The Pretexts of Modern "Science"

The first pretext of modern “science” is that you are not supposed to talk about personal experience, so I will pointedly ignore that: Years ago, I attempted to publish a paper about the lack of protocols for the acceptance of revolutionary discoveries, or in other words, about how nothing has changed since Thomas Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Despite it being described as "interesting", it was rejected without explanation by journals. Admittedly, it was not written with the highest literary standards in mind, however, that was part of the point, as good science does not have to sound good. Recently, I have been considering rewriting that paper, yet I realized that I have been committing a category error, more precisely an informal fallacy: I assumed that what is today referred to as "science" has anything to do with science. Etymologically, the word science simply means knowledge. Science is generally defined as the systematic search for truth. How does modern "science", which henceforth shall be referred to as ScienceTM, match the definition of science? "Scientific standards" are undefined. They do not exist, beyond vague mentions of "extant literature", which automatically exclude anything important. Perhaps even more fundamentally, where is the system for knowledge? What do citation counts, "impact factors", "h-indexes" and "altmetrics" have to do with knowledge, with truth? These are not marginal details, these are the metrics of ScienceTM. Therefore, while there are a few people who complain about frauds, replication crises, perverse incentives and bad actors, modern self‑declared "science" simply does not satisfy the definition of science. The second pretext of modern ScienceTM is that “science is not perfect”, “people are not perfect”, or simply “perfection does not exist”, implying the basic standards of science, such as being honest or having integrity, are perfection. They are not. They are the basic standards which must be followed for something to be correctly referred to as scientific. Otherwise, calling it scientific is simply fraudulent. Most would judge this paper as “unhelpful” or “strategically self‑sabotaging” due to being “impossible” to defend publicly, yet what exactly is the “strategy”? Whatever it is, it is clearly not working. How many more self‑declared civilizations will have to fall until you accept this is true? The third pretext of modern ScienceTM is that scientists have to be “realistic” or “pragmatic”. Why is “realism”, “pragmatism” and “maturity” equivalent to having no standards? If you are the kind of person who would just wish me “all the best”, then you are the greatest possible hypocrite, worse than the fraudulent institutions, because they clearly do not know what they are doing. You do know, and choose to hide behind the same excuses. The fourth pretext of modern ScienceTM is that “the world is complex”. If reality were so complex beyond any absolute statement, then science would be pointless. Invoking “complexity” is not an excuse, it is a self‑indictment. Either complexity is tractable, so science has a purpose; or complexity is intractable, so science is performative. The world is not as complex as the excuses people use to avoid understanding it.