13. Science Gone Wrong

I believe we are here to do good. It is the responsibility of every human being to aspire to do something worthwhile, to make the world a better place than the one we found.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I’d see the Scientific American in the role of Mother Church.

Introduction

Science Gone Wrong can be thought of as the specific cases where a tragedy occurred because a scientist - or, more likely, executives of a corporation - prioritized their goals over the safety or wellbeing of society, or Science Gone Wrong can be seen as a cultural process within the science community that halts the advancement of science. The first type of Science Gone Wrong involves egotistic individuals ignoring the public’s safety and the possible consequences while pushing the limits of science or technology, while the second - just as important, although not as dramatic - refers to the corruption of the science community, which simply means mankind is no longer making significant advancements in science.

Catastrophes That Should Not Have Happened

Science Gone Wrong is a movie genre built around overly ambitions scientists or executives who use science or technology to pursue personal or corporate gain. Blinded by ego and lacking empathy for others, they ignore warnings about the dangers of their creation. Their hubris sets the stage for disaster, and when they lose control, chaos erupts in a whirlwind of destruction, moral reckoning, and high-stakes drama.

These stories - from the campy sci-fi movies of the fifties and sixties to some of the most acclaimed thrillers ever made - revolve around one core theme: carelessness with the applications of science. Audiences are fascinated by science-gone-wrong stories because they dramatize human hubris - our desire to control nature, outsmart limits, or play God. They turn abstract scientific ideas into emotional, moral stories about curiosity, ambition, and consequence.

While movies like Jurassic Park, Ex Machina, Oppenheimer, and The Andromeda Strain are entertaining, we should remind ourselves that these stories reflect reality. Avoidable catastrophes happen daily because those in charge misuse science or technology. These actions can cause deaths by the dozens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions - yet the perpetrators are rarely held accountable.

How Catastrophes Occur

Science Gone Wrong / Corporate Negligence

Year & Name	Cause of Diaster	Resulting Fatalities & Damage	Accountability?
1932 – 1972 Tuskegee Syphilis Study	The cure for syphilis – penicillin – was withheld from infected African American men so that researchers could record the effects of the disease.	Nearly 400 men and their families needlessly suffered and many died because of this cruelty.	The racist researchers were not punished.
1950s–2000s DuPont, USA	DuPont release perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into the air and water even though they were aware of the PFOA being harmful.	Contaminated several small towns causing residents to experience exceptionally high rates of cancers and other illnesses.	No executives faced criminal charges.
late 1950s–early 1960s Thalidomide Tragedy, Europe	A prescribed drug caused severe birth defects because it was never properly tested for pregnancy safety.	Over ten thousand babies were born with severe limb deformities and other defects.	German criminal trial ended without convictions.
1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy, India	To maximize profits, Union Carbide executives did not repair safety features and ignoring safety protocols resulting in the release of deadly gas.	3,800 immediate deaths, tens of thousands injured or dying.	CEO Warren Anderson evaded justice by fleeing the country.
1986 Chernobyl, Ukraine	Reactor design flaws, and the disabling of safeguards during a safety test, caused the meltdown of the nuclear power plant.	About 30 immediate deaths; thousands of cancer deaths over the next several years; area surrounding the plant contaminated with radioactive fallout.	Some plant operators were sentenced to prison. It is controversial on whether these people were villains or scapegoats.
1990s–present Opioid Crisis, USA	Purdue Pharma had an aggressive and misleading marketing campaign pushing OxyContin as a non-addictive pain killer.	Over 600,000 overdose deaths from opioids while millions of others became addicted.	The owners of Purdue Pharma - the Sackler family - never faced criminal prosecution and walked away as multi-billionaires.
2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, USA	BP executives ignored several safety warnings, leading to an explosion that released hundreds of millions of gallons of crude oil.	11 Workers died; Gulf Coast environmental disaster.	BP had to be forced to pay for cleaning up the mess they created. None of BP's high-level employees went to prison.
2013 Rana Plaza Collapse, Bangladesh	Explosive sounds announced the appearance of large cracks in the support columns. Despite this, managers threaten the workers if they did not report back to work.	The building collapsed killing 1134 fabric workers - nearly all of them women - and wounding an estimated 2,500 others.	As of 2025, the trials of the owner and factory managers are still pending.
2018 & 2019 Boeing 737 MAX Crashes	Boeing executives ignored safety concerns and hid problems with the aircraft.	In two separate crashes a total of 346 airplane passengers died.	CEO resigned; no prosecution of executives.

If we ruin the earth, there is no place else to go.

If we can’t solve our problems here on Earth, we certainly won’t solve them by escaping to another planet.

The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.

Science for Good or Evil

Since human beings first evolved, we have been constantly striving to reach utopia. Yes, by definition it is an imagined world that cannot truly exist, yet it is important to keep this vision alive so that society continues to move in a positive direction. When humans first evolved, we were hardly distinguishable from other apes, and our prospects for a long, happy, and healthy life were about the same as the other animals: not good at all. More than anything else, it is science and technology that have enabled us to rise to the top of the food chain and beyond, bringing us much closer to that utopian ideal.

It is worth reminding ourselves just how much science and technology have improved our lives. Consider how long any of us would survive alone in the wilderness without a single man-made tool: for most of us, survival would be measured not in years, months, or even days, but in hours. Over the past century, the improvements in our well-being have been remarkable. Today, the average child born on Earth has a life expectancy of about 73.5 years; a century ago, it was roughly half that.

