Science

ENLIGHTENMENT 2.0

SCIENCE – IS THAT ALL STILL CORRECT?

Science is sacred nowadays. You cannot doubt scientific evidence. Why not? Is science infallible then? How do we know if there is no abuse of power in the name of science? If that does happen, how could we see through it and control it?

In this speech we tell how science is treated in modern society and how it came about. We talk about abuse of power and which social parties play a role in this. We show the similarities with the developments in the 16th and 17th century. From there we predict the next big social development and we have a suggestion as to how these problems could be solved on a 21st century way.

But first we go back in time:

In the 16th century, the population in Europe suffered from the dictates of religion. There was only one view and way of life and that was that of the (Catholic) church. If you went against this, you will be charged with heresy.

In the 21st century, the population suffers from the dictates of science. The wisdom and correctness of science must not be affected. If you do, you will be demonized.

But is that science always right? Is it perhaps not sometimes a bit colored or surrounded by undesirable interests? Can we please be a little critical about that?

Just as we were delivered from the dictation of the church during the Enlightenment, we must now be released from the dictation of science or its misuse. It is time for Enlightenment 2.0!

Chapter 1.0

For the sake of clarity, there is nothing wrong with religion and science in itself. If people voluntarily adhere to a religion, that’s fine. Doing science for the common good of society, nobody can object to that. Me neither. But when a religion wants to impose demonstrable nonsense upon someone, hold out hell to the poor ignorant population for fabricated sins, I think that is pretty bad. Yet that was very common in the 16th century. The revenue model of The Catholic Church consisted of people being able to “buy” their sins by paying indulgences to the church. The church was bulging with money. How else could they afford such glorious buildings.

Martin Luther went against it with his 95 theses. It was the beginning of the Reformation. Printing press improved distribution of information a lot. Luther wrote the book “Disputatio” in which he described the abuse of power of the Roman Catholic Church. Various Reformation wars followed for a century. The rule of the church suffered greatly. Descartes and Spinoza went one step further. They introduced the idea that you only come to the truth with reason and common sense. This of course was blasphemy to the church because this would only lead to atheism and fatalism. The still powerful church fiercely fought these books throughout Europe. But the spirit of Enlightenment was in the air. Roughly the Enlightenment lasted from mid 17th century til the end of the 18th century and is a cultural-philosophical and intellectual current. It was a reaction to a dogmatic belief in authority. It gave rise to the modernization of society from which we are still reaping the benefits. Modern science could flourish through the Enlightenment eminently. The prosperity and well-being of the population is indebted to the philosophers of the Enlightenment and to science.

Religion still exists despite the fact that science sometimes produces a completely different worldview and is often at odds with statements from the Bible. Fortunately, we can believe anything, even though science proves something else. As long as we do that at home or in church and don’t bother others with it, there’s nothing wrong.

It becomes different when we are critical on topics with a political charge. Then suddenly there seems to be a schism reminiscent of the Reformation. For example, do not start with climate, environment and vaccinations, because apparently there is only one version that is propagated by prevailing politics, various social groups, intellectuals, politically correct media and the selectively informed population. Moreover, this version is scientifically proven so truth.

An increasingly large part of the population does not accept this but is constantly silenced with ‘yes but it is scientifically proven’. What can you argue against this if there are indeed studies and reports that prove something like that? All the studies of all the scientists of the past two hundred years put together, that is a huge wealth of information. All universities, laboratories and scientific research agencies work according to a standardized, widely recognized research method. It states, among other things, that an investigation must be independent, objective and reproducible and requirements must be met by proof. If science says something has been proven, then that’s just how it is. Period.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in the middle of Reformation 2.0. Replace the word church with science and you will automatically see the similarities. The behavior of the fanatical part that now claims the right of science shows remarkable similarities with the behavior of church followers in the 16th century. The unbridled belief in one’s own right, the fight against other views and the fanaticism of imposing one’s own right including consequences on the rest of the population.

If at some point something has been proven, then it is proven and then you no longer have to discuss it, a politician said recently. Well, in theory he is right, only to see that he is wrong in practice, we have to understand how the mechanisms behind scientific research work and how there is a connection between different parts of society.

