Science as a method >> science as an institution

When someone says, "Science teaches such and such," they are using the word incorrectly. If they say to you, “Science has shown such and such,” you might ask, “How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?” —Richard Feynman

A lot of other switcheroos happened then too (like when aboriginal was replaced by Aboriginal)

That's such a clear articulation of the two wildly different ways I see people react to this cartoon. It depends on what they believe "science" is.

JB: "Science: the Search for testifiable knowledge."

That shift changed everything. Critical thinking > consensus

So you're saying science went from ‘Eureka!’ to ‘Do the other scientists approve this Eureka?’

That’s a fascinating point! The shift from "science" as a pursuit of knowledge to a more institutionalized process tied to peer review and consensus could have significantly impacted how we view scientific truth today. It’s interesting how the evolution of language and institutions can shape the very way we approach and understand knowledge. Do you think this shift has affected the way scientific discoveries are perceived?

Here's my plan to fix science:

You’re right—but it goes deeper. The word science didn’t just mutate through semantic drift—it was captured. What once meant the disciplined search for truth through rational, participatory encounter with reality became an institutional instrument for epistemic control. From Galileo to Gödel, science was once animated by an almost theological hunger: to behold intelligible order and align human reason with it. That was scientia in its original mode: reverence structured through reason, enacted through observation, and oriented toward truth. Peer review, funding gatekeeping, and bureaucratic incentives hollowed out science’s metaphysical core. What couldn’t be measured was discarded. What couldn’t be monetized was ignored. The result is a system that optimizes for predictability, not understanding—where models simulate reality but no longer mean anything. Science was rebranded not as a method for apprehending truth but as a mechanism for consensus formation. The key shift wasn’t methodological but metaphysical. Truth was no longer something discovered—it became something voted on by committees. Today, most don’t realize the ontological substitution that’s occurred. They conflate the minimization of prediction error with truth. They confuse coherence within academic silos with correspondence to the real. They mistake consensus for conscience. What remains is science-as-ritual—a procedural cult that sacrifices mystery on the altar of metrics. It is a religion of model fidelity without metaphysical referent, wherein the sacred act of knowing has been replaced by institutional signaling. The result? Data without discernment. Technique without telos. Simulation without logos.

This is institutionalised consensus is the bane for human civilisation.

Verily, "Trust the science" is often used to mean "Trust the scientists who are saying it" these days.

“Trust the science” is such an inherently unscientific turn of phrase, it’s almost Orwellian in its inversion.

It feels like a pathological desire for authority of knowledge.

Like the way religion and church get conflated

Science is a method.

Science is a blend of rational pursuit of knowledge (long-term) and peer review (short-term). New discoveries change the consensus (peer review). Many examples show this, starting from Katalin Kariko’s work (mRNA vaccines) to the debates between Cajal and Golgi (about the organisation of the neurons). Experiments and data stands in the long-term.

The general switcharoo is: "practical mechanisms aiming to impelent concept X becoming the new definition of X" (to the point people forget the abstract concept X). See "democracy" and "electoral processes": abstract concept vs attempted implementation. Or "socialism" vs "USSR"

I imagine the explosion in consensus seeking coincided with the increase in gov't funding of research through grants. Simple economics: as the supply of bureaucrats seeking power through waving grant money in the air grew; so, too, did the demand by academicians for that money.

Dogmatism still dominates…ironic isn’t it considering science, fundamentally, is anti-dogmatic…people just don’t get it…no one should ever ‘trust the science’ as it’s only ever an approximation and capital T truth doesn’t and will never exist…dogmatists be damned🤣😂🤫🫠

Inaccurate at best. The ICSVPR was always part of the process, it only got bloated, it became ouroboros, but in no way took over.

It must be difficult to live through such change So much how deeply it was taught being challenged in truth’ it is simple in logical ways Knowledge itself has been corrupted by it’s own Experts circular condemnation Anyway don’t get angry Move ur Frustration even In a mad world

@naval, the duality of "science" truly enriches its meaning. Embracing both rationality and imagination leads to impactful discoveries. #ScienceExploration

Yes, but these two meanings are not mutually exclusive—they’re meant to be two overlapping circles.

Social media is the new science!

A story of truth as old as time. [1Ki 22:13 NASB20] [13] Then the messenger who went to summon Micaiah spoke to him saying, “Behold now, the words of the prophets are unanimously favorable to the king. Please let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak favorably.”

One for the purists and one for the grifters🤷‍♂️