When Knowledge Becomes Authority, and Authority Becomes License
One of the gravest mistakes in human history is our tendency to confuse the growth of knowledge with the progress of civilization.
We know more and more about how nature works, possess ever greater technological power, and intervene ever more deeply in the processes of life. We routinely celebrate all this as evidence of human progress. As an ontologist, however, I believe this conclusion is unfounded, because the quantity of knowledge, by itself, proves neither the quality of understanding, nor human fitness, nor the moral progress of civilization.
Science is one of humanity’s most important means of understanding reality. It does not follow, however, that its institutions are infallible, that its representatives are morally fit for every responsibility entrusted to them, or that its conclusions are always free of human conditioning. Respect for scientific achievements does not justify the uncritical acceptance of science’s authority.
As a sacral leader, I consider it especially important that we examine knowledge, power, and human responsibility not as isolated domains. Knowledge does not remain at the level of information: it underpins decisions, creates technologies, may serve economic and political interests, and can set processes in motion whose consequences are not necessarily borne by those who made the decisions.
The central question, therefore, is not merely what science can do, but also what picture of reality it starts from, what interests influence it, and what quality of human being we entrust with the power that follows from it.
Civilization’s Mistake: We Confused Knowledge with Wisdom
Modern civilization regards the growth of knowledge, technological performance, and economic usefulness as key indicators of progress. By comparison, human fitness, character, judgment, and responsibility usually receive secondary attention.
I believe this order of priorities is fundamentally wrong. Technological capability is not the same as moral legitimacy; the possibility of intervention does not prove that intervention is right, and successful execution does not guarantee that a decision is wise.
A civilization can increase its knowledge without adequately developing its ability to recognize and accept responsibility for the consequences of its decisions. Under such circumstances, technological progress creates opportunities but also accumulates risks for which human and institutional culture is insufficiently prepared.
A civilization does not become more advanced simply because it can do more and more. It must also become better at recognizing what it ought to do, what it ought not to do, and what consequences its decisions will have.
Science Is Not God — and Scientists Are Not Infallible
The value of the scientific method lies not in infallibility, but in the possibility of investigation, the scrutiny of evidence, and correction. It is therefore contradictory when science’s social authority grows to such an extent that criticism of scientific claims, institutions, and their representatives can easily be branded as anti-science.
An academic degree may indicate professional training, but it does not establish general wisdom. Expertise in a field does not prove moral fitness; the number of publications does not establish the quality of one’s character, and institutional rank does not exempt anyone from self-examination.
As an ontologist, I believe that one of the most important limits on science’s authority is precisely that science, too, is a human activity. A researcher is not a neutral observer standing outside reality, but works with concepts, assumptions, methods, and interpretive frameworks. Understanding cannot proceed without them, yet they can also limit what the researcher is able to recognize.
Scientific consensus can be important evidence when assessing a question, but it is not a declaration of infallibility. Expert opinion may justify trust, but it cannot replace scrutiny of the evidence and the uncertainties.
Science is not God!
It does not stand above reality, possess unlimited authority, or become infallible simply because it is surrounded by social prestige.
The Present Form of Science as a Source of Civilizational Danger
As an ontologist, I hold the view that science in its present institutionalized form can become a serious source of danger, and that certain features of its operation can obstruct objective understanding. As a sacral leader, I cannot regard this as merely a professional debate, because the effects of decisions arising from science extend far beyond the walls of research institutions.
The root of the problem is not the acquisition of knowledge, but the system that determines what knowledge we seek, which questions we consider acceptable, which results we reward, and which interpretive frameworks we accept for describing reality.
Today, science often operates within institutional, economic, and cultural frameworks that influence the direction of inquiry. Dependence on funding, career pressure, the protection of prestige, institutional self-interest, and dominant intellectual paradigms can together create an environment in which some questions are pushed aside, some findings receive excessive emphasis, and others struggle to gain recognition.
The danger, then, is not only that science can be wrong. The danger is that its own operating frameworks can make it harder to recognize when it is wrong.
Those working within the system may sincerely believe that they are investigating reality. Yet human conditioning does not disappear because someone is a scientist, highly educated, or committed to rationality. A framework of thought influences not only our answers; it also filters in advance which questions we recognize as meaningful, which evidence we notice, and what we are even capable of identifying as part of reality.
Representatives of science therefore often struggle to step outside their own frameworks not simply because they are unwilling to think, but also because the framework they would need to step outside partly determines how their thinking operates. Recognizing our own assumptions is not merely a matter of will. It requires reflection that makes the very framework of understanding an object of scrutiny.
I regard this problem as one of the fundamental obstacles to objective understanding. Reality is not obliged to conform to human systems of interpretation. No scientific paradigm, institutional consensus, or theoretical model becomes a substitute for reality merely because it plays a dominant role in a particular era.
The civilizational gravity of this situation lies in the fact that the power arising from scientific findings enables interventions on an ever larger scale. If the limits of understanding and institutional distortions are not adequately recognized, the consequences of error can also grow in scale.