A scientist is not interested in money, only in the truth. I think this applies to most scientists. But that scientist wanted to earn a good living after his studies, and that is legitimate so far. Good research costs money and someone has to pay for it. Consider the slogan, who pays determines. I do not want to blame anyone with this, just to indicate that there is a discrepancy between the objectivity of research and the ever-prevailing economic laws. Scientists are also people, and that also applies to their clients. Many assignments came and come from the industrial side. The side where money was and will be earned. Science has also yielded a great deal to business, and therefore society as a whole as well. But in the mid 20’sth century there was a rather close interdependence between the American tobacco industry and science. And in such a way that scientists started claiming that smoking is not unhealthy at all. A matter of paying enough of course. All obsolete of that smoking, but that mechanism still works.

To start with, we live in a lobbycracy. Do not underestimate the power of some large groups in some industries. Where there is money, there is power and, as we know, power corrupts. It pushes science in a certain direction, not just the research topic, but unfortunately also the result. Let us not be naive in that. Secondly, and then we come back to the scientific researcher’s earnings, it is about publications. As a scientist you achieve more if you publish more in important journals, press releases and interviews. They lead to more recognition and financing. Good for your scientific career is a subject that fits with the prevailing era, not what goes against it. In this way, the substantive image is strengthened by itself, even if that image is incorrect.

Why is it like that? And how is that possible in 2019 in a democratic society, after so much scientific research, an ever higher level of education and with a free press? You can fool a few people but not everyone.

That is because society is democratic to a limited extent, we live, as I said, first and foremost in a lobbycracy, and from that there is a “scientocracy.” Sounds scary and it is. Science is therefore controlled and colored. Furthermore, the press is not as free as it is supposed to be. Everything seems that there is a connection between industry, science, politics and media, among others. This is evidenced by, among other things, often unanimous reporting with an alleged scientific basis that, on closer inspection, turns out to be a lot more nuanced or different.

That alliance was formed in the 20th century but probably earlier. Leaders and decision makers were satisfied or simply bribed, the rest were misled. This could have arisen because the population was still poorly educated and had very limited access to reliable sources of information. Man is naturally inclined to believe the authority and its ‘good intentions’, certainly in a so-called democracy. Especially when it is in black on white, for example in the newspaper. Don’t forget the power of repetition. And we are herd animals, we like to follow the other. In this: if everyone says so it will be. Something that goes against the prevailing worldview is unbelievable in advance. And so myths and dogmas are maintained for a long time, even with a highly educated population.

After the Enlightenment 1.0, the Middle Ages 2.0 came, roughly the 19th and 20th century. The period that information was withheld and conditioned to the people. Around the turn of the last century there came the internet that gave many people access to a huge wealth of data. Those who know where to go on the internet got a glimpse of the true reality. Sometimes pits are opened by whistleblowers.

I can already hear critics thinking, yes, if you can’t win it with (scientific) facts, you just shout that it is all wrong. But that sounds too much the same to me as someone who explains the correctness of the Bible from the Bible itself.

A lot of data became available, but not everything. It is difficult to get an overall picture. You can no longer see the forest for the trees, so much information. In addition, a lot of science is just very difficult. For ordinary mortals it is hard to fathom, let alone reproduce, if it is already accessible. This already applies to one study, let alone a 100 studies. In addition, many relevant studies have not been done, sometimes consciously. In short, at some point, if you as a person cannot control science, science becomes something to believe or not to believe. In other words, science becomes religion again. The difference between science and religion is therefore not that great in the perception of the population. You are told, yes, almost forced. First the religion, now the science. Then we had to do penance for our sins, in the form of indulgences, for example. Now we must do penance, also for our sins, in the form of, for example, the climate agreement. The parallels go far. The so-called populism of today is a reaction to a dogmatic belief of authority, just like during the 16th century Reformation. The Protestants of those days are the populists and yellow vests of today. Then the printing press helped with the manifestation of the Reformation until finally the Enlightenment. Now we have internet that can hopefully help us from Reformation 2.0 to Enlightenment 2.0.

What should this Enlightenment 2.0 look like?

Chapter 2.0

There was approximately 130 years between the start of Reformation 1.0 and Enlightenment 1.0. We have found that Reformation 2.0 started around the turn of the century. We can hope that there will be less time between the Reformation 2.0 and the Enlightenment 2.0. Probably that will be because nowadays developments are going faster. The 20th did show that. We assume that it will take a few decades at most.

But then, what does the world look like after and during Enlightenment 2.0? Nobody knows. And what should we then base ourselves on, what is the successor to science? That is also a good question. We do not yet know what that name will be but let’s just call it science 2.0. And what is the difference between science 1.0 and science 2.0?

Since the Enlightenment 1.0, a separation between church and state has been introduced. Should there now be a separation between science and state?

