The enlightened, first, and the French revolutionaries, later, enthroned the cult of Reason, the goddess Reason, disdaining the idealistic component of religions. In parallel, and as scientific discoveries progressed from the seventeenth century, Science, according to its findings and results, was acquiring undoubted prestige and occupied a privileged place in the confidence of the people.
Faced with explanations and magical approaches, it was said, in secular Western thought, faith was changed for the trustworthy, that is, for what resisted reasoning argued and for what it abided by experienced and proven facts.
Despite the irrationalist impacts of an artistic movement such as surrealism, Science prevailed throughout the 20th century, in line with its formidable advances, as a sure source of truth and progress, and the most diverse religious and spiritualist currents suffered. , came to speak of a deification of scientific knowledge (and a cult of science) and argued that the reality of the human condition and the world could not be reduced to what has been tested by scientific procedures, which were notably accompanied by technological achievements .
Can the surprising and even aggressive denial movements of the usefulness and suitability of vaccines be detected in a decline in confidence in Science? Surely yes. But Such a setback is doubly worrisome in the context in which it occurs.
This context could be the following: the rise of sectarianism and religious fanaticism in broad sectors of Christianity and Islam; the reappearance of irrationalism, sentimentality and myths in the effervescent populist and nationalist positions and, all this, within a perceptible and growing contempt for the value of knowledge and learning and a correlative vindication of subjectivity and opinion .
In this last aspect, it is probable that the necessary democratization of the vote and of individual rights and freedoms is being confused with a disdain for the authorities of knowledge and laws (Until recently shared by everyone in free societies as it is the result of the contributions and consensus of all). Which, curiously or not so curiously, does not lead to the atomization of individual positions, but rather to the grouping of these into very proactive and bellicose compact collectives that, in addition, claim precisely rights and freedoms that harm the rights and freedoms of others. .
But, returning to Science, it could be, in effect, that it was breaking its position in the last century as an instance of reason and objectivity. This being disturbing, it is also true that the analysis of the interests, abuses, errors and dysfunctions that scientific and technological business conglomerates cannot [de las farmacéuticas a las compañías del mundo digital (y virtual, y electrónico), por ejemplo] are starring.