Philipp Strasberg
This is a pleasing criticism of today's science, it reads very well. From my point of view, the problem has even been presented very defensively, one could criticize so many things even more clearly.
However, if one then thinks more carefully, questions arise.
Is it possible to talk about "the science" as it has been done in the text? Or are there not many sciences? For instance, the applied sciences, whose goal may not be the search for truth at all, but the application of scientific methods for some purpose. And if the scientific method is just not appropriate, then one simply continues there unscientifically. Or the humanities, which sometimes have an imagined dogma ('equality', 'sustainability' ...) as a criterion, and try to approximate reality to the dogma.
You imply that science is a pure, objective search for truth, but factually you would have to acknowledge reality: The majority does not see it that way.
And hasn't that always been the case?
In this respect, in the end, I don't really understand your proposed solutions either, because who should want to implement them, and why? When the vast majority wants something else. So, in the end, your text seems almost a bit contradictory: You describe the reality very well and clearly, but you do not accept this reality as truth about science or what presents itself as science today. Although to you, the truth is the highest goal, which I appreciate very much!
Maybe we have to look for another strategy.