And yet, not everyone is thrilled about these advances in science and technology - and for understandable reasons.

One modern concern is that science occasionally goes wrong. More specifically, those pushing the limits of scientific understanding sometimes produce catastrophic outcomes. Likewise, when technology is pushed beyond its safe limits, it can fail, often resulting in disaster.

War is the most horrible failure of humanity, and most of the technological weapons we create to conduct these wars only make the horrors worse. Whereas cavemen expressed their hatred toward other tribes with rocks and spears, in modern times we have moved on to bullets, minefields, bombs, weaponized robots, and numerous other means of killing each other. In modern warfare, the killing is not confined to aggressors and defenders; falling bombs and landmines kill civilians as well. While we cannot blame those who, after attempting every option for maintaining peace, are forced into the horrors of war to defend themselves, we should wonder whether if the aggressors who look forward to killing other human beings are psychologically disturbed and what should be done about these people.

Today, we live in a world where a group of mad scientists could conceivably create a deadly global virus, or where artificial intelligence might enslave us. Most frightening of all is the ever-present possibility of nuclear holocaust. Since the middle of the twentieth century, humanity has lived under the shadow that an accident, miscommunication, or the whims of a dictator could end civilization. If we continue to accept this arrangement as normal, then sooner or later the unthinkable will happen.

These modern fears may have some of us fondly dreaming of simpler times. However, joining an Amish community is not the solution. Even the Amish cannot truly go back in time; while they mostly live a lifestyle that existed hundreds of years ago, they still use cell phones to conduct business, and they will check into a modern hospital if they are seriously injured or ill. Scientific discoveries and technological advances are like opening Pandora’s box: once it is opened, there is no putting it back. Somewhere on Earth, science and technology will continue to march on, and the societies that fail to keep up will be left behind and forgotten.

Because science and technology cannot be undone, the only way to prevent disasters caused by their misuse is to address the root problem: psychopathic individuals who harm others through their misuse of science and technology. These people engage in this destructive behavior because they see the possible benefits for themselves to be greater than the possible punishment for their misdeeds. When society is too lax in holding these psychopathic individuals accountable for their crimes, it only emboldened them and others to be more reckless in their behavior.

What message is sent when the Sackler family becomes multi-billionaires by marketing deadly opioids that have killed hundreds of thousands, yet face no criminal prosecution? If war criminals are not tried and punished, why should aggressive dictators refrain from threatening nuclear holocaust to get their way as they invade neighboring countries? When a politician uses the media to fan the flames of hatred toward minorities or spreads lies in order to drive a nation to war, madness will surely follow it the tyrant is not removed from office and punished.

Like it or not, the advancement of science and technology requires us to be increasingly diligent in holding intolerant, hateful individuals accountable. The greater the advancements in science and technology, the more we need to stand up to bullies. As Karl Popper explained in his discussion of the Paradox of Tolerance, for a society to remain free and tolerant, its citizens must be steadfast in refusing to tolerate intolerance. Otherwise, hateful, intolerant individuals will make the world unsafe through their misuse of science and technology while destroying the progress we have achieved.

We’ve arranged a society on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces.

We live in a world where the power to destroy civilization is in the hands of a few men, and the decisions they make are based on ignorance, arrogance, and greed.

Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.

Resistance to Change

Making improvements to technology or contributing to scientific knowledge are just two of the many ways society moves forward through the efforts of good people. Yet, surprisingly, many of these contributions are not well received. While almost always good for the advancement of society, new scientific ideas affecting people’s beliefs or technological advances that cause changes in people’s livelihood are often met with hostility rather than gratitude

Another surprise is that the science community itself is usually not all that welcoming towards new ideas. The leaders of the scientific community are like most any other hierarchy-based community in being hostile towards challengers. These authoritarians are vigilant in stamping out dissent or censoring anyone questioning their dogma: they see the free discussion of scientific ideas as an attack on their authority. Sadly, those who propose new scientific ideas are more often met with intolerance rather than curiosity.

Broadly speaking, there are only a few possible outcomes when a scientist makes a truly revolutionary discovery. If extremely fortunate, they may live long enough to be recognized, and in rare cases may even achieve a measure of celebrity. More often, if their work is recognized at all, this occurs only long after they have died. The most common fate, however, is to be mocked, censored, belittled, ostracized, or worse.

Is it any wonder that science struggles to move forward when free-thinking individuals are treated so poorly? The fact that the public often verbally - and sometimes physically - attack those who present progressive ideas is a powerful deterrent to the advancement of mankind.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.

Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds.

No Good Deed Shall Go Unpunished

Here is a short list of scientists or philosophers who through their scientific discoveries or ideas directed mankind towards becoming a more rational world, and how mob-mentality people responded to these changes.

