I'm not endorsing this article/argument, but he makes this argument: https://lasttheory.com/article/why-has-there-been-no-progres...
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?!?"
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 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.
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.
it is not only actual benefactors but also those who are misled to believe they benefit from some conspiracy that turn a blind eye to conspiracy.
does the man who weaves a fishing net not know what it is used for?
does the man who makes boats not know what it will be used for?
does the man who makes fisherman's clothes not know what it will be used for?
The spectrum of conspiracies has a treacherously gentle, slow and long tail.
The truth is that groupthink encourages us to treat actual conspiracies as banal.
"If the target isn't me, I don't believe in or care about the conspirational nature of supposed conspiracy."
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