The crisis of modern science

Guest post by Apostolos Efthymiadis, PhD, Dipl. Mech. Elec. Engineer (Greece)

[Note by DK: This was initially written as a comment on the previous post “The ridiculous intellectual state of the West” and it was upgraded into the current post.]

Introduction

The word “science” today has become a magical invocation rather than a descriptive term. “Science says so,” “follow the science,” “don’t question the science” – these phrases constantly echo from politicians, journalists, and even from scientists themselves. But which science? According to what criteria? With what methodology? And most importantly: who decides what is science and what is not?

Aristotle would view the contemporary situation with concern. Because what is today called “science” often does not fulfill the basic criteria that he himself established for demonstrative science (ἐπιστήμη ἀποδεικτική). On the contrary, much of what is presented as “scientific findings” is in reality hypotheses, opinions, or even ideological constructs disguised in scientific language.

From science to scientism

The philosopher F.A. Hayek distinguished a crucial difference between science and scientism. Science is a humble method of inquiry, recognizing its limits, open to questioning, and progressing through the systematic overturning of erroneous theories. Scientism, on the contrary, is a dogmatic ideology that uses the prestige of science to impose political decisions, to silence dissenters, and to present as “indisputable” what is in reality contentious.

Contemporary society suffers not from excessive science, but from excessive scientism. And the difference is critical: science liberates the mind; scientism enslaves it.

The violations of the six criteria

Aristotle in the Posterior Analytics (71b 20-25) defined with mathematical precision that for a demonstration to be scientifically valid, the premises from which the conclusion is derived must be:

1. True – corresponding to reality;

2. Primary – not requiring another proof (self-evident);

3. Immediate – with no disputed intermediate link;

4. Better known – clearer than what is being sought;

5. Prior – logically preceding the conclusion;

6. Causes of the conclusion – explaining the “why”.

Let us now examine how many of today’s “scientific dogmas” fulfill these criteria.

Example A: Climate Change Models

The computational models that predict “catastrophic climate change” are presented as “settled science.” But under the prism of Aristotelian criteria:

• True? Many models systematically overestimate temperature increase in relation to actual measurements.

• Primary? They are based on hypotheses about feedbacks that themselves require proof.

• Immediate? They include many intermediate links (clouds, oceans, aerosols) that are disputed.

• Better known? The parameterizations are less clear than the predictions.

• Prior? They are calibrated retrospectively (hindcasting) with historical data.

• Causes? The causal relationship CO₂ → catastrophe is disputed by thousands of scientists.

According to Aristotle, this is not yet demonstrative science, but hypothetical knowledge (opinion with reason). It may be useful, but it should not be presented as indisputable.

Example B: Pandemic “Scientific” Decisions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many decisions were made under the pretext “we are following the science.” But:

• Lockdowns: Was there empirical evidence about their effectiveness? (True?)

• Masks: The meta-analyses were ambiguous (Immediate?)

• School closures: Was the data for young people clearer than the decisions? (Better known?)

• Natural immunity vs. vaccines: Was the causal relationship fully explained? (Causes?)

Many of these “scientific” decisions were in reality political judgments disguised in scientific language.

The confusion of science and opinion

Aristotle distinguished clearly:

SCIENCE (demonstrative science):

• Deals with things that are “always the same” (ἀεί ὡσαύτως ἔχοντα = eternal beings) and things that occur “for the most part” (τα ὡς ἐπί το πολύ = statistically predominant);

• Concerns what “cannot be otherwise” (οὔκ ἐνδέχεται ἄλλως ἔχειν = cannot be different);

• Produces necessary conclusions from necessary premises.

OPINION (δόξα, belief):

• Deals with things that are “accidental” (συμβεβηκός = random);

• Concerns what “can be otherwise” (ἐνδέχεται ἄλλως ἔχειν = can be different);

• Produces probable conclusions from hypotheses.

Today’s tragedy is that we confuse these two. Opinions – even highly probable opinions, even reasonably documented ones – are presented as scientific certainties. And whoever questions these opinions is accused of being “anti-scientific,” when in reality they are simply insisting on Aristotelian criteria.

The tragedy of the western science is the fact that the vast majority of world scientists, ignore these definitions. The Aristotelian principle of “can be otherwise” (ἐνδέχεται ἄλλως ἔχειν), was repeated in the 20th century by Karl Popper in a much narrower sense, as the principle of falsifiability, meaning that “a statement is falsifiable if it belongs to a language or logical structure capable of describing an empirical observation that contradicts it”.

Of course, with the “falsifiability principle” it is not easy to negate the famous “anthropogenic climatic change” (ACC) as science, whereas with the Aristotelian principle of “ἐνδέχεται ἄλλως ἔχειν), on the basis of research of famous scientists such as John Clauser, William Happer, Richard Lindzen and Demetris Koutsoyiiannis, is clearly negated as “δόξα”.