Scientist or Philosopher	Contribution to Either Science or Humanity	Their Reward?	Accountability for the Crime?
Socrates (died 399 BC) Athenian Philosopher	Challenged assumptions about virtue, knowledge, and the gods.	Condemned to death on charges of impiety and corrupting youth.	Official judicial act and so there was no consequences for killing Socrates.
Michael Servetus (1511–1553) Spanish Physician	Challenged incorrect ideas in medicine and anatomy in addition to publishing his work on circulation.	Arrested and condemned as a heretic and executed by burning.	The condemnation and murder of Servetus was led by John Calvin - a Christian pastor - apparently doing the work of God.
Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) Philosopher and Mathematician	Challenged geocentrism; proposed an infinite universe with many worlds.	Condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake.	Centuries later the catholic church expressed regret yet issued no formal apology.
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) Italian Mathematician, Physicist, Astronomer	Challenged the geocentric view of the universe by supporting the heliocentric model.	Catholic Church tried him for heresy and he spent his final years under house arrest	Centuries later, in 1992, the Church acknowledged errors in Galileo’s case, but did not fully exonerate him
Ignaz Semmelweis (1818–1865) Physician and Obstetrician	Discovered that handwashing with chlorinated lime dramatically reduced puerperal fever in maternity wards.	Ridicule and professional ostracism; was committed to an asylum (reportedly beaten) and died days later.	No negative consequences of those who suppressed his ideas.
Alfred Wegener (1880–1930) Meteorologist and Geophysicist	Proposed continental drift (1912) - early foundation for plate tectonics.	Widely ridiculed by geologists; Wegener died on a Greenland expedition in 1930.	Geologists continue to nitpick the fact that Wegener could not explain how the continents moved.
John Lennon (1940 - 1980) British Musician	His song “Imagine” suggested the world would be better if there was no religion, heaven, nations, or possessions.	Many people deeply resented Lennon’s challenges to cultural and religious beliefs and one of these people fatally shot him.	His murderer is currently incarcerated serving a 20 years to life sentence.
Alan Feduccia (born 1943) Paleornithologist	His research indicates that it is extremely unlikely that birds could have evolved from theropod dinosaurs.	Treated as a heretic, ostracized and mocked by those who do not bother to look at the evidence.	It’s politics: dissenters questioning flawed beliefs are punished, while the lackeys of the mainstream are rewarded.
Judith Curry (born 1953) Climatologist	Questioned the 'settled science of global warming’; wrote "On the Credibility of Climate Change, ... Rebuilding Trust".	Felt ostracized by the climatology establishment and consequently resigned her academic position.	It’s politics: dissenters questioning flawed beliefs are punished, while the lackeys of the mainstream are rewarded.

Do not fear change - help to guide it. Every technology since fire and the wheel has confronted humanity simultaneously with the prospect of great benefit and considerable hazard, with potential for both good and evil.

Science is an attempt, largely successful, to understand the world, to get a grip on things, to get hold of ourselves, to steer a safe course. Microbiology and meteorology now explain what only a few centuries ago was considered sufficient cause to burn women to death.

Many Answers Are Popular While Other Answers Are Correct

Since human beings first achieved the ability to reason, they have had questions, and from the moment people began asking questions, there has been a slew of know-it-alls, authoritarians, and con men eager to provide answers. While these answers may or may not occasionally be correct, it was often more important to those asking questions that the answers be popular. Popular answers are usually those that are entertaining or comforting.

In contrast to these authoritarians, who need do nothing more than make up a story, scientists are people interested in finding rational explanations for observed phenomena, and this usually requires knowledgeable and imaginative thinking, years of research, and advanced technology. Hence, it is not surprising that know-it-all authoritarians often present their explanations - and that people accept these stories - many years, decades, or even centuries before scientists are capable of producing the correct answers. Often, the reason scientists lag behind authoritarians is not just the amount of work required to find the correct explanation, but also that the technology needed to investigate a phenomenon may not yet exist; in some cases, such technology may emerge centuries later, or not at all.

Unlike true scientists, many - if not most - people do not actually care that their beliefs are wrong, but they do become upset if they are forced to admit that they are wrong. Since most people accept the fabricated explanations offered by authoritarians long before scientists discover the correct explanations, this unwillingness to admit being fooled greatly slows scientific progress. Instead of working with a clean slate, scientists face the difficult task of first convincing people that the beliefs they hold are wrong so that they are open to accepting beliefs that are correct.

In choosing between listening to reasoning or holding steadfast to false beliefs most civilizations fail, and this failure is often the eventual downfall of these civilizations. Yet if a civilization cultivates a culture that values rational thinking, then they are more likely to prosper. The Greeks were the first to institutionalize the idea that authoritative answers must justify themselves through reason and evidence.

The ancient Greeks achieved an extraordinary range of scientific advances precisely because they insisted that claims about nature be justified by reasoning and evidence. Socrates constantly encouraged his pupils to ask why, challenging incorrect beliefs while developing their reasoning abilities. Hippocrates rejected supernatural causes of disease, founding medicine on observation and diagnosis. Aristotle systematized logic, biology, and physics through classification and empirical study. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth with remarkable accuracy using geometry and shadow measurements. Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model based on astronomical reasoning, far ahead of his time. Archimedes formulated principles of mechanics and hydrostatics through experiment and mathematical reasoning. Together, these achievements reflect a culture that treated reason, evidence, and open debate as the highest authorities, laying the foundations of science itself.

Greek civilization flourished largely because its philosophers went to extremes in encouraging their students to question everything - to ask why, yet later it faltered when success led to hubris, to the point that students no longer questioned the beliefs of their teachers or other authorities. While Aristotle was clearly a learned man who made many contributions to mankind’s knowledge during his time, he ultimately did more harm than good because he did not test his ideas. More than just the fact that many of his ideas were wrong, because Aristotle created an aura of infallibility, no one dared to question his teachings. Because of this, science entered an era of stagnation that lasted for nearly two millennia.

During the centuries that followed, science took on a religious tone where scientists worked under the guidance of scripture. The Earth was considered to be the center of the universe while the skies above – the heavens - were imagined to be perfect. It was an imagined reality that made people feel good, but of course it was completely wrong. Finally, in the seventeenth century, Galileo and a few of his contemporaries began challenging these beliefs.