This issue therefore cannot be treated as an internal matter for science alone. The quality of objective understanding is a shared civilizational concern.
Science and World Peace: An Uncomfortable Connection
Science is usually presented as an activity serving progress, development, and the good of humanity. Scientific research can indeed improve quality of life, help treat disease, deepen our understanding of natural processes, and contribute to solving social problems. It does not follow, however, that the institutional practice of science automatically serves peace.
As an ontologist, I believe that the present form of science can, under certain circumstances, become a serious obstacle to world peace—even while publicly proclaiming its commitment to peace and the good of humanity.
One reason is the intertwining of knowledge and technological power. Scientific findings can be used not only for healing, environmental protection, or improving human life. The same capacity for understanding and development can also help perfect the means of surveillance, coercion, armament, and destruction. Technological capability alone does not determine the purpose an instrument will serve.
Another problem is that the relationships formed between scientific achievement, economic interests, and political power can reinforce lines of development that place strategic superiority ahead of shared security. Research alone does not determine whether the knowledge acquired will lead to cooperation or competition, shared progress or a new imbalance of power.
The third, deeper problem lies in the interpretation of reality. Lasting world peace cannot be established within frameworks of thought that automatically treat the interests of the other side, the limits of natural systems, or the long-term consequences of decisions as secondary. Peace is not simply the absence of open conflict. It also requires a condition in which decision-makers can recognize connections, mutual dependencies, and the consequences of their own pursuit of power.
Science cannot be held responsible for every political conflict, and scientific research does not necessarily lead to violence. The problem remains real, however, because the relationship between scientific achievement and peaceful purpose is not automatic.
One fundamental obstacle to world peace may be a civilizational model that prioritizes the expansion of technological power over the development of human fitness, responsibility, and thinking aligned with reality. Science is not necessarily the sole cause of this model, but it can become part of it and amplify it.
As a sacral leader, I therefore consider it important to say this plainly: the intention to support peace is not enough. We must also examine what power relations, risks, and consequences scientific and technological practices actually create. The value of peace must be judged not by declarations about it, but by the effects that manifest in reality.
When the Search for Truth Becomes Subordinate to Interest
Scientific institutions do not operate in a vacuum. They depend on funding, professional recognition, career opportunities, and institutional survival. These needs are not objectionable in themselves. The problem begins when institutional interest no longer provides the conditions for understanding, but determines which results may be considered acceptable.
A funder’s interests can influence the choice of research questions. Career pressure can encourage preference for safe, fashionable, or easily publishable topics. The protection of institutional prestige can make public acknowledgment of mistakes more difficult. Belonging to a professional community can also create conformity in which raising uncomfortable objections becomes a personal risk.
Research independence is not merely a matter of formal rules. We must also examine the actual incentives shaping researchers’ decisions, and the consequences faced by anyone who offers well-founded criticism of the dominant interpretation.
Science begins to lose its moral credibility where the search for truth becomes subordinate to the very interest it is supposed to serve.
This does not mean that every scientist is corrupt or that every institution works against the truth. The problem is more profound: a poorly designed system of incentives can steer even honest people in the wrong direction while creating favorable conditions for dishonest conduct.
Scientific integrity therefore cannot consist solely of expecting personal honesty from individual researchers. An institutional environment is also needed—one that does not punish the uncovering of mistakes, reward the concealment of inconvenient evidence, or allow prestige to become more important than reality.
Professional Fitness Is Not the Same as Human Fitness
A person can be an outstanding professional, exceptionally intelligent, and technically well prepared, while lacking sound judgment, the ability to correct their own mistakes, or a sense of responsibility. Professional excellence alone does not prove that someone is fit to exercise the power that comes with their knowledge.
I regard this distinction as a fundamental civilizational question. Society routinely examines professional performance, qualifications, and technical competence in detail, but is far less consistent in examining how a person relates to reality, their own errors, personal interests, and the consequences of their decisions.
We need to distinguish three different kinds of fitness:
Professional fitness indicates whether someone has the necessary knowledge and skills.
Judgment indicates whether someone can apply that knowledge while taking circumstances, uncertainties, and consequences into account.
Moral fitness is reflected in whether someone can resist the temptation to let personal interest, prestige, or power override their responsibility.
These domains are related, but none can replace the others.
The question is not merely whether someone is capable of doing something, but whether they can be trusted to do it. As knowledge and technological power increase, the importance of this question does not diminish; it grows.
At the same time, assessing human fitness must not mean creating an arbitrary system of moral supervision. The aim cannot be for an authority to deliver an infallible verdict on people’s character. Rather, conduct relevant to responsibility must become open to scrutiny: fair handling of evidence, disclosure of conflicts of interest, admission of mistakes, and accountability for harm must all matter.
Those Who Make Decisions Affecting Other People’s Lives Cannot Hide Behind Their Expertise
Scientific findings give rise to technologies, medical procedures, economic decisions, regulations, and social interventions, and the consequences are often borne by people other than those who made the decisions.