Well, science 2.0 is still science, but it must meet higher requirements. In science we speak of scientific research methods and scientific evidence and there are all kinds of requirements to be allowed to call it scientific. They are widely recognized and there is no discussion there either. Science itself is also not the problem, but the way in which it is handled, that is the misuse of science. There is no need for a separation between science and state, but between science 1.0 and state.

Science 2.0 is complementary. A certain proof of a separate 1.0 investigation is no longer sufficient to be recognized in the world after Enlightenment 2.0. The extra demands that are made in the 2.0 world have to do with complete transparency, controllability by every individual on earth and it must be embedded in a complex of 2.0 recognized scientific data.

There is complete transparency when it is unquestionably clear who conducted the investigation, how it was carried out, that the investigation and evidence meet the usual requirements, who the client was, how and by whom it was financed, who has an interest in it or could have, who subsequently refers to the evidence of this investigation for political or commercial gain and which laws are based on it. And this data must be accessible and verifiable for every individual on earth. Only then is it transparent enough for Science 2.0.

Regarding controllability, anyone who would like to, should be able to repeat the study. If someone wants to use the results of this repeat investigation or refer to it, the same requirements apply as mentioned above.

Finally, 2.0 investigations and evidence must be embedded in a complex of 2.0 recognized scientific data. What do we mean by that? An investigation almost never stands alone. All kinds of investigations have been preceded. There are interests for a certain investigation. You have fundamental research and applied scientific research. There are follow-up investigations, counter-investigations and related investigations. In science 2.0, the connection with all these other data must be clear in an easy way. When related data conflicts with one another to some extent, this is easily revealed. Conflicting data are, in turn, a reason for new research. It should also be easy to see coherence between research agencies, initiators such as clients and funders and the usufruct of the research results.

Only when the requirements such as transparency, controllability and embedding have been met, science 2.0 is involved. And what’s the use of this? Well, then we have a society in which science is no longer misused. Governments and government institutions can no longer randomly refer to selective evidence and conceal counter evidence. Companies fall for nothing when they want to sell products with unsustainable claims. Social groups can no longer snare their members with lies and they can no longer talk to their enemies or put them in evil daylight. There will be fewer falsified research results. If there are any, they are also easy to unmask. Scientific journals get less relevance, they lose their filter function. Everything will be published anyway. If scientific journals publish selectively, then they too will own up. Better legislation will eventually come. And a parliamentary democracy 2.0. If a government bases its legislation on scientific evidence, it must not only be 2.0 proof, it must also be easy to verify by every citizen. The Freedom Of Information Act can be abolished, all information the government bases its legislation on must be easily accessible anyway. If the government has a law based on scientific results that are not 2.0, the law is void. If an offending party is punished by this invalid legislation, the court will fail the government. The government must redo its homework. In a 2.0 society, the media must be more careful with filtering publication of scientific articles. The perfect fact-checker is just a few mouse clicks away to each citizen.

In a 2.0 society, the population will be more accurately, objectively and more fully informed and be able to make better assessments in shaping opinions and making choices in daily life. In short, this makes us happier as a society.

And how can such a thing be achieved?

It is clear that only the printing press hopelessly falls short for a 2.0 society. After the Reformation in the 16th century, Enlightenment 1.0 could never have been skipped. Even in the 20th century Enlightenment 2.0 would not even exist. Libraries full of research results must be constantly updated and kept accessible to the public. Government Gazettes should be delivered to everyone’s home, including a thick attachment to prove all connections. It’s obvious, that won’t work out.

Fortunately, in the 21st century there is the Internet. An increasing part of the world has access to the internet. Unfortunately not uncensored everywhere, but still. There are data centers worldwide with flawless backup facilities. There are powerful search engines and networks with extremely high data rates. And we now have blockchain. Blockchain technology makes it possible to record agreements without the intervention of central authority. Authorities can be bribed or have wrong intentions. Information that is put in the blockchain is sent to all other users in that blockchain. If one of the users changes his data, then he immediately owns up. For example someone who wants to commit fraud.

It must be possible with a kind of science blockchain to record all research data, both substantive data and metadata, and to make them accessible to everyone. The blockchain is not managed by an authority, it must be open source. I do not so that it is easy. Nor is it arranged in a short time. Perhaps the blockchain should evolve a little further. But I am convinced that it is possible. It is also possible without a blockchain? Sure. But then it will rather be a Wikipedia-like format. A blockchain provides more assurance.