The evidence that Galileo gathered with his telescope, along with the revolutionary ideas of Bruno, Copernicus, and Kepler, was finally enough to break the stranglehold of religious authoritarianism. Their ideas corrected humanity’s understanding of planetary motion. Galileo also introduced the principle that beliefs must be tested rather than accepted on authority alone. This, combined with advancing technology, set the stage for the scientific revolution.

In the centuries following Galileo, science advanced by steadily replacing intuition, tradition, and authority with measurement, mathematics, and testable laws. Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation showed that the same physical principles govern both the heavens and the Earth, establishing predictability as the hallmark of science. During the nineteenth century, Faraday and Maxwell revealed that electricity, magnetism, and light are manifestations of a single underlying phenomenon, while thermodynamics exposed fundamental limits on energy, work, and efficiency. Darwin’s theory of evolution replaced supernatural explanations of life’s diversity with a natural, evidence - driven mechanism, and germ theory - advanced by figures like Pasteur and Koch - demonstrated that disease arises from identifiable biological causes rather than mysticism or moral failure.

And yet, it appears that society has once again drifted back to darker times – times in which most people struggle with reasoning, hold beliefs based on superstitions, and have little understanding of the science and technology that surrounds them.

While historians can debate when or if the scientific revolution came to an end, there is little argument that one of science’s greatest moments can be marked by the 1927 Solvay Conference on Electrons and Photons. It was at this conference that the greatest minds in physics came together to discuss the physics problems of their time. Nearly a century later, the accomplishments of these scientists are still referred to collectively as Modern Physics. However, while this conference can be used to mark mankind’s greatest scientific achievements, it also marks a great reversal that set science on a downward spiral.

An unfortunate outcome of this conference - and of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics that followed - was a philosophical shift in what qualifies as science. In accordance with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, it is not possible to obtain precise measurements at the smallest quantities of mass, time, energy, and length, and so the closest we can come is to construct mathematical models or rely on statistical averages. In effect, when dealing with quantum mechanics, scientists could no longer test with certainty whether what they hypothesized was actually true. Yet the scientists working in this field - Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, and others - still wanted to claim that their beliefs were true based on the consensus of those working in the field. Albert Einstein fought vigorously against this philosophical shift in what constitutes science, but he was outnumbered and overruled.

The damage might have been limited if this new interpretation of what counts as science had remained confined to quantum mechanics, but what started out as a trampling of guardrails in one area of science soon released a stampede. Over time, this mindset bled into other areas of science, resulting in a greater tolerance for theoretical constructs that cannot be directly verified. Starting around the middle of the twentieth century, scientists became increasingly comfortable claiming that they understood various phenomena regardless of whether they could find clear evidence supporting their beliefs. This line of thinking is a dangerous slippery slope that soon leads to scientists believing whatever they want to believe, and it represents a profound departure from the classical definition of science, which demands observable, testable, and reproducible evidence. It calls into question whether modern science is truly science.

By becoming more like a religion than science, modern science now resembles the science of the Middle Ages that followed the teachings of the church. Followers of this modern science are not troubled by their inability to produce evidence in support of their beliefs, while conversely the questioning of the beliefs of today’s leading authorities may as well be heresy.

The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos.

Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

Modern Science: The New Religion

It used to be that science was easily distinguished from religion. Unlike religion, followers of science would ask questions about nature - especially when something didn’t seem to make sense. They would read the work of other scientists, make calculations, and run experiments in the hope of discovering the truth. Unfortunately, this pursuit of evidence and reason often led to unpleasant truths. Sometimes it revealed that a cherished hypothesis was wrong. Even worse were discoveries that made humanity feel small and insignificant in the vastness of the universe. And constantly, people had to readjust their beliefs to keep up with new revolutionary discoveries. Thankfully, in these modern times, science no longer has such problems.

Today, science has become much more like a religion. But unlike other religions - and at least for now - science, along with economics, is one of the few belief systems officially allowed to be taught in public schools. In this new religion, it is no longer necessary to present evidence in support of one’s beliefs. Instead, the leading science authorities merely declare that their favored beliefs are “the consensus of scientists,” and with that tidy little circular argument - it’s true because we claim it’s true - all is settled. Who can argue with that?

Modern science only requires students to accept whatever beliefs are being taught. There is no need to wonder whether there is evidence for those beliefs, whether that evidence is strong, or whether the argument makes sense. In fact, there is little motivation or opportunity for students to develop reasoning skills at all. Thinking is no longer necessary - memorization will suffice. All that is required is for students to remember what the leading scientists want them to know in order to pass exams.

Perhaps the best thing about modern science is that, once a follower has learned the mainstream beliefs, there will probably never be any need to learn about any new discoveries. Consider the whirlwind of scientific progress of a century ago: Einstein’s theories of relativity, Curie pioneering radioactivity, and Bohr’s successful explanation of the hydrogen atom. Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and Born all joined forces to lay the foundations of quantum mechanics. De Broglie showed that matter behaves like waves, while Compton proved that light behaves like particles. How did the public ever keep up with all those discoveries?

Now consider how much technology has advanced over the past century and the impact it could have on advancing science; imagine how exhausting it would be if, every month, we - the public - had to keep up with every new revolutionary breakthrough that we can hardly comprehend. Thankfully, we’re spared from such distractions; today’s peer-review system is remarkably efficient at rejecting any and all novel ideas that might arise from imaginative great thinkers. Who among us can even remember the last time a leading scientist - or any scientist - made a discovery worthy of history?

