Science 2.0
Let's coin this phrase.
This came to me, listening to the interview between Courtney and Aziz on the recent easter island project.
It fits better than the "new age movement" to me.
Science 2.0 is simply the idea that we pursue the truth with the same philosophy of Science 1.0. Let the evidence speak for itself. Let the socratic method of synthesis of information arise from the argument of opposing points.
There is no difference between Science 1.0 and Science 2.0 except for the following.
Science 1.0 is corrupted by corporate greed and fascist bullying, which you don't have to relate to anything like a reptilian order pervading over the planet. You can easily relegate Science 1.0 as an echoe of the vestiges of the "dark ages" - making its way all the way up to the Salem witch trials of 1692.
The obsession with vaccinating everyone comes from the same institutions which obsessed over bleeding everyone that was sick, and even quite recently electro-shocking the brains of just about anyone considered mentally ill. Science 1.0 insists that the pyramids and statues were all elaborately built by slaves, and that bo ancient advanced civilizations could be a competing theory. Science 2.0 adopts that ancient advanced civilizations is an acceptable competing theory. Science 1.0 rejects that the human body in an improved mental state could ever heal mortal wounds primarily by its thoughts. Science 2.0 accepts that thoughts having a principal role in genetics and health is an acceptable competing theory.
Science 1.0, even in law, accepts that evidence can only come from measurable articulable reason using the physical instruments we access on the same spectrum. Science 2.0 adopts that at the very least: instrumentation of data could in theory be procured by objects that are difficult (but still possible) to detect by the naked eye. Such as if we were to put gamna ray detection across a myriad of objects and see if there are things operating on this spectrum that we normally don't see.
But more to the point - Science 2.0 adopts the idea that ignorance is, unfortunately, alive and well in much of our moat respected institutions. Not because Science 2.0 wants to look beyond physical evidence, but because Science 2.0 can see the motivations and fallacies in the lies that institutions push, in an ever growing climate of any of the following 3: centralizing one-world totalitarianism (WEF, UN, etc), emotional trigger biases (eg: gender escapism as a backlash to the homophobic evils of the past), and monetary gain: the fact that institutions and media platforms must survive an ever more competing environment and the "competition" is not for the truth. It's for sponsors, and entertained students, rhetoric-obsessed "old money" organizations.
We can perhaps fight this war with a very simple catch-phrase that , like your average commercial jingle, is so catchy it life-long infects every mind that hears it whether the target likes it or not.
It doesn't matter what your political lean or your scientific opinion. The moment you hear the word "science 2.0" you are bound to repeat it to others by default even if you thought it was a ridiculous phrase. You become agent for the concept, even by shear resistance. If you spam across your Facebook: "science 2.0 - a new term for all those new age idiot quack jobs" you have already served your purpose so thanks in advance.
Science 2.0
So simple, and yet, potentially so insanely powerful. And all you have to do is occasionally repeat it. What say you.