Is it going to happen?

That depends, among other things, on how the government behaves. The more strongly the government adheres to policy based on science 1.0, and therefore cannot properly account for it, the more a breeding ground is laid for Enlightenment 2.0. Especially when the citizen sees himself as being sidelined and has to suffer disproportionate consequences.

A government can also control the media, censor and deliberately distribute wrong information. This will obstruct the Enlightenment 2.0.

The media also have an important role. In advance state broadcasting organizations are suspected of telling the national government what they want to hear, because they simply are paid for it. But the commercial media also sometimes seem to practice self-censorship. Ties with the government and higher geopolitical powers seem to excist. If the popular media continue to cling stubbornly to the prevailing dogma’s, a large group of people will continue to believe that dogma’s. This can delay an Enlightenment 2.0. If the internet remains accessible and uncensored or at most censored to a very limited extent, an ever-growing group of people will no longer accept the 1.0 dogma’s. The Enlightenment 2.0 is then inevitable.

The population itself should also look into the mirror. If we continue to gather our news via television, radio, newspapers, magazines, then it won’t work. If we use the internet, it still depends on how. If we start gaming and watch nonsense vlog videos on YouTube, then it will not get along. If we move beyond the beaten track with our news gathering, we will first of all get confused. A bit later we no longer know what is or is not true. It is difficult to tell fake news from real news. Between facts and misleading information. But it is always worth trying to get to know what the hell is really going on in the world.

If the government does not extensively censor the internet, the question is not whether there will be Enlightenment 2.0, but when. It’s a matter of time. The development cannot be stopped anymore.

There are also opposing forces:

A development is taking place in which young people are becoming more and more fanatic in social involvement, while making choices based on conditioned 1.0 science, for example climate alarmism. This is due to the connection between government, science and media. Connectedness between universities and lobbying and converting knowledge-intensive industry. Connectedness between government and education, so the youth will be fed up with colored 1.0 knowledge, or if you want, brainwashed. And you know the youth has the future. That is promising.

There are the aforementioned lobbies that exert their power over governments, universities, media and healthcare with huge campaign and bribe budgets. In this way the population can never get an objective picture of the situation in the world, but also not of the hows and why of things that people have to deal with every day.

In that case, Enlightenment 2.0 does not really get along, while the suspicions alone should give rise to Enlightenment 2.0. Those who pay attention are familiar with these kinds of suspicions. These are people who already belong to the 2.0 community without knowing it themselves.

We didn’t hear that one yet. What is a 2.0 community? Is there also a 1.0 community, and what was before? Will there be a 3.0 community after this? Well, the 2.0 community is nothing but the group of people who is critical enough about government and society, and about all the prevailing dogma’s that they no longer accept that. Some make themselves heard, on the street or on the internet. Others look at it with sorrow and make themselves heard in the voting booth. They can be so-called populists, or yellow vests, but also simply concerned citizens like me. Many of them have the deep feeling that something is not right, although they cannot explain exactly what. The 2.0 community are the people who started the Reformation 2.0 and are now shaping it, although they are not familiar with the term.

There is indeed a 1.0 community. Those are the people who believe in the old dogma’s. They warn about the danger of the populists. They blindly sail on what scientific proof must pass for, but unfortunately it is 1.0 proof. They are often called progressive, but how progressive can you be with 1.0. Truly progressive is in 2.0. It is also those who will be the first to criticize this essay. But that is because they are 1.0, they are still in the denial phase. That is normal. It is difficult to think outside your box. Some will never come out of it again. No problem either, in the future they become extinct anyway.

Do you belong to the 1.0 community and feel great with it, keep it that way. Nothing beats carefree happiness, the ignorant knows all about it. You can still join the 2.0 community later. If you already belong to the 2.0 community, this essay is a feast of recognition for you.

Individually we do not have the choice to live in a 1.0 or 2.0 Enlightened society. But individually everyone has the choice to belong to a 1.0 or 2.0 community.

The Protestants who manifested themselves in Reformation 1.0 had no idea of the end result of the process they had initiated. They did feel something’s wrong and had to change. They also fairly felt they were victims of the circumstances. Eventually the Enlightenment 1.0 came.

Few recognize a Reformation 2.0 in the present time, let alone where it leads to. It could just lead to the next Enlightenment. It is time for Enlightenment 2.0!

May everyone make his or her own choices in life, based on the correct and complete information. And may that lead to the next level of prosperity, well-being and happiness.

Amen.