For those who wish to join the scientific priesthood, humility is required. Before candidates can be ordained as scientists, they must serve those who already wear the robes of authority. A couple of years of penance will earn a master’s degree; several more years of intense groveling may earn the coveted doctorate. Those who endure this debasement can console themselves with the belief that one day it will be their turn to wield powers - their reward for years of submission.

Nowadays, modern science is like any other religion: if someone is not fully supportive of every mainstream belief, it’s best that they either keep silent or leave. Surely they will be ostracized if they speak of ideas that question the dogma. Without dissenting voices, scientific meetings are so much smoother. We are so grateful that our high priests of science - these super-intelligent authoritarians - are here to tell us what to think. Blessed are the obedient, for they shall inherit tenure.

Yet to reach the goal of becoming a career scientist one must publish or perish, for publishing is the gateway to science heaven. To reach this heaven, one must receive grant funding, conduct research, and publish results - but not necessarily in that order. To win a grant, a candidate must convince sponsors that they can best produce the “findings” that support the sponsor’s agenda. The most blessed are those who can predict what their patrons wish to hear, and God help the scientist whose conclusions fail to please the sponsor - for they shall never receive funding again.

And pleasing the sponsors is not enough. The conclusions must also please the leading scientific authorities - the gatekeepers of publishing heaven. How can we not be grateful to these guardians of science who give freely of their time to censor any article that might challenge the beliefs upon which their own careers are built? These infallible gods of science care little whether an article is sound, fraudulent, or nonsensical rubbish. What matters to them is that it upholds the sacred order. There will be no tolerance for ideas that disturb the divine perfection of the established faith.

These days, the vast majority of published “research” is irreproducible rubbish. Of course it’s rubbish - the results were listed in the grant application long before the experiment began. It doesn’t really matter whether the researcher falsifies data or manipulates statistics to make a failed experiment look successful; the work will be published if it tells the story the sponsors and authorities want told. Even after the article is published, this favoritism toward what is popular continues. Non-replicable papers are cited far more often than replicable ones - on average sixteen times more - and if a non-replicable paper makes it into a top journal, the citation rate can soar to 300. Isn’t it wonderful that scientists no longer have their papers rejected or their egos bruised because actual experimental results made it clear that their hypotheses are wrong?

It used to mean something when an article was “peer reviewed,” but those days are gone. Without accountability to evidence, truth becomes whatever we wish it to be. For those who have risen to the top of this sanctified corruption masquerading as science, the system is working exactly as intended.

There are those who reason well, but they are greatly outnumbered by those who reason badly.

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.

Just a Few Problems With Modern Science

1. Phony Research and the Reproducibility Crisis – Nearly all funding is agenda-driven, designed to produce answers that sponsors want to hear. Even before the “research” begins, grants are awarded to those who convince sponsors that their work will support the desired conclusions. Because many ‘researchers’ use questionable methods for their analysis or they simply fabricate their data, the majority of peer-reviewed papers cannot be replicated, that is to say that they are worthless rubbish.
2. Entrenched Gatekeeping – While most people assume that peer review is a means of evaluating the scientific soundness of a paper, most reviewers have no interest in this. The reason entrenched scientists volunteer their time is because they want to ensure that no paper is published that contradicts the beliefs on which they have built their careers.
3. Groupthink – Modern science culture has too much in common with faith-based belief systems, where anyone who questions mainstream ideas is usually marginalized, attacked, and ostracized.
4. Intolerance Toward New Ideas – Instead of discussing evidence-based arguments supporting different beliefs, lazy followers of mainstream dogma often use the Catch 22 argument that if a new idea is not already mainstream science, then it is not worthy of discussion: a circular argument that blocks the advancement of science.
5. Historical Revisionism and the Claim of Infallibility – The scientific community downplays or ignores its numerous past errors, creating the misleading impression that scientific authorities are rarely wrong. By implying infallibility, they discourage the questioning of their scientific beliefs.
6. Advancing Science is Almost Always at Odds with Advancing One’s Career – Siding with evidence rather than with established dogmatic beliefs can be suicidal for a scientist’s career. Successful leading scientists behave politically: they rarely admit to error, defend their turf, ignore conflicting evidence, demand loyalty from those within their hierarchy, and censor rather than engage in debate with those who present opposing ideas.
7. Popular Flawed Beliefs Are Never Rejected – Misleading “scientists” show no respect for evidence. When they cannot find clear evidence supporting their belief, they simply claim that it is “the consensus of experts” that their belief is true, as if this is a valid substitution for evidence.
8. Abstract Modeling Detached from Reality – Many beliefs of modern science – for example string theory - do not even qualify as being wrong. While it is OK to speculate possibilities in the initial stages of forming hypotheses, there are ‘scientists’ who make no effort to connect their mathematical-based beliefs to reality. To be a scientific belief, a claim must be falsifiable: there needs to be a way to test it against real-world evidence.
9. Decline of Curiosity – Genuine curiosity leads to scientific discoveries, yet graduate training often cultivates conformity and punishes independent thinking. This pushes inquisitive, potentially good scientists to consider other careers - driving away the very thinkers most capable of advancing science.
10. Failure to Teach Reasoning Skills – In a shift from previous science education, modern science education often substitutes “expert consensus” for evidence-based reasoning: an attempt to teach students what to think instead of how to think. This flawed circular logic - “it’s true because the experts say it’s true” - undermines the idea that science is based on evidence. Instead of developing their reasoning skills, students today must either accept science as a matter of faith or dismiss it as just another belief system.