Responsibility therefore cannot be settled simply by saying that a researcher used the accepted method in their field. We must examine whether risks were identified, uncertainties communicated, the decision-making process made transparent, and appropriate measures taken to address possible harm.
Anyone who prepares decisions affecting other people’s lives, safety, or the survival of natural systems must take responsibility not only for their professional results, but also for the integrity of the decision-making process.
Scientific authority must not be a refuge from consequences! Professional expertise does not grant the right to shift risks onto others, conceal uncertainties, or hide responsibility behind institutional and professional formulas!
The greater the impact a person can have on the world, the more seriously they must reckon with the consequences of their decisions!
This principle is not a general expression of distrust aimed at restricting science. It is a requirement for the responsible exercise of knowledge and power.
Scientific Thinking Must Also Examine Itself
Reality is not obliged to conform to human concepts, theories, or institutional consensus. Scientific inquiry necessarily uses models and interpretive frameworks, but these must not be confused with reality itself.
As an ontologist, I believe that one of the fundamental tasks of scientific thinking is to examine its own assumptions. It is not enough to check whether a conclusion is correct; we must also ask what question, conceptual framework, and prior interpretation led to it.
A fact is not the same as its interpretation. The most widespread explanation is not necessarily the most accurate. Professional consensus does not eliminate the need for review. Criticism is not hostility when it serves a more accurate understanding of reality.
Within the MAAT approach, alignment with reality does not mean mechanically following rigid rules. It means a discipline of thought in which people are willing to examine their own interpretations, recognize uncertainty, correct mistakes, and abandon assumptions that reality does not support.
Science’s capacity for self-correction must therefore not be limited to reviewing individual findings. It must also allow researchers to examine their own conceptual frameworks, methodological assumptions, and institutional habits.
True intellectual discipline begins when a person is willing to review not only their conclusions, but also the framework of thought within which those conclusions were reached.
Education Must Develop Judgment and Character Alongside Knowledge
The civilizational nature of the problem means that the solution cannot begin only when someone enters a profession. Philosophical thinking, reasoning, conceptual precision, examination of consequences, and the ability to self-correct should be developed from childhood.
The goal is not to turn every child into a philosopher. The goal is for adults not to confuse confidence with knowledge, doubt with wisdom, authority with truth, or technical possibility with a justification for right action.
Meaningful questioning requires more than challenging other people’s claims. The questioner must also examine their own intentions, assumptions, and conclusions. Genuine openness does not mean accepting every claim equally; it means being prepared to revise one’s position in light of evidence and argument.
The scientific community should not merely advocate this attitude; it should support it through its institutional practices. Exposing mistakes, communicating uncertainty honestly, and raising well-founded objections must not automatically carry professional penalties.
What Should We Change?
The problems of the scientific community cannot be solved by issuing yet more ethical declarations alone. Change must also affect actual practices, incentives, and structures of accountability.
- Research integrity, reproducibility, the exposure of errors, and correction must carry greater weight in the assessment of scientific performance.
- Funding-related and institutional conflicts of interest must be made transparent.
- Genuine opportunities must be provided for evidence-based criticism of dominant interpretations.
- For technologies with major social impacts, responsibility for decisions and procedures for managing risks must be made clear.
- Alongside professional excellence, judgment, integrity, and accountability must also be taken into institutional consideration.
- The public must be informed clearly about what is known, what remains uncertain, and which interests may influence the interpretation of research findings.
- Scientific institutions must examine not only their results, but also the risks and distortions arising from their own operations.
These measures will not make science infallible, but they can create conditions in which errors are easier to recognize, abuses harder to conceal, and the search for truth less subordinate to institutional self-interest.
Science Should Serve Life — Not Demand Faith in Itself
Science is neither an enemy nor a savior. It is an important tool of human understanding, whose value lies in examining reality, testing claims, and making correction possible.
For that very reason, there is no need to regard it as infallible. Science’s credibility should rest not on being exempt from criticism, but on its ability to withstand criticism and correct its mistakes.
As an ontologist, I maintain that the primacy of reality must not depend on any scientific, political, economic, or ideological authority. Conceptual frameworks, institutional practices, and conclusions must all be examined according to how well they help us understand reality more accurately.
As a sacral leader, I also consider it important to state plainly that the growth of knowledge must not become an end in itself while we neglect to examine the purposes for which people use the power they acquire. The future of civilization cannot be separated from the questions of human fitness, self-correction, and responsibility.
The scientific community need not abandon its authority; rather, it must stop treating authority as sufficient in itself. Nor must society choose between blind trust and total distrust. It must recognize genuine expertise while preserving the right to scrutiny, criticism, and accountability.
Knowledge does not automatically make us wise.
Power does not automatically make us fit to wield it.
Authority does not automatically make us right.
The progress of civilization therefore cannot be measured solely by how much we know and what we are capable of doing. We must also measure it by the people to whom we entrust knowledge, the frameworks within which we exercise power, and our willingness to subject our own interpretations to the test of reality.
Science serves humanity and the living world properly when it does not demand unquestioning faith, but accepts its own duty to answer to reality.
Comments are closed