Science Is Dead – Long Live the Scientocracy!

Science went from a method to a fundamentalist belief system in under 400 years.

The year was 1660. London. Europe had been ravaged for centuries by the black plague, but even worse by regressive theocracies. This is the year that the first organization of scientists associated under the name The Royal Society. The entire spirit of the enterprise could be summed up by the three words they chose as their motto — NULLIUS IN VERBIM. “Take nobody’s word for it.”

Their mission statement was crystal clear in their intentions for science. Science was to be a method by which individuals investigated phenomena, not a priesthood of infallible experts whose authority became law. That is what state churches had done for centuries throughout Europe, and the Protestant Revolution that disrupted theocracy had also informed academia and planted the seeds of modern science. It was to be the end of dogma and the frontier of self-ownership and critical thinking.

360 years later it started taking its final breathes. In 2020 the majority of humanity collectively ceased skepticism. They became more afraid of other peoples paranoia than their own potential gullibility and blind faith. They began taking the authorities word for just about everything. Almost none of them could understand enough to determine if the information that corporate owned and sponsored media/government officials saturated their newly digitized world with was valid. They didn’t know nearly enough about science to verify the data, let alone to do their own independent observations, testing and interpretations. They were happy to believe what they were told.

This was largely due to three factors. First of all they couldn’t all possibly investigate for themselves. They had become so specialized and buried in the endless loop of pointless labor and consumption that drives capitalism, it wasn’t possible for them to understand. So they decided to take experts words for it. Why would the oligarchs lie to them in scientific terminology?

Secondly, they mostly didn’t even know what science was. They just knew that it often got the job done, and falsely believed it was the only view one could hold except for religion. It was the one true way.

Finally, and most importantly, they got scared. Out of fears that had been concocted by the perilous sophistry of statistics, and often without any personal experience to confirm the veracity of the boogeyman allegedly stalking them, they gave fully into a new priesthood and insisted the state follow its edicts. The scientocracy was born.

Doublespeak, absurdity and fanaticism gripped the scientocracy. Self-righteous fervor fueled its supporters, and they reaffirmed their piousness with the self-congratulatory heroism of obedience and performative goodness.

R.I.P. Science 1660–2020

To be fair, it had already nearly committed suicide in previous years. Quantum mechanics began pointing impeccably towards an observer created reality. The realism and materialism which had driven science was being made scientifically obsolete by the discovery that our experiences are shaped by our beliefs and expectations. So science sorta nibbled at the crust of its death before ever taking the slice. We need not mourn it.

But mark my words, the scientocracy, which need only appeal to science in order to manufacture consent, that situation is going to get bleak fast. Welcome to The Dark Ages 2.0.


14 thoughts on “Science Is Dead – Long Live the Scientocracy!

  1. I love it. But I might add that it isn’t like “humanity“ gets smarter. Most of humanity are just people who want to learn enough just to make some money and raise kids and fuck and drink beer and smoke pot. There is no inherent curiosity, or intelligence or being skeptical, or critical or anything that goes along with what we want to generalize as some sort of enlightened human being in the general sense.

    But I would say that back then when science started, say, the world was still small enough that people could believe that human beings had some sort of natural desire to be “free” and that freedom with some essential rights and yada yada yada

    I think what we’re seeing now is that with the sheer number of human beings, in order for there to be any sort of happiness in the world, and organization must be implemented. And science Kinley the way in that respect because indeed there is a small fraction of humanity who still is “intelligence” in the sense of the spirit of science back in the 17th century.

    But I think it’s the plain fact that the idea of an intelligent human being as a general group, is a fantasy. In order for anyone to be happy, control Hass to be asserted over the massive. Unfortunately that means that the person who is intelligent has to participate in that because, people are smart enough to look at one another and they’ve been indoctrinated into this free and equal society. That’s all they can think about.

    But I like your post, I just think it only pertains to a small number of people


    1. I can certainly agree that we reached a population threshold which diminished our humanity, no doubt. Which is why the maximum survival ideology of the scientocracy is ill-fated. Forests need fires for healthy growth.


      1. Not in any literal sense, but in a narrative sense there is. And I see reality not as a literal thing, but as narrative written from within. Most people may never contribute to or participate in that narrative, but it remains regardless.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I agree with you, but with a caveat.
        Yes: narrative in which subjects find world. But, that view, as if becomes a belief against a universe which functions despite the story we would tell ourselves, is achievable as knowledge. Outside of the narrative. So to speak. “The narrative” begins to notice and actualize components of itself, it’s own story telling, which contradict that only a story is Being or allowing for Being. Then the world in-itself begins to be revealed outside of the narrative. Ironically.


      3. “The world in itself” is a realist proposition that I refute entirely. I guess all my writings against that dogma have not really reached you.


      4. It is Becuase you “believe” your own narrative. It is self -righteous. Yes. I agree with you. But the way out of it Begins when one begins to question its dictates. Notice inconsistencies. Your refutation only occurs within your narrative. That’s is the real issue.

        It’s like someone who has never seen snow. There’s noting some else else can tell them about it which would make them understand the in-itself ness of the truth of snow

        Any resort to “even that is a narrative “ merely serves to show an inconsistency in your narrative. The question is: do you take the invitation Or just deny it’s possibility ?


      5. No, my refutation occurs in the claims themself being self-refuting or otherwise inconsistent or illogical.


      6. Do the claims arise outside your narrative ? Or implicit your narrative ? Is the narrative itself implicit or explicit your narrative. ?


      7. The claims arise from:
        a) Other agents.
        b) My own internal questioning.

        I am not sure what you are insinuating here. That there are no other agents, just my narrative? That there is no intersubjective, transpersonal narrative, just personal subjective?

        Either way the consequence is that I should discount your agency and participation and consider you an artifact of my own narrative. Arguing yourself out of the picture is an awkward tactic.


      8. I am not arguing me out of your narrative. I am saying that typically narratively function to pave over inconsistencies and contradictions to consolidate ideological identity. I’m saying that when one begins to notice those without dismissing them back into subjective Reason, then narrative takes on a new hue.


      9. No doubt about that. But I am not typical. I am hyper aware of how critical thinking is often overridden by identity and image games. I have overcome numerous dogmas over the years by rooting out possible claims for any given phenomena, and then seeking the consistency of those claims, and eradicating any that crumble on investigation. Which is just about every claim can make, or at least can/does in modernist narratives.

        Liked by 1 person

      10. What about the dogma by which you deny that you are ever in countering an object in itself? This dog mate is what’s informing you to your ideas by which you ascertain whether or not you’re having any dogmas.

        I think that you have not encountered that underlying dogma, and that you view it as “yourself” as an innate sort of truth that is attached to your thoughts necessarily.

        Because I am wondering if you are understanding that the thoughts that are coming to mind for yourself right now from reading that are actually your own thoughts?

        For indeed I exist in myself, and as a thing in the universe, I am indeed an object in itself.

        How do you overcome the contradiction involved and that everything that’s going on with you it’s just a narrative that is coming up in yourself, having nothing to do with “me“ in itself?

        How do you account for me except to eternally refi that you were attached or approve you to some truth that your mind is able to ascertain by thinking?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s