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.

The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.

We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.

Zombie Science

Due to our modern world overwhelming us with so much new and amazing technology, most people do not recognize that scientific progress has actually entered a new Dark Age. With all of the modern technology available to assist scientific research, we should be moving ahead in leaps and bounds, but instead, for the past three quarters of a century, the progress of the scientific community has been dismal. The physicists of today are still working on problems left unsolved by Einstein and his contemporaries. A course in Modern Physics mostly covers discoveries that were made nearly a century ago. While we still award Nobel Prizes in science, it has become increasingly common for Nobel Prizes to be awarded even though it does not appear that the recipient made an actual significant scientific discovery. A century ago, leading scientists were making mind-blowing discoveries, whereas many of today’s leading scientists appear to be awarding themselves participation trophies.

It is difficult to overstate how devastating this weakening of scientific standards has been to genuine progress. In our modern times wayward scientists continue to push science toward becoming a belief system detached from reality. Mathematical models are no longer rigorously tested to see if they actually work. Interpretations of observations have become extremely subjective, rendering evidence meaningless, and scientists now promote the absurd claim that nothing can truly be proven or claimed to be true. Consequently, even when there is blatant evidence showing a popular belief to be wrong, these wayward scientists simply dismiss it without serious consideration. Nothing stops them from continuing on in promoting their dogmatic ideology. Minority evidence-based arguments are not merely ignored; dissenters are often attacked and ostracized. Consensus has replaced evidence, and when evidence is mentioned at all, it is often only given lip service. Is it any wonder that so many of the more recent popular beliefs are wrong?

Of all the transgressions committed by these wayward scientists, the propagation of the idea that scientific consensus can be used as a substitute for evidence is by far the worst.

Before the late Michael Crichton, M.D., became a famous science fiction writer, he was a medical doctor, and the understanding of science he gained from this experience was a major part of his success. Crichton had some sharp words to say about consensus-based science.

Consensus Is Not Science

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. …

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

The above Michael Crichton quote comes from his January 17, 2003 Caltech Michelin Lecture, Aliens Cause Global Warming. This link leads to the full speech. It is a must-read that clarifies how science has been compromised. More than just an outstanding science fiction writer, Michael Crichton was a highly intelligent man who, through his support of science and rational thinking, made the world a better place.

While zombie science emphasized consensus, real science emphasizes stating the evidence.

There really is no excuse for science textbooks and educators not to provide at least one evidence-based argument whenever they introduce a new scientific belief. Furthermore, science educators should question why they are being asked to teach any claim for which they cannot find at least one strong, evidence-based argument in support.

Many of the scientific beliefs introduced over the past three quarters of a century fail to present strong evidence in support of their claims and instead rely heavily on “the consensus of experts” to carry the weight of their arguments. However, in real science it is only evidence - not opinions - that validates whether a belief is true.

Does this mean that many of the strongly promoted beliefs introduced by leading authorities during this period are wrong? Possibly, or even probably. Without more evidence or objective scientific discussion, we can neither be certain that they are wrong nor certain that they are correct. The problem with zombie science is that its proponents do not care; they claim their beliefs are correct and that the science is settled because that is what benefits them.

Is carbon dioxide causing global warming? Do dark matter and dark energy exist? Did our universe begin 13.8 billion years ago with a Big Bang? Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? Is the water emerging from hot springs recycled surface water as it is claimed? Why is the classic explanation of magnetic field generation for planets still being taught when the evidence shows that this claim is unreasonable? Why is the classic explanation of how Saturn’s rings formed still being taught when there is overwhelming evidence indicating that the explanation is wrong? Just how many of these highly questionable claims are there? What is the point of spending millions or billions of dollars sending probes out to space if these 'experts' are just going to dismiss whatever evidence conflicts with their beliefs.

People question these beliefs not because they challenge religious views, threaten careers, or stem from other personal motives. They question them because there does not appear to be strong evidence supporting these claims, and in many cases there is substantial evidence against them. Despite decades of effort, those who promote these beliefs have failed to address these concerns. Yet, instead of acknowledging uncertainty or remaining open to alternative explanations, these authoritarians - in true zombie science form - simply repeat their claims more loudly and more often, attack critics as heretics, and insist that the consensus of experts proves the beliefs are true and that the science is settled.

We can contrast these questionable beliefs of zombie science with earlier accepted scientific theories such as the heliocentric model of the solar system, continental drift (now known as plate tectonics), and the theory of evolution. Unlike modern zombie science beliefs, none of these ideas were popular with either the public or the scientific establishment when they were first introduced. The Catholic Church opposed heliocentrism, as did much of the public - religious or not - and most of the scientific community. When Alfred Wegener proposed that continents move, the geology community mocked him. Even today, many people still reject evolution because they cannot accept the idea that humans evolved from other species. And yet, despite their unpopularity, these ideas ultimately became accepted - not because of consensus, but because each is supported by overwhelming evidence.

Scientists may be uncertain while they are in the process of discovering how reality works, but once they arrive at the correct explanation, clarity emerges. The transition is made from nothing makes sense to everything falls into place. This is how real science works; this is how nature works. Nature is many things - beautiful, intriguing, sometimes cruel or humbling - but it is never complicated. If a group of people claiming to be scientists is unable to give a simple, rational, evidence-supported explanation of a phenomenon, then they do not understand it.

If you can't say it simply and clearly, keep quiet, and keep working on it till you can.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

What Is Science?

