The end of science and the epistemic zombie

I am going to propose an exaggerated and apparently implausible hypothesis, but one that I dare to consider given the dangerous increase in the number of publications and the commodification of magazines in the name of profit.
Imagine a science in a state of protoscience such as an intermediate between alchemy and chemistry, when people begin to investigate the subject there are all kinds of interests at stake, political, economic, etc. and inexperienced scientists, companies, governments, organizations such as example sects, private interests such as scientists trying to promote their theories and there are all kinds of errors and in their eagerness for rapid progress some scientists skip the process and assume certain hypotheses as true in a hurry, a theory is formed from parts a kind of franckenstein’s monster such that there is no result that refutes it, however implausible the mere approach sounds, it is so general, it deals with a new field and is capable of withstanding infinite fine adjustments in its excess of generality, over time its fame it increases to the point that scientists are afraid to contradict it for fear of falling into ostracism and losing their jobs, the interests that promote it see also take action on the matter among them old scientists who do not want to see their life’s work invalidated even at the cost of scientific truth, false initial hypotheses are assumed true thanks to propaganda both voluntarily and involuntarily, because of the prestige of the theory for its supposed ability to predict based on its extreme generality and that it is capable of making minimal inferences by extrapolation or predictions that turn out to be true by chance, the smallest failure is given a fine adjustment and this is called ball effect snow that increases the lie progress, also even if in most cases the data is true it does not matter, the enormous generality of the theory makes it possible to include them in its theoretical framework without affecting the results too much, reducing the theoretical framework in many cases to something like a comment at the bottom of the page, the new scientists assume the validity of the theory and do research based on and cit I am doing previous research, ultimately becoming useful idiots disseminators of the theory who help the interests of those who promote it, for whatever reason, perhaps because the theory has economic, political, ideological, ethical, religious or other implications. Whatever it was, the peer review process fails completely as there are errors in the first works and there are countless errors in all the rest, making it economically impossible to clean science of this cancer and not only that, but the reviewers support the theory because they are indoctrinated or accustomed to it or because they do not want to go against their personal interests by contradicting a paradigm, in the end this cancer ends up killing science where it appeared making any discussion almost impossible not in terms of theory, even the possibility of have the least useful result for society, something that does not matter, scientists assure, researching with financing, that They are obtained by deceiving society or even themselves or everything at the same time, to the point that everyone ends up believing a lie, in the end this branch of science dies and even this cancer is capable of metastasizing in all the others sciences starting with connected sciences even affecting the economy since it impedes progress and therefore in the long term the financing of science itself, it may even promote extreme ideologies such as theories associated with eugenics or social Darwinism ending up not only destroying science but the world, I call this hypothetical mental construct, fanciful but I would say realistic in its degree of danger, the epistemic zombie.

Young Earth Creationism is an epistemic zombie.

YEC organizations state outright that they will ignore evidence that contradicts their interpretation of scripture.

If you think there are errors in current scientific theories then describe those errors. Until you do so, your scenario is just a hypothetical and doesn’t apply to any theories currently held by the consensus of scientists. In my experience, those who claim evolutionary theory is wrong usually don’t understand the theory or the evidence that supports it. Perhaps you can break that trend.

Added in edit:

Here is a snippet from an essay written in 1882:

Are there any errors there? No. To this day, the observation of the tree of life, otherwise known as a nested hierarchy, remains true. It is still a foundation of the theory. As we have found new fossils they remained in this nested hierarchy. When we discovered the much more detailed evolutionary history found in the DNA of genomes we again saw this same tree of life, just as predicted. More and more evidence has piled up to support the theory. All the while, no other claimed theory explains these patterns in the data.


This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.