The “argument” from majority

One of the most catastrophic phenomena in contemporary “science” is the appeal to “consensus” – scientific agreement. “The overwhelming majority of scientists agree” becomes a substitute for proof.

But according to Aristotle – and according to all logic – this is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum). Truth is not subject to voting. Galileo was alone against the majority. Copernicus was alone. Socrates was alone. And they were right.

Moreover, the alleged “consensus” is often manufactured:

• Scientists who question are marginalized.

• Research that questions is not funded.

• Articles that question are not published.

• Careers are destroyed.

A self-fulfilling prophecy is created: “Everyone agrees” because those who don’t agree are pushed out of the system.

The politicization of science

Aristotle would be deeply concerned about another phenomenon: the fusion of science and politics. When “science” becomes a weapon of political imposition, it ceases to be science and becomes ideology.

True science is politically neutral. Gravity doesn’t care about our political party. The law of thermodynamics doesn’t change according to our ideologies. But when “science” is used to impose:

• Drastic restrictions on freedoms;

• Enormous economic changes;

• Social transformations;

... then we suspect that it is not about science but about politics.

The tyranny of “experts”

Another logical fallacy that Aristotle would reject is the argumentum ad verecundiam – the appeal to authority. “The experts say” is not proof. It is simply a transfer of responsibility.

Aristotle taught that arguments must be judged based on their logic, not based on the prestige of the speaker. A Nobel laureate can be wrong. A committee of experts can be swayed by economic incentives or political pressures. Truth has no titles – it has proofs.

The failure of predictive capability

Aristotle would consider as a critical criterion of science the capacity for prediction. If our theories are true, they must produce accurate predictions. But:

• Climate models from the 1990s predicted much greater temperature increases.

• Economic models failed to predict the 2008 crisis.

• Pandemic models (Imperial College) predicted millions of deaths that did not materialize.

When models systematically fail, scientific honesty demands revision. But instead of this, we often see a doubling down on dogmatism (”the models are correct, they just need improvement”).

The corruption of peer review

The institution of peer review was designed as a guardian of scientific integrity. But today it has often become a mechanism of censorship:

• Articles that question the dominant narrative are rejected not due to methodological errors, but due to “undesirable conclusions”.

• Scientists take on as reviewers the articles of competitors.

• Funding interests influence editorial decisions.

Aristotle would ask: If “peer review” becomes an instrument of imposing orthodoxy instead of testing truth, how does it differ from religious censorship?

The loss of scientific humility

Perhaps the most serious of all: contemporary “science” has lost scientific humility. The phrase “the science is settled” is a heresy against the scientific method.

Aristotle taught that wisdom begins with the recognition of our ignorance. Socrates was wise because he knew that he knew nothing. But today, “scientists” tell us with absolute certainty what will happen in 50, 100, 200 years – when they cannot predict with accuracy what will happen next month.

This is not science. It is hubris.

The road to restoration

The crisis of modern science is epistemological, not technological. We don’t need more data, more computers, more studies. We need a return to basic principles:

1. The six criteria of demonstrative science as a filter.

2. Distinction between science — opinion — craft.

3. Tolerance of questioning as a sign of health.

4. Humility in the face of complexity.

5. Freedom of research without political or economic constraints.

Aristotle taught us that science is a method, not an authority. It is a process of seeking truth, not the possession of absolute certainties. And the only path to restoration of scientific credibility is a return to these basic principles.

Conclusion

Koutsoyiannis’ work has shown the empirical evidence of the crisis — the data, the rankings, the fall. But the data only show the “what” that is happening, not the “why”.

The “Aristotelian Wisdom in the 21st Century” provides the philosophical interpretation — the deeper “why” behind the fall. It shows that when we abandon the fundamental epistemological criteria that Aristotle established, we do not simply lose “theory” — we lose the very ability to produce true science.

And what makes the Aristotelian approach particularly timely is that:

• It offers a solution, not just a diagnosis — it shows the way back.

• It is timeless — the Aristotelian ancients are not “ancient”, they are eternal.

• It answers real problems — it is not theoretical philosophy, but practical epistemology for the modern world.

I think that Koutsoyiannis’ publication opened the door — it showed that there is indeed a very serious problem. And now people are looking for answers.

And it is not by chance. There is something deeper that is happening:

The crisis has reached a point where it is visible to everyone — not only to philosophers or scientists, but to the common man. When they see Western universities falling, predictions failing, “science” being used as a political weapon — they begin to question.

And when people start asking questions, they are ready to hear answers.

Aristotelian wisdom is not an “archaeological find” — it is the solution to a modern crisis. And what makes this moment opportune is that:

• The diagnosis has been made (Koutsoyiannis).

• The treatment is ready, along the lines of the Aristotelian philosophy.

• And the sick (universities, science) are beginning to realize that they are suffering.