Before we can implement efforts to reform science, we first need to have solid definition of what science is. This is important because there are many imposter science institutions: those who want to claim the strong credibility that comes with real science even though they are not actually science. Some of these should be fairly obvious, for example a religion that calls itself Scientology or marketers who make questionable claims about their product as being scientifically tested. While other imposters are more difficult to spot such as when mainstream science has been compromised. One of the main reasons why scientists made so little progress during the Dark Ages is because scientists had to work under the supervision of the catholic church. This applies even today: the reason there is such a variety of definitions given for science is because a true definition of science reveals the fact that most modern science is not actually science.

It may surprise many people to learn that a well-written, concise definition can be thought-provoking, insightful, and an extremely useful tool for discovering the truth. Yet, to be good and useful, a definition must draw clear boundaries as to what something is or is not in order to eliminate uncertainty. This is something most definitions - including definitions of science - fail to do.

We can define science as follows:

Science is the good-faith, systematic pursuit of reliable knowledge about the natural world through observation, reasoning, measurement, and testing, in which explanations are accountable to evidence.

By understanding the importance of each term in this definition, it becomes useful for separating real science from imposters.

Good-Faith - While it is impossible to completely free our minds of biased opinions and beliefs, a good scientist must strive to be as objective as possible in the search for truth. A major flaw in modern science is that nearly all “research” is sponsored by special-interest parties that have specific objectives in mind when they fund it. When grants are awarded based on the likelihood of reaching intended conclusions, this cannot possibly be science. Research conducted to satisfy sponsors, protect careers, or advance ideology fails this requirement.

Systematic - While it helps to have scientific training, it is still possible for a person to make important contributions to science without a degree. Systematic means that methods are organized, transparent, and repeatable—show your work. Cherry-picking data, changing criteria midstream, or hiding methods disqualifies an activity from being science.

Pursuit - Science is an ongoing process of discovery; it is not about being a know-it-all authority. Scientific knowledge is not dogma. Science moves forward through the questioning of beliefs and the pursuit of new ideas.

Reliable Knowledge - Reliable knowledge holds up under independent testing, replication, and scrutiny. Results that cannot be reproduced or that depend on special conditions, authority, or narrative control are not reliable and therefore not scientific.

Natural World - Science concerns itself with phenomena that can be observed or measured. Claims that rely on supernatural causes or cannot be examined through interaction with the physical world fall outside the scope of science.

Observation - Observations are closely linked to advances in technology - telescopes, microscopes, electronic sensors, and so on. This is usually the first step in our efforts to understand the world.

Reasoning - Reasoning connects observations to explanations through logic and consistency. In addition to formal reasoning, science relies heavily on mathematics, which can be considered an advanced form of reasoning that begins with measurement and data collection.

Measurement - Measurements, along with mathematics, provide quantitative constraints on explanations and clarify what is or is not possible. Measurement replaces vagueness with precision, allowing others to test and verify claims.

Testing - Reasoning alone is not enough to accept a belief. Testing exposes ideas to the possibility of success or failure. Hypotheses that are insulated from failure - by design or interpretation - are beliefs, not science.

Accountable to Evidence - Evidence is the foundation of science; science cannot exist without it. Being accountable to evidence means explanations must change or be abandoned when evidence contradicts them. When evidence is ignored, reinterpreted to fit conclusions, or suppressed, science has ceased.

This definition of science is not new; it is the very standard that allowed science to exist in the first place. The ancient Greeks advanced knowledge precisely because they demanded that explanations be accountable to evidence and reason rather than authority. Socrates questioned accepted beliefs, Hippocrates rejected supernatural explanations of disease, and Aristarchus proposed heliocentrism not as dogma but as a reasoned hypothesis. When these standards were later abandoned - when Aristotle’s authority replaced testing and evidence - science stagnated for nearly two thousand years. The failure was not a lack of intelligence or imagination, but a failure to uphold the principles that define science itself.

When science finally came back during the scientific revolution it was because of the movement to return to the defining requirements of science. Galileo did not advance science by appealing to authority or popularity, but by insisting that claims be tested against observation, even when the results contradicted entrenched beliefs. Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, and Darwin followed the same path: systematic reasoning, measurement, testing, and accountability to evidence. Whenever science flourished, it did so by enforcing these standards; whenever science declined, it was because these standards were compromised. By this measure, modern science’s growing tolerance for untestable claims, irreproducible results, and belief-driven conclusions places it uncomfortably close to the very pre-scientific traditions it once replaced.

We now need to acknowledge that the science community has once again lost its firm grip on reality – literally. For science to be science, scientists must be able to cite empirical evidence in their discussions on whether their beliefs are true or false. However, with the rise of quantum mechanics—particularly the Copenhagen Interpretation—many scientists accepted that certain aspects of reality might be fundamentally unobservable and beyond causal explanation. Rather than treating this limitation as a temporary gap to be resolved by better theories or measurements, it was increasingly embraced as a permanent feature of nature. As a result, predictive success began to substitute for explanatory understanding, and theories were accepted even when they could not describe what was physically occurring. This marked a subtle but important shift away from the classical demand that scientific claims be fully accountable to observable, testable evidence.

Once the idea took hold that some foundational questions in physics could not be answered through direct evidence, this lowered standard gradually spread to other scientific fields. Over time, consensus itself came to be treated as a substitute for evidence, allowing scientists across disciplines to defend beliefs on authority and agreement rather than on clear, testable, empirical support.

