permanent dispute and discourse. If we are truly following the scientific method we are obligated not to trust anything and question everything because this is the only way to make progress. This is how science is supposed to work: doubt, question, debate, rinse and repeat. Science is dissent. Dissent is progress. Compliance, complacency, unanimity and trust are the opposites of science. These are the sins that lead to stagnation. Thus, when next time someone asks you: “Do you trust in science?” reply “Why, of course I do! What topic would you like to debate?”
I think “science” has always had good and bad ideas pushed, and up until Wokeness and Propaganda began to dominate the national News medias, peer review allowed “Science” to keep itself balanced. In the last few years, morons and criminals pretending to be journalists, began claiming that “Science” was saying what their political narrative had needed “science” to say, to provide them legitimacy to tear down the fabric of American culture. At the same time, too many Americans were too lazy to do any research into the fictious claims and so they never learned that Science had nothing to do with the lies. This is Climate
change, this was the Scamdemic, and it is the green movement in general.