I realized a while ago that today's science and technology culture is essentially an anti-Enlightenment movement.
The motto of Enlightenment philosophy was "dare to use your own reason"[1].
The mantra of contemporary science/tech culture is: "Don't even think about using your own reason. You're susceptible to cognitive biases, indoctrination, and manipulation. Also, you're not an expert on the subject matter, and even if you are, there are more distinguished experts who know better than you. Your opinion is worthless hot air that you spout in your personal echo chamber. Everyone would be better served if you kept your unqualified thoughts to yourself."
This mentality is on full display in almost every HN thread, and has long become something that mainstream media pundits liberally salt their articles with. The linked article, published by a revered institution of knowledge, is just another example. The common denominator is open contempt for "the masses", which by now includes the educated masses, in a transparent attempt to justify the establishment of a polito-technocracy where nobody apart from a handful of "master experts" has any legitimate voice at all.
The folks developing science in the Enlightnement era were multidisciplinary scholars and I wouldn't even dare to call their writings "opinions". I'm saying this to underline the contrast with the Regular Joe parroting something they heard on a dodgy YouTube channel as their "same value opinion". So I'm sorry but I cannot agree with you: experts were always the (only) ones treasured, and if that comforts you, know that anybody can become an expert if they get to study the entire domain they claim experience. But again no, parroting an idea heard somewhere doesn't make anybody an expert deserving of respect.
The Enlightenment wasn't limited to scholars and Kant didn't just encourage "experts" to dare to use their own reason – he encouraged everyone to do so. What you're describing isn't Enlightenment philosophy, it's the prevailing science/tech philosophy of today. And the second half of your comment is simply a strawman that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
I'm not sure what you are going after. It sounds like you feel you are not allowed to make up your own theories anymore.
I would say that today it's almost too easy to be allowed to bring up your own theories and be sceptical of almost everything. Today it's okay to question even the most basic proven physics laws.
Questioning and own theories are good, but there are also limits.
> I would say that today it's almost too easy to be allowed to bring up your own theories
And there it is. Too easy. If only it weren't quite so easy, right? Then those who actually are "in the know" wouldn't have to deal with the consequences of the masses daring to use their own reason.
Your comment is a perfect example of the mindset I described.
I still don't get what you are trying to say in your original post, nor your comment. What are you trying to say? You sound like someone who like conspiracy theories.
Some people think foundational progress in modern Physics stopped since 1973, and possibly one of the reasons is related to this, and/or related to the way academia is structured.
It's not just physics. Imagine you had told Gene Cernan, when he returned from the Moon in 1972, that no humans would leave Earth's orbit for the next 50 years.
I'm sure he would have concluded that there must have been a global nuclear war that obliterated civilization.
The same can be said for biology, where the discoveries of the past half-century pale in comparison to, say, the discovery of DNA, or the Miller–Urey experiment.
When you ask scientists for what the greatest scientific results of the past 20 years are, they tend to name the Higgs boson, gravitational waves, and CRISPR.
When I hear this, I always think "so, a small part of the Standard Model, a phenomenon that was predicted in the 19th century, and an effective tool for editing genes – that's it?!?"
I don't think you can separate out the higher order effects of financialization and the downgrading in social status this has had for anyone not involved in some kind of finance.
In 1972 there was all kinds of social status that could not be bought and now social status can almost only be bought.
Imagine if the collective brain power of the hedge fund industry right now was working on science instead? It is a night and day difference.
I completely agree but it seems to me the Enlightenment was just a brief window in time, a temporary state and we are simply returning to the equilibrium of a top down, clergy like class that tells the masses what to believe. That is what the masses want and it is especially true that in a democracy the masses get what they want.
I think that is why the word dare is included in that quote. It is not the normal state of things so to use your own reason is a daring act.
The motto of Enlightenment philosophy was "dare to use your own reason"[1].
The mantra of contemporary science/tech culture is: "Don't even think about using your own reason. You're susceptible to cognitive biases, indoctrination, and manipulation. Also, you're not an expert on the subject matter, and even if you are, there are more distinguished experts who know better than you. Your opinion is worthless hot air that you spout in your personal echo chamber. Everyone would be better served if you kept your unqualified thoughts to yourself."
This mentality is on full display in almost every HN thread, and has long become something that mainstream media pundits liberally salt their articles with. The linked article, published by a revered institution of knowledge, is just another example. The common denominator is open contempt for "the masses", which by now includes the educated masses, in a transparent attempt to justify the establishment of a polito-technocracy where nobody apart from a handful of "master experts" has any legitimate voice at all.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapere_aude