By the standards laid out in this definition, much of modern science fails to qualify as being science. A rather serious problem is that whenever leading scientists make a mistake, they have no way of admitting to their mistakes – even if they wanted to – without harming their careers. These leading scientists do not engage in any good-faith weighing of evidence but instead these scientists go to their graves arguing against the evidence and scientific progress. In fact, it is quite astonishing how dismissive these people can be towards the solid evidence indicating that they are wrong. And yet there are other failures as well. Research is routinely conducted in bad faith, with conclusions effectively decided before funding is awarded. A large fraction of published results are unreliable, failing replication and independent verification. Followers of modern science are expected to have faith in the ‘infallible experts’ rather than requiring these ‘experts’ to show their work by presenting the evidence in support of their claims. Any one of these failures would disqualify an institution from being science.

Misleading authoritarians have hijacked legitimate science and these imposters need to be weeded out.

Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?"

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers.

Every important idea in science sounds strange at first.

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

Reforming Science Begins with Reforming Science Education

Asking Questions

The authoritarians of ‘Modern Science’ have not only corrupted science they have also corrupted science education. Whereas a few generations ago it would have been unheard of to attempt to claim the legitimacy of a science belief by using the circular argument that it is the consensus of leading experts, now days the use of this flawed argument is seen throughout science textbooks as the justification of many if not most of the newer scientific beliefs. The truth about our natural world has not always been popular with students, the general public, or even many scientists, but at least before this new age of modern science most scientists were sincere in their efforts to discovery the truth, and that is why many of the most important scientific discoveries of our time were made nearly a century ago.

Unfortunately, even if science educators are aware of how corrupted science has become, the vast majority of science educators are in no position to challenge the misguidance of modern science: they have to teach the curriculum laid out by these authoritarians or otherwise risk losing their jobs. While most public-school science curriculum is filled with the positive discoveries of how our natural world works, it is unfortunately also laced with the poisonous teachings of these misleading authoritarians. While a good science student may obtain a better understanding of reality that those who are completely ignorant, they fail to achieve the most important goal: the ability to reason, question, or think about scientific ideas and to be able to make use of that understanding

It may appear that there is no way to break the stranglehold that these misleading authoritarians have in their corruption of science, and yet there remains at least one more option for achieving reform: we ask questions. It is a method not unlike what was promote by Socrates in what was the earliest stages of science. It worked then and it can work now.

Consider what must be the most offensive lie of modern science: that instead of presenting their evidence-based arguments in support of a popular scientific belief they can prop up the belief by simply claiming that the belief is the consensus of leading experts. There are so many things wrong with this misleading claim that one hardly knows where to start or end, and yet it does not matter – just start asking questions.

• If the leading experts have clear, strong, evidence in support of this claim, why can’t they just tell us what their evidence is? To paraphrase Einstein, rarely if ever is there something in nature so complicated that it cannot be explained to any reasonably intelligent person.


• Why is science being presented to us like we are playing a game of poker, why do we have to call their bluff in order to get an explanation of a belief when it should be understood that if a claim is being made then the evidence supporting that claim needs to be presented?


• When leading experts claim that a belief is true because there is a consensus among themselves that it is true, is that not a circular argument? Science students should be taught to question authorities rather than the false dogma that leading authorities are infallible.


• Since there is no evidence being given whenever the consensus of leading experts argument is used, science students are not being given the opportunity to practice ‘weighing the evidence’ so as to develop their reasoning skills. A science education hardly qualifies as being a science education if it does not develop a person’s ability to reason so that they recognize that we exist in a rational reality.

The most common place where the misleading “consensus of experts” claim is used is in grade-school science textbooks. Whereas evidence-based arguments are presented for older, well-established scientific ideas - such as the motion of the Earth and the theory of evolution - many more recent beliefs, such as global warming, are often supported primarily by appeals to expert consensus and dubious claims that “the science is settled.” While informed adults may recognize that shutting down the questioning of ideas is anti-science, it is unreasonable to expect children to have the reasoning skills and confidence to challenge the misleading statements written in the science textbooks. Even in the rare case where a student does raise such questions, they would likely be removed from class for “arguing with the teacher,” a fate not unlike what befell the young Galileo centuries ago.

Even if students were capable of questioning why they are being told what to think rather than being taught how to think, the grade-school classroom is not the right forum. Overworked and pressured elementary and high school science teachers typically have little or no control over curricula or textbook selection. It is therefore up to adults to voice their concerns elsewhere to ensure that the next generation becomes more scientifically literate and rational.

Ignorance is everywhere, and if it is not challenged, it will fester and grow. Most people are unaware of how much pressure high school science teachers face from ignorant parents and principals who attempt to coerce them into not teaching the Theory of Evolution. The same groups that oppose sound science education are often those who seek to ban books or censor art. These individuals show up at principals’ offices, school board meetings, and public forums, and if no voice of reason is present to counter them, they often succeed in destroying what is good.

Do not assume that children are receiving a high-quality science education. Those of us who care about science - and, more importantly, about building a more rational world - must become actively involved in creating meaningful change. We need to be the ones who show up at principals’ offices, school board meetings, public forums, and elsewhere so that our voices - and our questions - are heard. If we want a better, more rational world, we must be willing to fight for it.

Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them.

The school system is not designed to produce innovators or rebels. It is designed to produce compliant employees who do not question authority.

Schools are designed to produce obedient workers, not independent thinkers. The goal is to kill curiosity, not encourage it.

Education can, and should be, dangerous.

Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world - but only if it teaches people how to think, not what to think.

External Links / References